|
14
|
Annexure A10-
A true copy of the judgment dated 15/7/2015 in OA 3335 OF 2011 by the
Honourable CAT, Principal Bench.
|
|
|
15
|
Annexure A11-
A true copy of the order dated 19/2/2013
in OA 164/2009
|
|
|
16
|
Annexure A12-
A true copy of the order dated 5/6/2012 in OA 658/2010 of the CAT, Madras
Bench
|
|
|
17
|
Annexure A13-
A true copy of the order dated 21st October 2011 in OA 314/2010 of the Honourable CAT Ernakulum Bench
|
|
|
18
|
Annexure A14-
A true copy of the communication No . File No. V.IV/681/1/08-Pt dated
11/5/2012 issued by the Ministry of External affairs.
|
|
|
19
|
Annexure A15-
A true copy of the Order dated 6/4/2016 is OA 708 of 2013
|
|
|
20
|
Annexure A16-
A true copy of the judgments dated 14/10/2014 in WP (C ) 4606/13 of the Delhi
High Court
|
|
Dated this the 19th day of
June 2016
V. Sajith
Kumar
Counsel for the Applicant
For the
use in the Tribunal Office :
Date of Filing :
or
Date of Receipt by Post :
Registration No. Signature of the Registrar
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A. No: ___________________/2016
|
Confederation
of All India Central Govt, Stenographers Associations and Others
|
|
Applicants
|
|
|
V
|
|
|
Union of India and others
|
|
Respondents
|
SYNOPSIS
|
The Applicants working as
stenographers in the Sub-Ordinate offices are aggrieved by the inaction on
the part of the respondents for refusing to consider the claims for retention
of historical party in pay with that of Stenographers of Central Secretariat
Service. The applicants, the stenographers
in the subordinate offices, and stenographers of Central Secretariat service
were enjoying historical parity in pay in various grades. This was recognized
by the reports of the 5th and 6th Pay Commissions as
well as 1986 Award. Inspite of the
same, the applicants were denied parity in pay without justifiable reasons.
Actions on the part of the respondent are unjust and unfair.
|
|
.LIST OF DATES
|
Date
|
Events
|
|
18/8/1989
|
Historical award granting parity in
pay to stenographers of Sub-Ordinate offices
|
|
30/09/1997
|
Ministry
of Finance accepted recommendations of 5th pay commission bringing
parity in pay
|
|
25/09/2006
|
Order granting upgradation of pay
for stenographers in CSSS
|
|
16/7/2011
|
The relevant pages of the
Notification published by the Staff Selection Commission
|
|
23/4/2012
|
Representation by all India
Stenographers association.
|
|
6/4/2016
|
Disposal of OA 708/2013
|
Dated this the 19th day
of June 2016
V.
Sajith Kumar
Counsel
for the Applicants.
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
O.A. No: ___________________/2016
Applicants:-
1. Confederation
of All India Central Govt, Stenographers Associations, represented by the its
General Secretary, Harisuthan, S/o G. Madhavan Unnithan, aged 45 years, Steno
Grade D, Stenographer O/o the Sr. Superintendent of Post, Kollam – 691001 residing at Nadukunnil, Kizhakkethil,
Navaneetham, Kadika, Kaithaparambu P. O, Enathu, Pathanamthitta- 691526.
2. M.
Harisuthan, S/o G. Madhavan Unnithan, aged 45 years, Steno Grade D,
Stenographer O/o the Sr. Superintendent of Post, Kollam – 691001, residing at
Nadukunnil, Kizhakkethil, Navaneetham, Kadika, Kaithaparambu P. O, Enathu,
Pathanamthitta- 691526.
3. P.S.
Anirudhan, S/o P. Sreedharan, aged 51 years, Stenographer Grade ‘D’, O/o The
Principal Accountant General (SGSA). Audit Bhavan, AG’s Office P. O, Statue, M.G. Road
4. Liji S. R,
D/o V. Raghunathan, aged 42 years, Stenographer Grade “D”/ GR.III, O/o The
Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, ICE Bhavan, Press Club Road,
Trivandrum- 695001, residing at Ketharam, TC 43/666(2), NKRA- 50,
Neelattinkara, Kamaleswaram, Manacaud (PO), Trivandrum- 695009.
5. K.P.
Sreenivasan, S/o Late V.K. Parameswaran, aged 49 years, Stenographer Grade “D”/
GR.III, O/o The Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), Aayakar Bhavan, Mananchira,
Kozhikode- 673001, residing at Sreenidhi, Near Pisharikav Temple, Edakkad, PO
West Hill, Kozhikode- 673005.
6. G.
Ramadas, S/o N. Gopalachary, aged 56 years, Steno Grade D, Stenographer State,
O/o The National Commission For SCs, Min. of Social Justice & Empowerment,
Government of India TC 24/547(1) Opp. Thycaud HPO, Thycaud, Trivandrum- 695014,
residing at Guru Priya, ENRA 20, TC 36/663, Enjackal, Vallakkadavu P. O,
Trivandrum- 695008.
7. M.P.Sivakumar, S/o.C.P.Sethukumar, aged 46 years,
Stenographer Grade-1, Regional Passport office, Panampillly Nagar, Cochin-36
residing at Nandanam, Nr. Yashoram Flats, Nirappathu, Chottanikkara.p.o,
Eranakulam.
Respondents:-
1. Union of India, represented by
Secretary to the Government, Department of
Personnel and Training , Ministry of Personnel and Training, Government
of India, New Delhi.110001
2. Secretary to Government, Department
of Expenditure, Ministry of
Finance, Government of India, New Delhi-
110001.
ADDRESS FOR SERVICE
All process and other notices to the
applicant may be served on his counsel V. Sajith Kumar Advocate, Pranavam
Chambers, M-.M Road, Cochin-14 and those to the respondents may be served on
their addresses shown above.
DETAILS
OF APPLICATION
1.
PARTICULARS OF THE ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE APPLICATION IS FILED.
Nil
2. JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL
The applicants declare that the
subject matter of the application is within the jurisdiction of the
Administrative Tribunal.
3.
LIMITATION.
The
applicants further declare that the application is within the limitation period
prescribed under Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
4. FACTS OF THE CASE.
1.
The
applicants working as Stenographers with Sub-ordinate/field offices under various
Central government offices are aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the
respondents in considering their claim of pay parity with their counterparties
in Central Secretariat stenographers Service (CSSS) w.e.f. 1/1/2006.
2.
The
recruitments to the Stenographers of the Central Secretariat and Attached
offices as well as Non Secretariat; Sub-ordinate/Field offices are mostly made
through Staff Selection Commission (SSC). The Staff Selection Commission
conducts examination for selection to the posts of stenographers towards
Central Secretariat Service (CSSS) and to the field offices of the Central
Government. The Stenographers to the Central Secretariat Service and the field
office are required to have the same educational qualification and to fulfill
the same recruitment criteria.
3.
The
common notification gives an option to seek preference to work either at
Central Secretariat stenographer Service or else at subordinate offices under
Government of India. The appointments are made from a common rank list based
purely on the merit cum option submitted by the candidate.
4.
It
is submitted that there were historical pay parity between Stenographers of
Central Secretariat Service and field offices. The opportunity for promotion in
the Central Secretariat stenographers’ Service is much brighter than field
offices. The entry grade of Steno Grade D is attached with Grade pay of Rs.
2400/- in field offices and Secretariat Service alike. On completion of 5 years
a Stenographers Grade D in the Secretariat Service are given Grade pay of Rs.
4200/- on the same post. However, the Stenographers in the field offices are
totally ignored and remain to draw the initial Grade Pay only. The
Stenographers at Central Secretariat Service will reach the post of Sr. Private
Secretary/principal staff officer with grade pay of 7600/- or more. However,
the Stenographers at field officers have to be satisfied with the post of Sr.
Private Secretary with grade pay of 4800/-.
5.
The
applicant’s grievance is not on the chance of promotion but the gross
discrimination in granting Grade Pay in the similar grades. There was parity
all through out. The attempt to discriminate between stenographers of field
offices and Central Secretariat Service had resulted in various litigations,
ultimately ruling in favour of Stenographers in field offices. The dispute as
regards pay parity between stenographers of CSSS and filed offices was once
referred to arbitration ruling in favour of persons like applicant. The scale
of pay of similarly placed stenographers in CSSS was granted to the
stenographers of the Sub-Ordinate offices w.e.f 1/1/1986. A true copy of the
arbitration award dated 18/8/1989 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure A1.
6.
It
is submitted that the applicants were getting pay parity from 1986 onwards. Though
request of time bound upgradation as in CSSS was not acceded with, pay parity
with corresponding cadre in CSSS was totally approved. Since then, there was parity between CSSS and
that of Stenographers of field offices. The Annexure A1 award was implemented
by the respondents with effect from 1/1/1986. A true copy of the OM.No. 7(18)-E
111/81 dated 4/5/1990 issued by the 1st respondent is produced here
with and marked as Annexure A2.
7.
It
is submitted that 5th Pay Commission had removed certain anomalies
and disparity which existed in between Private Secretaries in the Subordinate
Office with Pay Scale of Rs.2000-3200 and the Private Secretary at Secretariat
service with pay scale of Rs. 2000- 3500 and both scales were merged and a
common scale for both cadres with scales of pay of Rs. 6500 – 10500 was
recommended and got accepted by Government of India, Ministry of Finance and
implemented the same by notification vide GSR/569/(E) dated 30/09/1997.
Similarly the pre-revised scale of Rs. 1640 – 2900 drawn by Stenographer’s
Grade I of the Sub-ordinate service and Grade C of Secretariat Service were
respectively revised to Rs. 5500 – 9000. Thus the 5th Pay Commission
taken note of early litigations, award of 1989 etc and fully appreciated the
parity between Subordinate Offices and CSSS.
8.
The
pay parity was in force after the implementation of the 5th pay
commission. The disparity was surfaced when an upgradation of pay was granted
to the Stenographers Group C by the government behind the back of 6th
pay commission as per order dated 25/09/2006. The order failed to take care of
pre existing facts of equal pay between stenographers in CSSS and filed
offices. As per the said order pay of
stenographers Grade C was upgraded from Rs. 5500 – 9000 to Rs. 6500 – 10500. A
true copy of the order No. 25/9/2006 issued on0 behalf of the 1st
respondent is produced here with and marked as Annexure A3 .
9.
Similarly
the Private Secretaries in CSSS with pay scale of Rs. 6500 – 10500 were given
upgradation to the Pay scale of Rs. 8000 – 13500 by order dated dated
24/6/2005. All those who completed 4 years were given such a financial
upgradation. A true copy of the order No F.No. 10/3/2004-CS.II(Pt.I) dated
24/6/2005 issued on behalf of the 1st respondent is produced here
with and marked as Annexure A4.
10. It is submitted that in consequence
of Annexure A3 and Annexure A4 the personal Assistant of Central Secretariat
Service with pre-revised scale of Rs. 6500- 10500 has been granted grade pay of
4600/- in the pay band PB-2. It was even given effect from01/01/2006. A true
copy of the Order No.
F.No.1/1/2008-IC dated 16/11/2009
issued on behalf of the 2nd Respondent
is produced here with and marked as Annexure
A4(a)
11. It is submitted that by an order
dated 22/06/2011 the Stenographers in the entry cadre were given a non
functional selection grade. This was implemented without recommendation of any
expert body like pay commission. A true copy of the Order No.20/49/2009-CS.II(B)
dated 22/06/2011 issued on behalf of the 1ST Respondent is produced
here with and marked as Annexure A4(b)
12. However there was no corresponding up
gradation with respect to the Private Secretaries and Stenographers of
Subordinate Service. This has created an anomalous situation between the
similarly placed employees. The revision
of corresponding pay scales put the Stenographers of CSSS in a higher pay
scales bringing disparity. Such enhancements were granted simultaneous with
constitution of 6th pay commission. The 6th Pay
commission also recognized in principle the pay parity between stenographers of
CSSS and filed offices. The 6th pay commission had recommended
parity between the two groups by bringing appropriate upgradation to the
Stenographers of field offices. The request made by the Association of the
applicants was virtually accepted by the 6th pay commission.
However, the same was not reflected in the pay revisions orders. A true copy of
the relevant pages of the 6th pay commission report is produced here
with and marked as Annexure A5.
13. However the up gradation given unilaterally to
the section of employees just before the constitution of the 6th pay
commission not taken care of while implementing the recommendations of the 6th
pay commission. Similarly, the merger of various grades in the Sub-ordinate
offices also worked to their disadvantage. The anomaly after the implementation
of 6th pay Commission Report can be demonstrated as per the table
below.
Existing Pay structure/ Grade Pays in the
CSSS/ Attached Offices & Field/Subordinate Office
|
1. STENOGRAPHERS OF
THE CENTRAL SECRETARIAT & ATTACHED OFFICES
|
2.
STENOGRAPHERS-NON-SECRETARIAT:
SUBORDINATE/ FIELD OFFICES
|
|||
|
Entry
level
|
Steno.Gr.
D
|
Rs.2400/-
|
Steno
Gr. D/III
|
Rs.
2400/-
|
|
Upgradation in
the same post as Steno. Gr. D after 5 years of service (automatic)
|
Steno.Gr.
D
|
Rs.4200/-
|
Although the Steno. Gr. III post is now
upgraded to Steno. Gr. II (new), no upgraded grade pay is given.
|
Rs.
2400/-
|
|
Next promotion
|
Steno.Gr.II/C
|
Rs.4600/-
|
Grade-II&I (Erstwhile posts) (2 promotions
received in the old pattern are merged)
|
Rs.
4200/-
|
|
Next
promotion
|
PS
|
Rs.4800/-
|
PS
|
Rs.
4600/-
|
|
Next
promotion
|
Automatic upgradation to Rs. 5400/- after 4
years
|
Rs.5400/-
|
No
such upgradation
|
|
|
No such post exist in CSSS
|
|
|
Sr. PS (only one post exist in few
departments)
|
Rs.
4800/-
|
|
|
|
|
Automatic upgradaion to Rs. 5400/-after 4
years
|
Rs.
5400/-
|
|
Next
Upgradation
|
PPS
|
Rs.6600/-
|
No such post exists in subordinate offices
|
|
|
Next promotion
|
Sr. PPS
|
Rs.7600/-
|
No such post exists in subordinate officers
|
|
14. It is submitted that the confederation
of All India Central Govt. Stenographers Association was heard by the 5th
pay Commission resulting in absolute parity in between both streams of
stenographers. They were given advance notice by the Commission and all the
materials were presented before the commission. Similarly the grievances were
brought to the notice of the 6th pay commission also. A true copy of
the note submitted before the 6th Central pay Commission is produced
herewith and marked as Annexure A6.
15. Meanwhile, various departments had
sought suggestions from the employees for resolving their grievances. In
response to the letter issued by the Income Tax department a comprehensive
request was submitted before the cadre review committee. A true copy of the
submission dated 2/2/2009 submitted by the applicant before the, Member
Secretary, Cadre Review Committee is
produced here with and marked as Annexure
A7.
16. The Association of the applicants had
sought restructuring of stenographer’s service in the same pattern as in CSSS.
They also sought similar scale of pay.
The pay commission had recommended parity in pay though not specific on
restructuring in par with CSSS. It is submitted that equal pay for equal work
is a well recognized principle. The parity of pay between the Stenographers of
subordinate service and CCSS is recognized by all Pay Commission Reports. There
is no justification in denying pay parity to the applicants. The Association
was taking up the matter regularly with the respondents. A true copy of the
representation dated 23/4/2012 submitted by the Confederation of All India
Central Govt. Stenographers Association is produced here with and marked as Annexure A8.
17. The applicants had personally
represented the matter before the competent authorities. They had sought parity
in pay with their counter parts in CSSS. They reminded authorities about the
historical parity in pay being enjoyed by them for decades together. A true
copy of the representation dated 24/9/2012 submitted by the 1st
applicant is produced here with and marked as Annexure A9.
18. All the applicants and other
stenographers in service had submitted similar representations to the
respondents. The stenographers in the Sub-Ordinate offices constitute a separate
cadre outside their parent department. It is submitted that the Applicants have
taken up the grievances before the competent authorities several times. The
Applicants were promised amicable settlement in lieu of Pay Commission
recommendation and Arbitration Award. However, the matter is yet to be settled.
Actions on the part of the respondents are unjust and unfair.
19. The Stenographers of various
Sub-Ordinate offices had approached various Central Administrative Tribunals
and the directions were given to extend pay parity. The request for pay parity
by the Stenographers of AIIMS was allowed by the Honourable CAT, Principal
Bench in OA 3052/2009 by order dated 19/2/2010. The direction to re-examine
matter was examined and rejected leading another OA 3335 OF 2011. The same was
allowed on merits with specific directions. A true copy of the judgment dated
15/7/2015 in OA 3335 OF 2011 by the Honourable CAT, Principal Bench is produced
herewith and marked as Annexure A10.
20. Similarly the prayers of the stenographers of
the CAT was raised in OA 164/2009 before the principal Bench It was held that
decision of the government to deny grade pay of Rs. 4800 in PB-2 AND Grade Pay
of Rs, 5400 in PB-3 etc as arbitrary. A true copy of the order dated 19/2/2009 in OA
164/2009 is produced here with and marked as Annexure A11.
21. The Stenographers of Railway had
approached the Honourable CAT Madras Bench seeking extension of Benefits in OA
164/2009. There was a direction to consider and pass a speaking order on the
claim made by the applicants. However on rejection of Claim, the order was
challenged in OA658/2010 and it was allowed by order dated 5/6/2012. A true
copy of the order dated 5/6/2012 in OA 658/2010 of the CAT, Madras Bench is
produced here with and marked as Annexure
A12.
22. This Honorable CAT also considered
similar matter in OA 314/2010 and allowed the same directing parity in pay. A
true copy of the order dated 21st October 2011 in OA 314/2010 of the
Honourable CAT Ernakulum Bench is produced here with and marked Annexure A13.
23. The 1st applicant is a
confederation of associations of stenographers in various departments. The
General secretary was authroised by the executive committee to move the
grievances before the Honourable CAT. The confederation is before this Tribunal
representing stenographers of various Grades in the Sub-Ordinate offices of the
Central Government. The 2nd applicant is working as a stenographer in
department of post with Grade pay 4200/- . He is actually entitled to grade pay
of Rs. 4600/- in case of pay parity. The 3rd applicant is working as
stenographer Grade-1 at the O/o. Principal AG with Grade pay of Rs. 4200. He is
also entitled to Grade pay of Rs. 4600/-. The 4th applicant is
working as Private Secretary with GP Rs. 4600 in Group B cadre in the revenue
department. She is entitled for GP of Rs. 4800/- in parity with CSSS. The 5th applicant is working as
Private Secretary with GP Rs. 4600 in Group B cadre in the revenue/finance
ministry. He is entitled for GP of Rs. 4800/- in parity with CSSS. The 6th
applicant is working as stenographer in Grade–D with GP OF Rs. 4600. He is
actually entitled to GP of Rs. 4800. The 7th applicant is having
grade pay of pay of Rs. 4200, while his counterparts in CSSS is getting a Grade
Pay of Rs. 4,600/-. The 7th
applicant and few others had earlier filed OA 501/2008 seeking parity in pay
with Superintendent Cadre (Group B) in the same department. He is in Group B
and but not getting benefits of Group B or Group C. No decisions is coming up inspite of the directions
of the Honourable Tribunal. A true copy of the communication No . File No.
V.IV/681/1/08-Pt dated 11/5/2012 issued by the Ministry of External affairs is
produced here with and marked as Annexure
A14.
24. In Annexure A14, it is informed that
revision of grade pay is a policy issue having implication for all similarly
placed officials in various filed offices in different departments of the
Government of India. The decisions are deferred on that ground. Individual
departments are thus not competent to take a decision on the matter.
25. The confederation is before this
Honourable Tribunal, because stenographers are scattered in various
sub-ordinate departments. The Confederation was invited by the 6th
pay commission and was heard for about one hour. Thus confederation is having
de-facto recognition from the governmental organizations. The Confederation
includes Association of stenographers in department like Postal, Income Tax,
Central excise, Prasar Bharathi, Accountant General, Rialways, Passport office etc. The parent department doesn’t have any role
than implementing the decisions of 1st and 2nd
respondent. Stenographers are considered as a separate cadre in the
Sub-Ordinate offices. The representations to the parent departments will always
remain unconsidered because; the decision has to come from 1st and 2nd
respondent jointly in respect of stenographers of various sub-ordinate
departments. There are various recognized and unrecognized associations under
the confederation. The association of postal stenographers is a recognized
association under the confederation.
26. It is submitted that the Applicant
had earlier moved this Honourabale Tribunal in OA 709/2013 which was closed
giving liberty to parties to move afresh pointing out certain contentions which
were omitted by all parties concerned. A true copy of the Order dated 6/4/2016
is OA 708 of 2013 is produced here with and marked as Annexure A15.
27. It is submitted that as observed in
OA, the department of Personnel has also been impleaded and all possible legal
contentions has been incorporated in the grounds of relief. As regards the
observations in para, 8, 9 and 11 of the judgment of the apex court, it is
humbly submitted that 5th pay commission implemented parity in pay
for stenographers of Central Secretariat and sub-Ordinate services. There are
equivalent recommendations in 6th pay commission also. However, an
upgradation to Central Secretariat stenographers without the notice of the Pay
commission resulted in the present anomaly.
28. In a recent decision, the Delhi High
Court relied on historical parity and allowed the prayer for parity with CSSS.
A true copy of the judgments dated 14/10/2014 in WP (C ) 4606/13 of the Delhi
High Court is produced here with and marked as Annexure A16.
29. It is submitted that the applicants
alone are discriminated. Inspite of CAT directions on pay parity in respect to various
Sub-Ordinate offices, benefits were restricted to the applicants herein. The
claims are based on historical parity. The upgradations given to Stenographers
of Central Secretariat Service are not based on pay commission recommendations.
The denial of similar consideration to the Applicants are highly unjust and
arbitrary.
5.GROUNDS
FOR RELIFE
A.
The Applicants working as
stenographers in the Sub-Ordinate offices are aggrieved by the inaction on the
part of the respondents for refusing to consider the claims for retention of
historical party in pay with that of Stenographers of Central Secretariat
Service. The applicants, the
stenographers in the subordinate offices, and stenographers of Central
Secretariat service were enjoying historical parity in pay in various grades.
This was recognized by the reports of the 5th and 6th Pay
Commissions as well as 1986 Award.
Inspite of the same, the applicants were denied parity in pay without
justifiable reasons. Actions on the part of the respondent are unjust and
unfair.
B.
Equal
pay for equal work, is an abstract doctrine in consonance with principle of
equality enshrined under article 14 of Constitution of India. A hostile
discrimination, and which is illogical, irrational and illegal and in a case
where there is no intelligible differentia which has a reasonable nexus with
the object sought to be achieved will not pass the test of reasonableness.
Similarly placed incumbents can not be discriminated in the matter of pay scale
as held in Noida Enterprises Association V/s Noida Authority, 2009(1) SCC(L
& S) 672. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Principle Bench of the CAT
in OA 164/2009 by its order dated 19/2/2009.
C.
The
applicants and the Stenographers of Central Secretariat were recruited through
the same selection procedures by the Staff Selection Commission or as
authorized by them. They, having passed the same examination based on same
eligibility condition and doing same nature of work, are entitled to be treated
equally. In this case Pay Commission recommended parity of pay. Therefore,
denial of pay scale on flimsy, arbitrary and irrelevant grounds not only
violates directive principles of the State Policy but it will be also be malafide and violative of Article 14 to Article 16 of the Constitution of
India.
D.
The
tables produced in the statement above substantiate the historical parity
enjoyed by the Stenographers of the subordinate offices and the Secretariat
Service. The word ‘historical’ has been defined by the Concise Oxford
Dictionary 10th edition as “belonging to or set in the past.” The
historical parity would be when it is established as an obligation to one who
is claiming parity of pay scales with
class or category had been situated in past at par in the equivalent pay scale
with counterparts with whom such parity is claimed. The above fact is clearly established in the
table provided and it is highly necessary that historical parity in pay is
restored and applicants are granted with benefit following of the same. Actions
on the part of the respondents are highly unjust and discriminatory.
E.
The
pay commission had recommended parity in pay. The government cannot reject the
recommendations without sufficient reasons. The pay commission report though
not binding had to be accepted and implemented in accordance with law. As held
in State of Punjab Vs. Amar Goyal 2005 SCC(L&S) 910, once pay commission
recommendations are accepted, the benefit of pay commission on the doctrine of
equal pay for equal work cannot be denied to the categories covered under the
recommendations.
F.
The
principle of parity recommended by the VIth CPC has been accepted by the
Government as on earlier occasion wide award of arbitration 1986. However, it
is neither carried forward nor sustained in subsequent revision of pay scale of
the respective cadres. This again and again proves to be highly vexaction to the
applicants of the subordinate service, though no fault of their own. They are
entitled to the benefit for parity with effect from 1.1.2006, the date of
implementation of the VIth CPC Report at par with CSSS. The grievance is in relation to pay parity and
there is recurring cause of action. Actions
on the part of the respondents are highly unfair and discriminatory.
G.
In Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India (1982 AIR 879), the Petitioner a driver constable in Delhi Police
sought parity in pay with that of drivers of Delhi Administration or to that of
RPF. The scale of pay of the driver constable at relevant time was Rs. 210-270
for non matriculates and Rs.225-308 for matriculates. The scale of pay of RPF
drivers were Rs. 260-400. Similar was the pay in secretariat and
non-secretariat drivers in Delhi. The Petitioner was seeking parity in pay with
drivers of other Departments of Government. The Hon’ble Supreme Court relying
on the doctrine of equal pay for equal work directed the establishment to grant
them atleast the pay applicable to the drivers in RPF. The only objection raised by the establishment is that the drivers of
police force and other driver belonging to different Departments. Therefore
principle of equal pay for equal work is not applicable. The above contention
was held irrational by Hon’ble Supreme Court by allowing the prayer. In Bhagwan
Dass Vs. State of Haryana (1987 AIR
2049) The Petitioners had approached the Hon’ble Supreme Court under
Article 32 of constitution seeking regularization and parity in pay. There were
two schemes for adult education in state of Haryana. One sponsored by State
Government and another by Central Government. The Petitioners were working
under the project of the State Government though performing same duties and
responsibility of Central sponsored scheme. They were paid only fixed
allowance/honorarium. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court rejected the stand of the State Government that equal pay for
equal work would not be applicable since Recruitment of Petitioners is different
from the mode of Recruitment of Respondents. The Hon’ble Supreme Court
while holding so in Para 6 observed that “Be
that as it may, so long as the Petitioners are doing work which is similar to
the work performed by Respondents 2 to 6 from the standpoint of ‘equal work for
equal pay’ doctrine, the Petitioners cannot be discriminated against in regard
to pay scales. Whether equal work is put in by a candidate selected by a
process where the candidates from all parts of the country could have competed
or whether they are selected by a, process where candidates from only a cluster
of a few villages could have completed (competed) is altogether irrelevant and
immaterial, for the purposes of the applicability of ‘equal work for equal pay’
doctrine. A typist doing similar work as another typist cannot be denied equal
pay on the ground that the process of selection was different in as much as
ultimately the work done is similar and there is no rational ground to refuse
equal pay for equal work. It is quite possible that if he had to compete with
candidates from all over the country, he might or might not have been selected.
It would be easier for him to be selected when the selection is limited to a
cluster of a few villages. That however is altogether a different matter. It is
possible that he might not have been selected at all if he had to compete
against candidates from all over the country. But once he is selected, whether
he is selected by one process or the other, he cannot be denied equal pay for
equal work without violating the said doctrine. This plea raised by the
Respondent-State must also fail”. Having regard to these facts and
circumstances we do not think that the Respondent-State can be accused of
making appointments on a temporary six months basis with any ulterior or
oblique motive. In our opinion, therefore, the prayer of the Petitioners to
absorb them as regular employees on a permanent basis from the date of their
initial appointment has no justification. That however does not mean that the Petitioners
should be deprived of the legitimate benefits of being fixed in a pay-scale
corresponding to the one applicable to Respondents 2 to 6 by treating them as
employees who have continued from the date of initial appointment by
disregarding the breaks which have been given on account of the peculiar nature
of the Scheme. While, therefore, the Petitioners cannot claim as a matter of
right to be absorbed as permanent and regular employees from the inception,
they would be justified in claiming pay on the basis of the length of service
computed from the date of their appointment depending on the length of service
by disregarding the breaks which have been given for a limited purpose. Based
on the observation the Petitioners were granted parity in pay including arrears
of pay.
H.
Jaipal,
Niaz Mohammed and others Vs State of Haryana (1988 AIR (SC) 1504) The claim for
parity in pay was disputed by Government by contenting the mode of selection
between parties is absolutely different. Above contention was rejected by Hon’ble Supreme Court by holding that
the difference in mode of selection will not affect the application of the
doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” if both the classes of persons perform
similar functions and duties under the same employer. Similar plea raised
by the State of Haryana in opposing the case of supervisors in the case of
Bhagwan Dass (supra) was rejected, where it was observed that if the State
deliberately chose to limit the selection of candidates from a cluster of a few
villages it will not absolve chose to limit the selection of candidates in a
discriminatory manner to the disadvantage of the selectees once they are
appointed provided the work done by the candidates so selected is similar in
nature. The Recruitment was confined to the locality as it was considered
advantageous to make recruitment from the cluster of villages for the purposes
of implementing the Adult Education Scheme because the instructors appointed
from that area would know the people of that area more intimately and would be
in a better position to persuade them to take advantage of the Adult Education
Scheme in order to make it a success.
I.
OA
164/2009 Principle Bench New Delhi The Stenographers working with Central
Administrative Tribunal sought parity in pay with that of Stenographers in
Central Secretariat service. The Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal after
going through the gamut of precedents in the point allowed the prayer of parity
in pay. In Coal India Limited Vs. Saroj Kumar Mishra, 2007 SCC(9) 625- Only
because, there is a possibility of floodgate of litigation, a valuable right of
a citizen cannot be permitted to be taken away. The above decision was relied
on to adjudicate on the rights of the stenographer so CAT. The Court is bound
to decide the respective rights of the parties. Therefore rejection of claims
on technical grounds are also unsustainable.
J.
In this particular case, there was historical
parity between stenographers of CSS and CSSS. Honourable CAT have extended
parity in pay to various subordinate departments and got it implemented.
Therefore, the prayer for parity may kindly be allowed.
6. DETAILS OF REMEDIES EXHAUSTED.No other statutory remedy.
7.
MATTERS NOT PREVIOUSLY FILED OR PENDING BEFORE ANY OTHER COURT.
The applicants further
declare that the applicant has not filed any application, writ petition or
suit, regarding the matter in respect of which the application is made, before
any court or any other authority or any other bench of this Tribunal nor any
such application writ petition or suit is pending before any of he courts.
8.
RELIEF (S) SOUGHT
In view of the facts mentioned above
the applicant prays for the following relief(s):
(i)
To
declare that applicants working as stenographers in various grades under
Sub-Ordinate stenographers Secretariat Service with various department under
the central government is entitled to pay parity with their counter parts in
Central Secretariat Stenographers Service being enjoyed decades together.
(ii)
To
direct the Respondents to extend the benefits ordered in Annexure A3 and
Annexure A4 series to the Applicants and to bring parity in pay to the
applicants working as stenographers in various grades under Sub-Ordinate
stenographers Secretariat Service with their counter parts in Central
Secretariat Stenographers Service with effect from 1/1/2006 with all
consequential benefits.
(iii)
To
direct the respondents to grant non functional selection grade (NFSG) of Rs.
4200/- to Stenographer (Gr.II) [earstwhile Stenographer (Gr.III)] of
subordinate offices with effect from 22/06/2011 with consequential benefits, on
par with their counterparts of CSSS as ordered in Annexure A4(b).
(iv)
To
direct the Respondents to grant upgraded pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 to
Stenographers grade I and the grade pay of Rs. 4600 in the revised scale with
effect from 01/01/2006 on par with CSSS as ordered in Annexure A3.
(v)
To
direct the Respondents to grant nonfunctional pay scale of Rs. 8000-13500 with
effect from 03/10/2003 to private Secretary of Subordinate Offices and grade
pay of Rs. 4800/- in PB-2 with effect from 01/01/2006 and the consequential
benefits in terms of Annexure A4.
(vi)
Grant
such other reliefs as may be prayed for and as the Court may deem fit to grant,
and
(vii)
Grant
the cost of this Original Application.
9.
INTERIM ORDER IF ANY PRAYED FOR :
Pending the final decision of the
application the applicant seeks issue of the following order:- To direct the
respondents to provisionally fix the pay of the applicants in parity with that
of stenographers in CSSS.
10.
NOT APPLICABLE
11.
PARTICULARS OF THE POSTAL ORDER IN RESPECT OF APPLICATION FEE
1. No. of the Indian Postal Order :
2.Date of issue of the Postal Order :
3. Name of issuing Post Office : Kaloor
Post office, E.K.M.
4. Post Office at which payable : H.P.O.,Ernakulam.
12.
LIST OF ENCLOSURES
1. Annexure A1 – A16
2.Vakkalath
3.Envelops with Acknowledgement Cards
4. Postal Order for Rs. 50/-
IN VERIFICATION
We, (1) M. Harisuthan, General Secretary, Confederation of All India
Central Govt, Stenographers Associations, S/o G. Madhavan Unnithan, aged 45
years, Steno Grade D, Stenographer O/o the Sr. Superintendent of Post, Kollam –
691001, residing at Nadukunnil, Kizhakkethil, Navaneetham, Kadika,
Kaithaparambu P. O, Enathu, Pathanamthitta- 691526. (2) ) M. Harisuthan, S/o G.
Madhavan Unnithan, aged 45 years, Steno Grade D, Stenographer O/o the Sr.
Superintendent of Post, Kollam – 691001, residing at Nadukunnil, Kizhakkethil,
Navaneetham, Kadika, Kaithaparambu P. O, Enathu, Pathanamthitta- 691526(3) P.S.
Anirudhan, S/o P. Sreedharan, aged 51 years, Stenographer Grade ‘D’, O/o The
Principal Accountant General (SGSA). Audit Bhavan, AG’s Office P. O, Statue,
M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram- 695001, residing at Goutham Vihar, Punukkannur,
Perumpuzha P. O, Kollam- 691504. (4) Liji S. R, D/o V. Raghunathan, aged 42
years, Stenographer Grad “D”/ GR.III, O/o The Commissioner of Central Excise
& Customs, ICE Bhavan, Press Club Road, Trivandrum- 695001, residing at
Ketharam, TC 43/666(2), NKRA- 50, Neelattinkara, Kamaleswaram, Manacaud (PO),
Trivandrum- 695009. (5) K.P. Sreenivasan, S/o Late V.K. Parameswaran, aged 49
years, Stenographer Grad “D”/ GR.III, O/o The Commissioner Income Tax
(Appeals), Aayakar Bhavan, Mananchira, Kozhikode- 673001, residing at sreenidhi,
Near Pisharikav Temple, Edakkad, PO West Hill, Kozhikode- 673005. (6) G.
Ramadas, S/o N. Gopalachar, aged 56 years, Steno Grade D, Stenographer State,
O/o The National Commission For SCs, Min. of Social Justice & Empowerment,
Government of India TC 24/547(1) Opp. Thycaud HPO, Thycaud, Trivandrum- 695014,
residing at Guru Priya, ENRA 20, TC 36/663, Enjackal, Vallakkadavu P. O,
Trivandrum- 695008., (7) M.P.Sivakumar, S/o.C.P.Sethukumar, aged 46 years,
Stenographer Grade-1, Regional Passport office, Panampillly Nagar, Cochin-36
residing at Nandanam, Nr. Yashoram Flats, Nirappathu, Chottanikkara.p.o,
Eranakulam, do hereby verify that the contents of para 1 to 12 above are
true to be best of our knowledge, information and belief that I have not
suppressed any material facts.
Dated this
the 19TH day of June 2016
Place: Ernakulam
Date:
19/06/2013
Applicants
1.
2. M. Harisuthan
3.
P.S. Anirudhan
4.
Liji.S.R
5.K.P.Sreenivasan
6.G.Ramadas
7. M.P.Sivakumar
V.SAJITHKUMAR
Counsel for the applicant
EFORE
THE HONOURABLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUBAL
ERNAKULAM
BENCH
M.
A. No: /2016
IN
O.
A. NO: /2016
Applicants:-
1. Confederation
of All India Central Govt, Stenographers Associations, represented by the its
General Secretary, Harisuthan, S/o G. Madhavan Unnithan, aged 45 years, Steno
Grade D, Stenographer O/o the Sr. Superintendent of Post, Kollam – 691001 residing at Nadukunnil, Kizhakkethil,
Navaneetham, Kadika, Kaithaparambu P. O, Enathu, Pathanamthitta- 691526.
2. M.
Harisuthan, S/o G. Madhavan Unnithan, aged 45 years, Steno Grade D,
Stenographer O/o the Sr. Superintendent of Post, Kollam – 691001, residing at
Nadukunnil, Kizhakkethil, Navaneetham, Kadika, Kaithaparambu P. O, Enathu,
Pathanamthitta- 691526.
3. P.S.
Anirudhan, S/o P. Sreedharan, aged 51 years, Stenographer Grade ‘D’, O/o The
Principal Accountant General (SGSA). Audit Bhavan, AG’s Office P. O, Statue,
M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram- 695001, residing at Goutham Vihar, Punukkannur,
Perumpuzha P. O, Kollam- 691504
4. Liji S. R,
D/o V. Raghunathan, aged 42 years, Stenographer Grade “D”/ GR.III, O/o The
Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, ICE Bhavan, Press Club Road,
Trivandrum- 695001, residing at Ketharam, TC 43/666(2), NKRA- 50,
Neelattinkara, Kamaleswaram, Manacaud (PO), Trivandrum- 695009.
5. K.P.
Sreenivasan, S/o Late V.K. Parameswaran, aged 49 years, Stenographer Grade “D”/
GR.III, O/o The Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), Aayakar Bhavan, Mananchira,
Kozhikode- 673001, residing at Sreenidhi, Near Pisharikav Temple, Edakkad, PO
West Hill, Kozhikode- 673005.
6. G.
Ramadas, S/o N. Gopalachary, aged 56 years, Steno Grade D, Stenographer State,
O/o The National Commission For SCs, Min. of Social Justice & Empowerment,
Government of India TC 24/547(1) Opp. Thycaud HPO, Thycaud, Trivandrum- 695014,
residing at Guru Priya, ENRA 20, TC 36/663, Enjackal, Vallakkadavu P. O,
Trivandrum- 695008.
7. M.P.Sivakumar, S/o.C.P.Sethukumar, aged 46 years,
Stenographer Grade-1, Regional Passport office, Panampillly Nagar, Cochin-36
residing at Nandanam, Nr. Yashoram Flats, Nirappathu, Chottanikkara.p.o,
Eranakulam.
Respondents:-
1. Union of India, represented by Secretary
to the Government, Department of
Personnel and Training , Ministry of Personnel and Training, Government
of India, New Delhi.110001
2. Secretary to Government,
Department of Expenditure , Ministry
of Finance, Government of India, New
Delhi- 110001.
MISCELLANEOUS
APPLICATION FOR JOINT TOGETHER FILED
UNDER 4(5), a&b of the CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PROCEDURE RULES
Brief
facts of the case:-
The original application has been
filed to direct the respondents to give parity in pay to the applicants working
as stenographers in various grades under Sub-Ordinate stenographers Secretariat
Service with their counter parts in Central Secretariat Stenographers Service
w.e.f 1/1/2006 with all consequential benefits. All the stenographers under the
sub-ordinate offices of the central government form a common cadre. The
confederation is before this Tribunal representing stenographers of various
Grades in Sub-Ordinate offices of the Central Government. In view of the facts
and for the reasons stated above, the Miscellaneous Applicants most humbly
prays that this Honourable Tribunal may be pleased to permit the applicants to
join together in the original application, otherwise serious prejudice will be
caused to the applicants.
Reliefs
Prayed for:-
In view of the facts and for the
reasons stated above, the Miscellaneous Applicants most humbly prays that this
Honourable Tribunal may be pleased to permit the applicants to join together in
the original application.
We, (1) M. Harisuthan, General Secretary,
Confederation of All India Central Govt, Stenographers Associations, S/o G.
Madhavan Unnithan, aged 45 years, Steno Grade D, Stenographer O/o the Sr.
Superintendent of Post, Kollam – 691001, residing at Nadukunnil, Kizhakkethil,
Navaneetham, Kadika, Kaithaparambu P. O, Enathu, Pathanamthitta- 691526. (2) )
M. Harisuthan, S/o G. Madhavan Unnithan, aged 45 years, Steno Grade D,
Stenographer O/o the Sr. Superintendent of Post, Kollam – 691001, residing at
Nadukunnil, Kizhakkethil, Navaneetham, Kadika, Kaithaparambu P. O, Enathu,
Pathanamthitta- 691526(3) P.S. Anirudhan, S/o P. Sreedharan, aged 51 years,
Stenographer Grade ‘D’, O/o The Principal Accountant General (SGSA). Audit
Bhavan, AG’s Office P. O, Statue, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram- 695001,
residing at Goutham Vihar, Punukkannur, Perumpuzha P. O, Kollam- 691504. (4) Liji
S. R, D/o V. Raghunathan, aged 42 years, Stenographer Grad “D”/ GR.III, O/o The
Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, ICE Bhavan, Press Club Road,
Trivandrum- 695001, residing at Ketharam, TC 43/666(2), NKRA- 50,
Neelattinkara, Kamaleswaram, Manacaud (PO), Trivandrum- 695009. (5) K.P.
Sreenivasan, S/o Late V.K. Parameswaran, aged 49 years, Stenographer Grad “D”/
GR.III, O/o The Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals), Aayakar Bhavan, Mananchira,
Kozhikode- 673001, residing at sreenidhi, Near Pisharikav Temple, Edakkad, PO
West Hill, Kozhikode- 673005. (6) G. Ramadas, S/o N. Gopalachar, aged 56 years,
Steno Grade D, Stenographer State, O/o The National Commission For SCs, Min. of
Social Justice & Empowerment, Government of India TC 24/547(1) Opp. Thycaud
HPO, Thycaud, Trivandrum- 695014, residing at Guru Priya, ENRA 20, TC 36/663,
Enjackal, Vallakkadavu P. O, Trivandrum- 695008., (7) M.P.Sivakumar, S/o.C.P.Sethukumar, aged 46 years,
Stenographer Grade-1, Regional Passport office, Panampillly Nagar, Cochin-36
residing at Nandanam, Nr. Yashoram Flats, Nirappathu, Chottanikkara.p.o,
Eranakulam, do hereby verify that the contents of para above are true to
be best of our knowledge, information and belief that I have not suppressed any
material facts.
.
Dated this
the 17th day of july 2013
Place: Ernakulam
Date:17/07/2013
Applicants
1.
2. M. Harisuthan
3.
P.S. Anirudhan
4.
Liji.S.R
5.K.P.Sreenivasan
|
|
Respondents
|
No comments:
Post a Comment