Back
2014 Supreme(All) 2795
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Rajes Kumar, Ashwani Kumar Mishra, JJ.
Union of India - Appellant
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad & Another - Respondent
C.M.W.P. No. 604 of 2002
Decided On : 13-03-2014
For the Petitioner:Vikram Gulati, Aditya Pandey, K.C. Sinha, Rakesh Sinha Advocates.
For the Respondent:Rajesh Tiwari, S.C. Advocates.
The principle of equal pay for equal work requires an assessment of various dimensions of a given job, and the mere similarity in the nomenclature of posts does not automatically warrant equal pay.
Headnote:
Equal Pay for Equal Work - Pay Scale Discrepancy - 4th Pay Commission - O.A. No. 157 of 1990 - O.A. No. 1310 of 1989 - V.K. Sharma Vs. Union of India - Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India, 1982 (1) SCC 618
Fact of the Case:
The Union of India challenged a judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, which directed the grant of a higher pay scale to a Senior Hindi Translator based on the 4th Pay Commission's recommendation and previous adjudications.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the service rules and duties of the applicant differed from those of the employees with whom parity was claimed. The Tribunal's failure to address the core issues and the absence of necessary ingredients to establish equal pay for equal work rendered the grant of the higher pay scale unsustainable.
Issues: The issues revolved around the applicability of the principle of equal pay for equal work, the differences in service rules and duties, and the acceptance of the recommended pay scale by the department concerned.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that the mere similarity in the nomenclature of the post in different departments does not automatically warrant equal pay. It highlighted the need for an assessment of the nature and quality of duties performed and the employer's discretion in categorizing posts and prescribing duties.
Final Decision: The judgment and order of the Tribunal directing the grant of a higher pay scale were set aside, and the claim petition of the respondent-applicant was rejected.
Rajes Kumar & Ashwani Kumar Mishra, JJ.: -
1. The present writ petition has been field by the Union of India through the Director, Advanced Training Institute, Udyog Nagar, Kanpur, challenging the judgment and order dated 27.3.2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application No. 1835 of 1993. The Tribunal by the order, under challenge, has allowed the claim of the applicant-respondent and directed to grant pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 to the applicant w.e.f. 1.1.1986 alongwith arrears together with 6% interest on the basis of judgment passed by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in Original Application No. 157 of 1990 (C.P.W.D. Translator Association Vs. Union of India and others), decided on 10.1.1992.
2. The Tribunal was approached by the applicant/ respondent stating that he joined the service of Union of India on 17.1.1961 and was posted as Junior Hindi Translator on 31.12.1995. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Senior Hindi Translator in the pay scale of Rs. 550-800 vide office order dated 5.7.1984.This scale has been subsequently revised to 1600-2660, in which petitioner was placed.
3. The claim of the applicant-respondent, before the Tribunal, was that Junior Hindi Translators and Senior Hindi Translators are working in the different departments of the Union of India for performing similar duties. It is claimed that while posts with a higher pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 of Senior Hindi Translator was contemplated in the Central Secretariat, Official Language Service Cadre, constituted under the department of official language, however other departments for the same work, lesser scale of Rs. 1600-2660 was available. Further case of the applicant was that 4th Pay Commission has recommended grant of pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 to the Senior Hindi Translator. The 4th Pay Commission also recommended that model rules for these posts be framed to bring about uniformity amongst Hindi Translators, working in different departments, who are governed by separate set of service rules. The applicant also relied upon on earlier adjudication made by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal, which dealt with the claim of Hindi Translators working in the Armed Forces headquarter/ Inter Service Organization at New Delhi.
4. The claim was opposed by the petitioner, by contending that service conditions of the applicant were governed by separate service rules and the rules applicable in the case of Central Secretariat or its attached/ subordinate offices have no application in the instant case. It was also pleaded that differences exist in the work and duties of the applicant in comparison to the employees of Secretariat, apart from the fact that service rules of recruitment, also vary. It was also stated that the department of expenditure has not approved the higher scale claimed.
5. The Tribunal while passing the judgment under challenge has noticed the respective stand of the parties, including the plea in opposition that duties and responsibilities in different department vary. The Tribunal, however, proceeded to allow the claim on the basis of earlier adjudication in O.A. No. 157 of 1990, which in turn relied upon ration in O.A. No. 1310 of 1989 V.K. Sharma Vs. Union of India, relying upon the judgment in Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India, 1982 (1) SCC 618 . After observing that question involved in this matter is same as was involved in issue before the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, therefore, the relief prayed for by the respondent-applicant has been allowed. The Union of India has challenged the judgment of the Tribunal by filing present writ petition.
6. We have heard Shri Aditya Pandey, advocate for the petitioner and Shri Rajesh Tiwari, who has appeared on behalf of the applicant-respondent, and have perused the record.
7. From the respective pleadings of the parties, it transpires that the service rules, which governed the service conditions of the
