IMPORTANT POINT
Whether two posts are equal or should carry the equal pay, depends on several factors. The classification made by a body of experts after full study and analysis of the work, should not be disturbed except for strong reasons.

Headnote:Service Law-Pay scales, parity of -Claim of absolute parity of pay scales of Stenographer Grade II with that of Stenographer Grade C of Central Secretariat-Claim rejected holding that there was no parity in pay scale of Stenographer in subordinate offices and Secretariat-Tribunal held that nature of work, duties and responsibilities of two categories of Stenographers were not the same-Review application-Tribunal, in complete variation and disregard of earlier order held that Stenographer Grade II should be placed in pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 by applying logic of equal pay for equal work-High Court upholding judgment of Tribunal giving direction to pay Stenographers of Subordinate offices the same scale of pay as paid to Stenographers Grade C in Central Secretariat-Whether judgment of Tribunal in review application and of High Court confirming it was sustainable-(No).
       Held : In this case, the Tribunal and High Court seem to have completely lost sight of the fact that the Fifth Pay Commission specifically considered the question and held that there is no question of any equivalence. (Para 8)
       Strangely, the Tribunal in the review petition came to hold that the Commission had not based its conclusion on any data. It is trite law that it is not open for any Court to sit in judgment as on appeal over the conclusion of the Commission. Further the Tribunal and the High Court proceeded as if it was the employer who was to show that there was no equality in the work. On the contrary the person who asserts that there is equality has to prove it. The equality is not based on designation or the nature of work done. There are several other factors like, responsibilities, reliabilities, experience, confidentiality involved, functional need and requirements commensurate with the position in the hierarchy, the qualifications required which are equally relevant. (Para 9)
       The Tribunal passed the impugned order by reviewing the earlier order. A bare reading of the two orders shows that the order in review application was in complete variation and disregard of the earlier order and the strong as well as sound reasons contained therein whereby the original application was rejected. The scope for review is rather limited and it is not permissible for the forum hearing the review application to act as an appellate authority in respect of the original order by a fresh and rehearing of the matter to facilitate a change of opinion on merits. The Tribunal seems to have transgressed its jurisdiction in dealing with the review petition as if it was hearing original application. This aspect has also not been noticed by the High Court. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. The Union of India questions legality of judgment rendered by Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court upholding judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short the Tribunal ) by which direction was given to pay Stenographers of subordinate offices the same scale of pay as paid to the Stenographers Grade C in the Central Secretariat. The said direction was given by order dated 25.2.2000 in review application No. 15/98 in OA No. 151/91. Originally, by order dated 10.8.1998, the application No. 151/91 was dismissed by the Tribunal.

3. Factual background forming foundation of the subject matter of appeal is as follows :

The respondent (hereinafter referred to as the employee ) was working as a Stenographer Grade-II in the office of Geological Survey of India w.e.f. 4.1.1984. He was placed on the pay scale of Rs. 1400-40-1800-EB-50-2300 based on the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission. There was dissatisfaction by several employees about the scales. A Board of Arbitration was constituted after agitation by some of the staff. It rejected the claim of absolute parity of pay scales of Stenographer Grade-II with that of Stenographer Grade C of the Central Secretariat. It was however recommended that the scale should be Rs. 1400-40-1600-50-2300-EB-60-2600. The Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) issued OM 7(18)-E3/81 dated 4.5.1990 in this regard. On the basis of Office Memorandum dated 31.7.1990 of Department of Personnel and Training, with concurrence of Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure revised scale of pay of Stenographer Grade C in Central Secretariat Stenographer Service to Rs. 1640-60-2600-EB-75-2900 with effect from 1.1.1986. It is to be noted as indicated supra that on 4.5.1990 the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure by its Office Memorandum dated 4.5.90 clarified that considering the demand by the National Council of JCM, matter was referred to Board of Arbitration which considered the claim on 17/18.8.1989. The claim was rejected holding that there was no parity in the pay scale of Stenographer in the subordinate offices and the Secretariat. The award was given on 18.8.1989. When the scale of pay of Rs. 1400-40-1800-EB-50-2300 was fixed pursuant to the Award by the Board of Arbitration to Rs. 1400-40-1600-50-2300-EB-60-2600, Ministry of Finance implemented the decision of the Board of Arbitration and Office Memorandum dated 4.5.90 as referred to above was issued. The Stenographers Grade-II in subordinate offices were placed in the same pay scales of Rs. 1400-2600 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The view of Union of India was that Stenographer Grade-II are not in comparable grade with Stenographer Grade C in Central Secretariat. According to it, services in Stenographer Grade C in the Central Secretariat belong to Grade B whereas Stenographers Grade-II in Geological Survey of India are classified as Grade C (Ministerial). A representation was submitted by the respondent to the Deputy Director General, Geological Survey of India, Shilong, requesting to fix his pay in the revised scale of Rs. 1640-2900 in terms of Office Memorandum dated 31.7.1990. Thereafter on 10.7.1998 the respondent-employee filed O.A.No. 151/1991 before the Tribunal seeking parity of pay scale with that of Stenographer Grade C of the Central Secretariat. OA was dismissed by the Tribunal holding that nature of work, duties and responsibilities of the two categories of Stenographers were not the same. Subsequently on 25.2.2000 the Tribunal took a different view in the review application filed. In the review application it held that all the relevant facts were not placed before the Central Pay Commission and it has not given any reason as to why different scales were to be fixed. It was observed that nothing in the report of the Pay Commission indicated that nature and duties of the employees were specifically considered. It only made the difference on the ground

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 988

IMPORTANT POINTWhether two posts are equal or should carry the equal pay, depends on several factors. The classification made by a body of experts after full study and analysis of the work, should not be disturbed except for strong reasons.

Cases Referred (8)

IMPORTANT POINT
Whether two posts are equal or should carry the equal pay, depends on several factors. The classification made by a body of experts after full study and analysis of the work, should not be disturbed except for strong reasons.