JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.

S.C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondents.

2. In this petition, the petitioner is seeking the benefits of revised pay scale in terms of the recommendation made by the 5th Central Pay Commission (CPC)

as well as 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC). 3. Only the relevant facts may be noted.

4. The petitioner, who is a Diploma holder in Engineering, which is duly approved by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), joined the Border Roads Organisation (BRO) on 19.06.1990 as an Overseer. Subsequently, he was reappointed as Superintendent B/R-II after due selection on 20.08.1994. Later, the service of the petitioner as Superintendent B/R-II was redesignated as Junior Engineer w.e.f. 01.01.1996.

5. In the Border Roads Organisation (BRO) the Subordinate Engineers were categorised under three heads of posts, namely, (i) Overseer, (ii)

Superintendent Grade-II and (iii) Superintendent Grade-I.

6. The 5th CPC made certain recommendation for revision of pay scales. The recommendation made by the 5th CPC for revision of pay was published on 30.09.1997, which came into effect from 01.01.1996. It appears from the records that the 5th CPC in their report submitted in 1997 had recommended the pay scale of ` 5000-8000/- for all posts carrying minimum direct recruitment qualification of Diploma in Engineering. The said recommendation was accepted by the Government.

7. It may be mentioned that for both the posts of Overseer (Civil) as well as the higher post of Superintendent Grade-II, possession of diploma is an essential qualification as far as the direct recruitment is concerned. For the same reason, the 5th CPC recommended the pay scale of ` 5000-8000/- in respect of Superintendent Grade-II, which recommendation was accepted by the Government of India.

8. Because of the aforesaid recommendation of the 5th CPC for fixing of pay scale of ` 5000-8000/- in respect of posts requiring minimum entry level qualification for direct recruitment of Diploma in Engineering and even though the post of Overseer (Civil) was a feeder post for promotion to the higher post of Superintendent Grade-II, the next Pay Commission i.e. 6th CPC had recommended that the post of Overseer may be upgraded and merged with the promotional post of Superintendent B/R-II.

9. However, it may be mentioned that even though the 5th CPC had already recommended grant of the pay scale of ` 5000-8000/- to all posts carrying minimum direct recruitment qualification of Diploma in Engineering, the said revised pay scale was not extended to the post of Overseer (Civil) as well as to Superintendent Grade-II. It is in that context that when the 6th CPC made the recommendation, it specifically dealt with the issues relating to the post of Overseer (Civil) as well as the promotional post of Superintendent Grade-II by recommending that the aforesaid pay scale of ` 5000-8000/- be paid to these posts and also recommending that the post of Overseer may be upgraded and merged with the promotional post of Superintendent B/R-II and the combined cadre be extended the scale of ` 5000-8000/- at the entry level.

10. The petitioner as mentioned above, though initially joined service as Overseer in the year 1990, was subsequently reappointed as Superintendent B/R-II in the year 1994. Thus, when the aforesaid recommendations were made by the 5th CPC for revision of the pay scale of those posts, which required the minimum entry level qualification for direct recruitment of Diploma in Engineering, the petitioner was already holding the post of Superintendent Grade-II and not the post of Overseer. Under such circumstances, the petitioner, who was already holding the post of Superintendent Grade-II, ought to have been given the benefit of the revised pay scale of ` 5000-8000/- as extended by the 5th CPC as well as by 6th CPC. However, it appears that the petitioner wa