Back
2015 Supreme(Gau) 1058
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
T.Vaiphei and P.K. Saikia, JJ.
Inland Water Authority of India and others - Appellants
Versus
Ksheerod Kumar Sahoo (Supervisor) and others - Respondents
W.A No. 129 of 2011
Decided On : 15-12-2015.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants :S.K. Ghosh, Advocate.
For the Respondents: M.Chanda, ASGI.
Headnote:
Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion, Regulations, 1992 – Central Civil Services – Supervisors of Authority – Premises aforesaid it is most respectfully prayed that your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition call for records of case, issue Rule calling upon respondents to show cause as to why a writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ order or direction should not be issued directing respondents to pay appropriate corresponding revised pay scales conditions are prescribed by Pay Commission as prerequisite for grant of these scale to certain posts such as cadre restructuring redistribution of posts – Ministries/Department concerned to not only accept these preconditions but also to implement them before scales are applied to those posts seen that it is implied in the recommendations of the Pay Commission that such scales necessarily have to take prospective effect and concerned posts will be governed by normal replacement scales until then – Held, Learned counsel for parties and on making such an exercise we have found that decisions arrived at by learned Single Judge while allowing aforesaid proceeding are found to be proper and justified and as such judgment under challenge invites no interference what has transpired is that respondent authority has not considered the case of the petitioners in its true prospective which is abundantly clear from their stand in the counter affidavit discussed above even gone to extent of stating that Part-B of the First Schedule has not been accepted which on face of it is not sustainable context petitioners have contended that it is a case of wrong interpretation of provision of revised pay rules which has given rise to present anomalous situation – Appeal dismissed.
P.K. Saikia, J.
This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03.12.2009, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2007/2004 allowing the petition.
2. It may be stated that WP(C) No. 2007/2004 was initiated seeking the following reliefs:-
"In the premises aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records of the case, issue Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ of Mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction should not be issued directing the respondents to pay appropriate corresponding revised pay scales of Rs. 5000-150-8000 instead of pay scales of Rs. 4,500-125-7000 w.e.f 01.01.1996 with all consequential benefits including arrear as recommended by the 5th Central Pay Commission indicated in Part B of First Schedule of CCS, Revised Pay Rules, 1997".
3. We have heard Mr. M.Chanda, learned A.S.G.I and Mr. S.K.Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondents.
4. The facts, projected by the petitioners in WP(C) No.2007/2004, which are necessary for disposal of the present appeal, in short, are that the respondents herein (who would be referred to as petitioners) are diploma holders in Civil Engineering. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Supervisors (Civil) in the pay Scale of Rs. 1400 to 2300/ by the Inland Waterways Authority of India (for short "IWAI') on 16.02.1993 vide appointment order dated 03.02.1993 whereas the petitioner No.2 was appointed as such on 13.05.1996 vide letter dated 16.04.1996.
5. It has been stated that though the petitioners were designated as Supervisors but their functions and status are very similar to the Junior Engineers of CPWD and other Central Govt. Organisations. More importantly, the qualifications, necessary for being appointed as Supervisor in IWAI and the qualification necessary for appointment of Junior Engineer in CPWD and other Central Govt. Organisations are also same.
6. It has been stated that the 5th Pay Commission, in short, ("5th CPC") on consideration of recruitment qualifications of diploma holder Engineers, working in Subordinate Engineering cadres, in the Pay Scales of Rs. 1400-2300/-, had recommended that the pay scale of diploma holder Engineers, working in Subordinate Engineering cadres, be revised to the Pay Scales of Rs. 5000 to 8000/- vide paragraphs Nos. 50.23 and 50.24 of the report.
7. Equally importantly, the Govt. of India had accepted such recommendations, and according to the petitioners, same would be evident " from the First Schedule, Part II of CCS Revised Pay scale for certain common categories of staff in page No. 29 of Swami's Compilation of Central Civil Services, revised pay rules 1997 which would be further evident from 50.20 of Gazette of India Part II Sec. (1) Serial No. X"(See Para-10 of the petition of the petitioners).
8. The petitioners categorically submitted that in all Central Govt. Organisations including CPWD, the pay scale, attached to the post of Junior Engineer having diploma in Civil Engineering was revised to the pay scale of Rs. 5000 to 8000/- in place of Pre-revised Pay scale of Rs. 1400 to 2300/- following acceptance at the recommendation of 5th Central Pay Commission.
9. Vide letter dated 20.10.97 the Section Officer of IWAI, Ministry of surface (now Ministry of Shipping) Govt. of India, informed all Directors, Deputy Directors of IWAI, by that pay scales, recommended by 5th CPC, has been accepted by the Govt. of India through CCS (revised pay Rules 1997) and same had been adopted for its employees by the authority in 5th meeting held on 09.10.97. By the said letter, concerned officers were further directed that fixation of pay of the employees may be done accordingly.
10. It may be stated that the Deputy Director vide its letter dated 13.11.97 requested the Chief Accounts Officer, IWAI, Noida that the
