Important point
Resort to differential treatment in the service can be had only for achieving the efficiency in the service or any other specified objective declared to be attained. No discrimination can be permitted only at the whims of the administration or to satisfy another section of the civil service.

Headnote:(i) Service Law-Classification of posts-Defence Research and Development Organisation Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 1995-Amendment of DRTC Rules and clubbing of post of Senior Scientific Assistants in grade of Rs. 1640-2900 (SSA) Chief Draughtsman (CMD) in grade of Rs. 2000-3200 and Assistant Foremen together designated as Senior Technical Assistants (STA) in pay scale of 1640-2900-Plea of SSA that their placement in junior grade was unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution-Plea of SSAs that bifurcation and creation of two pay scales in grade of SSAs was imaginary and artificial-Not tenable-Upgradation of post and grant of pay scales had been done on basis of experience and length of service-Pay scales were granted to a number of SSAs with the objective of giving them incentives-There was no intention of creating any discrimination-No illegality or unconstitutionality in the classification of two grades of SSAs. (Paras 8 to 16)
       (ii) Service Law-Classification of posts-Defence Research and Development Organisation Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 1995 -Rule 6(3)(a)-Constitutional validity-Amendment of DRTC Rules and clubbing of post of Senior Scientific Assistants (SSAs) in grade of Rs. 1640-2900, Chief Draughtsman (CMD) in grade of Rs. 2000-3200 and Assistant Foremen together designated as Senior Technical Assistants (STAs) in pay scale of 1640-2900-Plea of Assistant Foremen that their placement in level of STA vide 1995 Rules was in nature of demotion and amounted to infliction of penalty-Ground that they were allowed post of STA in pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 whereas before amendment they were drawing pay scale of 2000-3200-Prayer for being equated with junior Scientific Officers-Plea that mere fact they were given option to opt for their old pay scales would not cure illegality - Untenable-Assistant Foremen in DRDO were earlier categorised as Group ‘C’ and in the new set up as STA they have been conferred with group ‘B’ non-Gazetted status which showed that there was no reduction in their status in the restructured sector-Rules 6(3)(a) not unconstitutional. (Paras 18 to 20)
       (iii) Service Law-Classification of posts-Defence Research and Development Organisation Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 1995 -Rule 6(3)(b)-Constitutional validity-Amendment of DRTC Rules and clubbing of post of Senior Scientific Assistants in grade of Rs. 1640-2900 (SSA), Chief Draughtsman (CMD) in grade of Rs. 2000-3200 and Assistant Foremen together (STA) in pay-scales of 1640-2900-Rule 6(3)(b)-Rule (6)(3)(b) providing SSAs and CDM en bloc senior to incumbents of post of Assistant Foreman not valid-Rule (6)(3)(b) is arbitrary being violative of fundamental rights guaranteeing equality in service matters.
       Held : The action of putting the Assistant Foremen en bloc junior to the SSAs was without any rationale or valid basis which has rightly been held to be arbitrary being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteeing equality in service matters. This view is strengthened more on account of the dismissal of the claim of the SSAs praying for their placement in the senior pay-scale. There is no denial of the fact that before and after the recommendations of the various pay commission the Assistant Foreman had been in the higher pay-scale as compared to the SSAs and Draughtsman Grade I. For a Welfare State the healthy and energetic civil services is a guarantee for good administrative system entrusted with the governance for the establishment of a rule of law. Security of tenure and the service conditions of the employees is of paramount consideration to achieve the goals for having an effective and vibrant civil service in the society. No government can resort to actions depriving the benefits to a section of the service en bloc which admittedly is to their disadvantage. Such en bloc deprivation of the promotional avenues and service benefits cannot be sustained when no cogent reasons are assigned by the administrative set up. Resort to differential treatment in the service can be had only for achieving the efficiency in the service or any other specified objective declared to be attained. No discrimination can be permitted only at the whims of the administration or to satisfy another section of the civil service. The Union of India in this case has not been in a position to justify the differential treatment made to the Assistant Foremen by putting them en bloc junior to the Senior Scientific Assistants particularly when they have all along been found to be enjoying better position and higher grade as compared to the SSAs in the junior pay-scale. (Paras 23 & 24)

Judgment

Sethi, J.-Claims, rival claims and counter claims of the Senior Scientific Assistants (Junior Grade) in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/-, the Assistant Foremen in the grade of Rs. 2000-3200/- and Chief Draughtsman in the junior grade of Rs. 2000-3200/- in the Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), Electronics and Radar Development Establishment (LRDE) and Gas Turbine Research Institute (GRTI) in the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) before implementation of DRTC are sought to be settled in these appeals which arise out of the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunals of Bangalore and Bombay Benches.

2. Appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 7316-7317/97 had filed OAs 2001 and 2041/95 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, praying for the issuance of direction to declare that their inclusion as Senior Scientific Assistants in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900/- appointed upto 25.8.1995 in the grade IV of the DRDO Technical Cadre Research Recruitment Rules was arbitrary and discriminatory. They prayed for a further direction to the respondents to include all such SSAs also in grade II of category III alongwith Foremen and SSAs (senior grade) in the pay-scale of Rs. 2375-3500/- and for granting them all the consequential benefits. The applications are shown to have been filed on behalf of the Scientific Workers Association which was claimed to be the recognised association by the Government of India.

3. Civil Appeal No. 7315/97 has also been filed by and on behalf of the Scientific and Technical Workers Association through Shri P.N. Choudhary against the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, passed in O.A. 2311/95 dated 19.8.96. The aforesaid Original Application was filed by the Assistant Foremen in the pay-scale of Rs. 2000-3200/- serving in the Defence Research and Development Organisation. They had been brought over to the newly designated level of Senior Technical Assistant (STA) as per the Defence Research and Development Organisation Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 1995 (DRTC Rules 1995). Their plea was that their placement at the level of STA in the scale of pay of Rs. 1640-2900/- alongwith Senior Scientific Assistants (SSAs), Chief Draughtsman (CDM), Chargeman, Grade-I, (CM-I) and Draughtsman Grade-I (DM-I) was arbitrary and unconstitutional. They specifically challenged Rule 6(3)(b) of the DRTC Rules, 1995 which had placed them en bloc junior to the incumbents of the erstwhile cadre of Chief Draughtsman and Senior Scientific Assistants while determining their seniority in the new grade of STA. They prayed for their placement at a level higher than that of the SSA, Chargeman Grade-I, Draughtsman Grade-I by assigning a pay-scale either equivalent to or higher than the scale in which they were drawing pay as Assistant Foremen. Their application was disposed of by the Tribunal holding that the rule 6(3)(b) of the DRTC Rules, 1995 in so far as it sought to place the Assistant Foremen en bloc junior to CMDs in the scale of pay of Rs. 2000-3200/- and SSAs in the scale of pay of Rs. 1640-2900/- was discriminatory and liable to be struck down. The Tribunal further directed the Department to amend Rule 6(3)(b) of the DRTC Rules, 1995 to provide that the inter se seniority of the incumbents of the posts of CDMs, SSAs and also Assistant Foremen shall be drawn on the basis of the length of their regular service in their original relative seniority in such grades. It was further directed that the applicants therein be ranked en bloc senior to the incumbents of the posts of Draughtsman (Grade-I) and Chargeman Grade-I. Directions for promotion from the level of the STA to the Technical Officer (A) was also ordered to be carried out.

4. Civil Appeal No. 7314/97 is an appeal filed by the Union of India against the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, in Original Application No. 2311/95 quashing Rule 6

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

1999 Supreme(SC) 696

Cases Referred (9)

Judicial Analysis