The central legal point established is the principle of equal pay for equal work and the obligation to provide promotional avenues for efficient work, as emphasized by the court.

( 1 ) THIS writ petition is preferred by the Union of India against judgment and order dated 15. 9. 2000 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal in OA no. 804/98. The said OA was preferred by the respondents herein who are visually handicapped persons and are engaged as Cane Weavers in Engineer-in-chief s branch (EIC-3) Kashmir House, DHQPO, Rajaji Marg, New delhi for more than two decades. The grievance of the respondents in the said OA was that consequent upon the recommendations of 4th Pay Commission they had been placed in the pay scale of Rs. 900-1150/- but were not considered for upgradation in the skilled Grade having pay scale of Rs. 950-1500/ -. The learned Tribunal, in the impugned judgment traced out the history of pay-scales granted to industrial workers (to which category the respondents herein also belong) starting from 3rd Pay Commission and found that although in comparable categories exercise was done by constituting anomalies Committee for re-evaluating the jobs in the semi-skilled categories and they were upgraded, insofar as the respondents were concerned no such upgradation or promotional avenues were made available. The tribunal noted the contention of the respondents herein to the effect that although their category had been made eligible for promotion to the grade of upholsterer but it was totally illusory as passing of the trade test for such promotion was mandatory and subordinate units of the petitioner herein had never permitted blind canemen to undertake such tests with the result for more than a decade no one belonging to the category of canemen had been promoted to the rank of upholsterer.

( 2 ) THE learned Tribunal after careful consideration of the material placed before it and in its detailed analysis observed:

A. It had not been clearly established by the petitioners herein that the issue of placement of canemen into the skilled category was examined by the committee of Experts. B. Even Anomalies Committee had not taken decision in the matter thereby denying the claim of the respondents herein. C. It was illogical on the part of the petitioners to contend that the category of canemen cannot be placed into skilled category only because the initial Recruitment Rules prescribed minimal qualification of 0th Class without any trade certificate.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to learned Tribunal cane wearing was a job involving skill which had to be acquired and there was considerable scope for improving upon the skill with experience and also otherwise. All the respondents herein possess qualifications much higher than the prescribed qualifications, as they were all matriculates and also holders of certificates issued to them by recognised training institutes. Following this logic they had better claim for upgradation.

( 4 ) RECRUITMENT Rules for canemen had remained unchanged for almost three decades.

( 5 ) THE petitioners herein had not refuted the claim of the respondents herein that their s was the only category which had not been considered for upgradation.

( 6 ) IN Indian Railways the canemen had been put in the skilled grade wayback in November,1992.

( 7 ) THE Tribunal also took note of judgment of supreme Court in the case of Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors. (1982) 1 SCC 418 in support of the plea that in such a situation principle of equal pay for equal work stood attracted. It also pointed out that it was necessary to create promotional avenues for the respondents herein as the same was must in any organisation to provide incentive for efficient work and optimal output. The Tribunal, in this respect took stock of the various judgments of the Supreme Court where creation of such promotional avenues was emphasised, namely, Raghunath Prasad Sing Vs. Secy. Home ( Police) Deptt. Govt. of Bihar AIR 1. 988 SC 1033, council of Scientific and Industrial Research and. Anr. Vs. Mr. K. G. S. Bhatt and Anr. 1989 (2) SCALE 395 and zia-Ud -Din Vs. Delhi Admn. Admn. and Anr. 1 (1990 ) atlt (CAT