SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S. PATHAK, CJI., SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.
Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognised) and others, Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others, Respondents.
Writ Petn. No. 5019 of 1982, D/- 5-5-1988.
Constitution of India – Article 32 – Petitioners claim that they should be placed in the pay scale with effect – It must, however, be mentioned that this petition was filed on or and submissions on this petition were made in the end – Therefore, the position pertaining to the controversy in this case is prior to the report or the implementation of the Fourth Pay Commission. In short, the petitioners are personal assistance and stenographers attached to the heads of the departments in the Customs and Central Excise Departments of the Ministry of Finance – They assert that they have been and are discriminated vis-a-vis personal assistants and stenographers attached to the Joint Secretaries and officers above them in the Ministry –Held, Case the differentiation has been sought to be justified in view of the nature and the types of the work done, that is, on intelligible basis – Same amount of physical work may entail different quality of work, some more sensitive, some requiring more tact, some less - it varies from nature and culture of employment – Problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula – If it has a rational nexus with the object to be sought for, as reiterated before a certain amount of value judgment of the administrative authorities who are charged with fixing the pay scale has to be left with them and it cannot be interfered with by the Court unless it is demonstrated that either it is irrational or based on no basis or arrived at mala fide either in law or in fact – In the light of the averments made and in the facts mentioned before, it is not possible to say that the differentiation is based on no rational nexus with the object sought for to be achieved – Petition dismissed.
Judgment
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. :- This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution in a representative capacity on behalf of the stenographers (Grade I) who are attached with officers in the pay scale of Rs. 2500-2750 (Level I), seeks parity with the pay scale of the stenographers attached to the Joint Secretaries and officers above that rank. It is stated that the petitioners are in the pay scale of Rs. 550-900. The petitioners claim that they should be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 650-1040 with effect from lst of January, 1973. It must, however, be mentioned that this petition was filed on or about 7th of May, 1982 and submissions on this petition were made in the end of November, 1986. Therefore, the position pertaining to the controversy in this case is prior to the report or the implementation of the Fourth Pay Commission. In short, the petitioners are personal assistance and stenographers attached to the heads of the departments in the Customs and Central Excise Departments of the Ministry of Finance. They assert that they have been and are discriminated vis-a-vis personal assistants and stenographers attached to the Joint Secretaries and officers above them in the Ministry. In brief, it is the case of the petitioners that between 28th of January, 1955 to 8th of November, 1957 the Ministry of Finance prescribed certain educational qualifications and technical proficiency qualifications for both Stenographers and Steno-typists. On or about 26th of April, 1968, the Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise and Customs made provisions for filling the posts of Stenographers by direct recruitment and prescribed qualifications etc. for the same. In July, 1969 the Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs classified the posts of Stenographers sanctioned at different levels into four grades viz., Grade III, II, I and Selection Grade. Posts attached to Secretaries and Additional Secretaries were classified as Selection Grade originally and were given pay of Rs. 350-(500)-900 with effect from 1st of August, 1969, Stenographers Grade II (Rs. 210-530) placed with Joint secretaries and officers of equivalent rank were upgraded to Grade I in the pay scale of Rs. 350-(400)-770; Grade II Stenographers were given Rs. 210-530; Grade III stenographers were given Rs. 130-280 and Grade III in petitioners offices were given Rs. 130-300. It is the case of the petitioners that the counterparts of the petitioners (Grade II Stenographers) were in the pay scale of Rs. 210-530 and petitioners in Rs. 210-425. Criteria of pay scales/status/ rank of officers for the scale of pay of stenographers were made out. In 1970 Ministry of Home Affairs set out the category of officers viz. Joint Secretaries to the Government of India and officers of equivalent rank are entitled to the sanction of scale of category of stenographers Grade ISr. P.A. in the pay scale of Rs. 350-770. Criterion of status/rank of an officer was again established for the pay scale of stenographers. Ministry of Home Affairs on or about 29th of June, 1972 pursuant to the decision taken on that date reached in the NCJCM relates to creation of posts of Stenographers Grade I and Grade II in subordinate offices and other offices of the Government of India and also identified/set out/ clarified that the posts of Stenographers attached to officers whose status is higher than that of Deputy Secretary to the Government of India shall be in the scale of Rs. 210-425. Criterion of status of an officer for scale of pay of Stenographers was again established. Thereafter there was the Third Pay Commissions report which was accepted and recommendations were given effect to. As a result of the various Government notifications thereafter and Rules framed, it is the case of the petitioners that their counterparts, that is to say, Stenographers Grade I attached/sanctioned to the Joint Secretaries and equivalent officers were given the pay scale of Rs. 650-(710)-1040; whereas the petitioners w
Mackinnon Mackenzie and Co. Ltd. v. Audrey DCosta
referred to : Purshottam Lal v. Union of India
Laljee Dubey v. Union of India
Randhir Singh v. Union of India
D. S. Nakara v. Union of India
P. K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India
Delhi Veterinary Association v. Union of India
Surinder Singh v. Engincer-in-Chief. C. P. W. D.
Frank Anthony Public School Employees Association v. Union of India
Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U. P.
Union of India v. R. G. Kashikar
M. P. Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.I, v. Union of India
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.