Back
1998 Supreme(SC) 817
1998(6) Supreme 454
Supreme Court of India
(From CAT, New Delhi)
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar & S. Rajendra Babu, JJ.
Chandreshwar Narain Dubey & Ors. etc. -Appellants
versus
Union of India & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4569 of 1996
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 4570-4571/96 & 4572/96
Decided on 14-8-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Jayant Das, Sr. Advocate, Gopal Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondents : K.N. Raval. Addl. Solicitor General, K.C. Kaushik, S. Wasim, A. Quadri Advocates for Ms. Anil Katiyar and V.K. Verma, Advocates.
Important Point
Nepali employee recruited at Nepal and posted at Pension Paying Officer to off set extra load of work could not claim parity of pay and pension with their counter parts in India.
Headnote:(i) Service Law-Equal pay for equal work - Appellants Nepali nationals recruited in Nepal-Posted at Pension Paying Office at Nepal-Claim for parity of pay and pension with their counter parts in India-Not tenable appointment purely temporary to serve temporary purpose to off set extra load of work-Post not transferable-Conditions in similar employment in India not condition in Nepal-Terms upon which appointment reasonable. (Paras 6, 7 & 8)
(ii) Service Law-Termination of Service - Temporary employees-Appellants recruited on purely temporary basis-Terms of employment stipulated service terminable at any time-Some terminated simplicitor-Others terminated on disciplinary grounds but without holding enquiry - Termination simplicitor valid-Termination on disciplinary ground without inquiry cast stigma on career-Not valid-Awarding of compensation in live of reinstatement justified. (Paras 7, 8 & 9)
Judgment
Rajendra Babu, J.-These three sets of appeals arise out of the orders made by the Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench). The appellants herein are/were employed in the Pension Paying Offices attached to the respective Ministries in the Embassy of India at Nepal. Writ Petitions had been preferred before this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution and on the establishment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, this Court transferred these petitions for its consideration by an order made on 3rd November, 1992 in W.P. No. 591 of 1987, 903 of 1988, 620 of 1991 and 181 of 1987.
2. In Civil Appeal No. 4569 of 1996, there are three appellants and they were recruited by the Ministry of Defence, Government of India, in Nepal and posted in the Pension Pay Office at Pokhran. While the first appellant was appointed as a lower division clerk on 24.7.1972, appellant No. 2 was appointed on 21.10.1964 and appellant No. 3 on 2.9.1985. Thus at the time of filing of these appeals, appellant No. 1 had put in 20 years service, appellant No. 2, 29 years and appellant No. 3, 8 years of service in their respective offices. They claim for confirmation in their posts and for parity in emoluments, paid to their counterparts designated as India Based Employees inasmuch as both of them were performing identical works and employed in the same establishment.
3. In Civil Appeal No. 4570 of 1996, there are 28 appellants and they are Nepali nationals recruited in Nepal on different dates. They also seek for identical reliefs as in Civil Appeal Nos. 4569 of 1996, 4571/1996.
4. In Civil Appeal No. 4571 of 1996, there are 29 appellants, while appellants 24, 26 and 27 are Indian citizens rest of them are Nepali nationals. Appellant No. 28 though a Nepali national is recruited in India and posted in Nepal. A claim is made on behalf of 32 others whose details are mentioned in Annexure I but they were not impleaded as parties. On transfer of the proceedings to the Tribunal, the Tribunal did not choose to treat them as party to the proceedings before it. These 32 persons have not challenged the said orders made by the Tribunal although such an order had been made adverse to them. Hence we do not propose to consider their cases. The rest of the appellants apart from claiming the benefit as has been done by the appellants in C.A. No. 4569 and 4570 of 1996, also claim that their termination is illegal and that they deserve to be reinstated in service.
C.A. No. 4569 of 4571/1996
5. We shall first take up for consideration the claim made by the appellants in this appeal for parity of pay and other benefits. A contention had been raised before the Tribunal that the appellants cannot claim equality as provided under Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as the appellants are all posted outside the country and there cannot be enforcement of the Constitution outside India. The Tribunal took the view that the Pension Paying Office at Nepal cannot be treated to be an extension of the territory of India for the purpose of Article 14 of the Constitution and, therefore, the appellants cannot invoke the same. However, we do not propose to examine the correctness of this view in these proceedings as we propose to examine the merits of the matter and decide the same.
6. The Tribunal based its decision on the enunciation of law made by this Court in Air India v. Nergesh Meerza1, which is as follows :-
“(a) the nature, the mode and the manner of recruitment of a particular category from the very start.
(b) the classifications of the particular category.
(c) the terms and conditions of service of the members of the category.
(d) the nature and character of the posts and promotional avenues.
(e) the special attributes that the particular category possess which are not to be found in other classes, and the like.”
On the basis of these tests, the Tribunal examined the cases of appel
