Welcome to the official Blog of The Confederation of All India Central Government Stenographers Association (CAICGSA)
To add details in "CAICGSA Members", please forward the required details to - email id - harisuthan@rediffmail.com **

Wednesday, 27 April 2016

7th Pay Commission award

7th Pay Commission award for all central government employees and officials will be implemented in July, Finance Ministry officials said on condition of anonymity.

Empowered Committee of Secretaries would submit its report to Finance Minister Arun Jaitley by June 15.

“7th Pay Commission Award will be implemented after cabinet nod in July in light of recommendations made in the reports of the Seventh Central Pay Commission and are to be made by the Empowered Committee of Secretaries,” they told.

There were rumours in the media at the weekend, “Government is likely to implement 7th Pay Commission award around September-October on the festive season to boost consumption, which will have a multiplier effect on the economy.”

Finance Ministry officials, who were reacting to the above rumours, said, “It is not true that the government to implement 7th Pay Commission award around September-October to boost consumption and government has no such type of intention.”

Accordingly, they said central government employees will receive their salaries under 7th Pay Commission Award in July.

They said a 13 members secretary-level Empowered Committee or Secretaries group headed by cabinet Secretary P K Sinha was formed in January to review the recommendations of 7th Pay Commission, would submit its report to Finance Minister Arun Jaitley by June 15 and then it would be sent to the cabinet for approval.

However, the Finance Ministy top official slammed the media reports on the issue, terming them ‘stupid reports’.

Quoting them, some newspapers or online newspapers said the 7th Pay Commission award would be implemented around September-October, whereas the ministry never told such type of report to any media person.

All the central government employees were shocked by the rumours before getting truth. They also angry at rumours that 7th Pay Commission award would be implemented around September-October as they are pinning too much hope on implementation of 7th Pay Commission award in July and the Finance Ministry made us believe that dream can come real for central government employees.

Tuesday, 12 April 2016

CAT update

Our PARITY case is not rejected. It is procedural irregularity only.  As such we will be moving to CAT soon with new oa seeking immediate orders

CAT update

Our PARITY case is not rejected. It is procedural irregularity only.  As such we will be moving to CAT soon with new oa seeking immediate orders

Friday, 8 April 2016

Copy of Judgement

 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
                   ERNAKULAM BENCH

                   Original Application No.709/2013

               Wednesday, this the 6th day of April, 2016

CORAM:

HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mrs. P. GOPINATH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

1.   Confederation of All India Central Govt. Stenographers Association,
     represented by its General Secretary, Harisuthan,
     S/o.G.Madhavan Unnithan, Steno Grade D, Stenographer,
     O/o.The Sr. Superintendent of Post, Kollam - 691 001.
     Residing at Nadukunnil, Kizhakkethil,
     Navaneetham, Kadika, Kaithaparambu P.O.,
     Enathu, Pathanamthitta - 691 526.

2.   M.Harisuthan,
     S/o.G.Madhavan Unnithan,
     Steno Grade D, Stenographer,
     O/o.The Sr. Superintendent of Post, Kollam - 691 001.
     Residing at Nadukunnil, Kizhakkethil,
     Navaneetham, Kadika, Kaithaparambu P.O.,
     Enathu, Pathanamthitta - 691 526.

3.    P.S.Anirudhan,
     S/o.P.Sreedharan,
     Stenographer Grade D,
     O/o.The Principal Accountant General (SGSA),
     Audit Bhavan, AG's Office P.O., Statue, M.G.Road,
     Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001.
     Residing at Goutham Vihar, Punukkannur,
     Perumpuzha P.O., Kollam - 691 504.

4.    Liji.S.R.,
     D/o.V.Raghunathan,
     Stenographer Grade D/Gr.III,
     O/o.The Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs,
     ICE Bhavan, Press Club Road, Trivandrum - 695 001.
     Residing at Ketharam, TC 43/666(2), NKRA - 50,
     Neelattinkara, Kamaleswaram, Manacaud (PO),
     Trivandrum - 695 009.
5.    K.P.Sreenivasan,
     S/o.late V.K.Parameswaran,
     Stenographer Grade D/Gr.III,
     O/o.The Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals),
     Aayakar Bhavan, Mananchira, Kozhikode - 673 001.
     Residing at Sreenidhi, Near Pisharikav Temple,
     Edakkad, P.O. West Hill, Kozhikode - 673 005.

6.    G.Ramadas,
     S/o.N.Gopalachar,
     Steno Grade D, Stenographer State,
     O/o.The National Commission for S.Cs,
     Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment,
     Government of India TC 24/547(1),
     Opp.Thycaud HPO, Thycaud, Trivandrum - 695 014.
     Residing at Guru Priya, ENRA 20, TC 36/663,
     Enjackal, Vallakkadavu P.O., Trivandrum - 695 008.

7.    M.P.Sivakumar,
     S/o.C.P.Sethukumar,
     Stenographer Grade - I,
     Regional Passport Office,
     Panampilly Nagar, Cochin - 36.
     Residing at Nandanam, Nr.Yashoram Flats,
     Nirappathu, Chottanikkara P.O., Ernakulam.             . . . . Applicants

(By Advocate Mr.V.Sajith Kumar)

                               Versus

1.   Union of India represented by Secretary to the Government,
     Department of Personnel and Training,
     Ministry of Personnel and Training,
     Government of India, New Delhi - 110 001.

2.   Secretary to Government,
     Department of Expenditure,
     Ministry of Finance, Government of India,
     New Delhi - 110 001.                                 . . . . Respondents

(By Advocate Mr.N.Anil Kumar,Sr.PCGC [R])

     This application having been heard on 4th March 2016, the Tribunal on
6th April 2016 delivered the following :

                               ORDER
HON'BLE Ms.P.GOPINATH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

      The applicants working as Stenographers in the Sub-Ordinate offices

are aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents for refusing to

consider the claims for retention of historical parity in pay with that of

Stenographers of Central Secretariat Service.       The applicants who are

Stenographers in the subordinate offices, and the Stenographers of Central

Secretariat Service were enjoying historical parity in pay in various grades.

This was recognized by the reports of the 5 th and 6th Pay Commissions as

well as 1986 Arbitration Award. Inspite of the same, the applicants were

denied parity in pay without justifiable reasons.



2.    It is submitted that the applicants and the Stenographers of Central

Secretariat were recruited through the same selection procedure by the Staff

Selection Commission or as authorized by them. Having passed the same

examination based on same eligibility condition and doing same nature of

work, they aver that they are entitled to be treated equally. In this case Pay

Commission recommended parity of pay. The tables produced in the O.A

substantiate the historical parity enjoyed by the Stenographers of the

subordinate offices and the Secretariat Service. The Pay Commission had

recommended parity in pay.           The Government cannot reject the

recommendations without sufficient reasons. The Pay Commission report

though not binding had to be accepted and implemented in accordance with

law. As held in State of Punjab vs. Amar Goyal 2005 SCC (L&S) 910,
once Pay Commission recommendations are accepted, the benefit of Pay

Commission on the doctrine of equal pay for equal work cannot be denied

to the categories covered under the recommendations. The principle of

parity recommended by the 6 th CPC has been accepted by the Government

as on earlier occasion vide arbitration award of 1986. However, it is neither

carried forward nor sustained in subsequent revision of pay scale of the

respective cadres. They are entitled to the benefit for parity with effect

from 1.1.2006, the date of implementation of the 6 th CPC report at par with

CSSS. The relief sought is for a declaration that the applicants who are

working     as   Stenographers   in   various   grades   under   subordinate

Stenographers Secretariat Service with various department under the

Central Government are entitled to pay parity with their counter parts in

Central Secretariat Stenographers Service and direct the respondents to give

them this parity in pay with effect from 1.1.2006 with all consequential

benefits. They also seek issue of a direction to the respondents to grant

parity of pay for entry level Stenographers in field offices            with

Stenographers of CSSS by granting automatic non functional upgradation

on completion of 5 years within grade pay Rs.4200/- and grade pay of

Rs.4600/- for those in Steno Grade I and grade pay of Rs.4800/- for the

Private Secretaries with such automatic upgradation as applicable

Stenographers of CSSS and grant all consequential benefits with effect from

1.1.2006.
3.      Respondents 1 & 2 in their reply statement submit that as per DOPT

OM No.35034/4/97-Estt.(D) dated 11.4.2001 regarding recommendation of

5th CPC to Stenographers in Non-Secretariat Central Government Offices,

Stenographic assistance at the level of Senior Private Secretary in the pay

scale of Rs.7500-12000 (revised to GP of Rs.4800/- and Rs.5400/- in PB-2

after four years) should be allowed to officers of the level of Additional

Secretary to the Government of India or equivalent and above in Non

Secretariat Central Government Offices. DoPT OM No.10/3/2004-CS II

(Part VII) dated 28.10.2005 provides the entitlement of Stenographic

assistance at the level of Senior Private Secretary (in the pay scale of

Rs.12000-16500, revised to GP of Rs.7600/- in PB-3) or Principal Private

Secretary (in the pay scale of Rs.10000-15200, revised to GP of Rs.6600/-

in PB-3) to the officers of level of Additional Secretary to the Government

of India. In addition Stenographic assistance is also allowed at the level of

Steno      Grade    C    (PA)     for    officers    at    the    level     of

Secretary/Spl.Secretary/Addl. Secretary in the Central Secretariat.       It is

obvious from the level of Stenographic assistance allowed in Central

Secretariat and Non Secretariat offices that nature of functions and the

intensity of stenographic assistance are quite different. As per Clause 10 (1)

of DoPT notification dated 29.11.2010 (Annexure R-3), 67.67% of the

regular vacancies in the grade of Private Secretary (Scale GP of Rs.4800/-,

PB 2 and GP of Rs.5400/-, PB 3 after four years of regular service), Central

Secretariat Stenographer Service, shall be filled by promotion on seniority
basis and 33.33% through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination.

This examination is conducted by UPSC, wherein Personal Assistant (GP of

Rs.4600/-, PB 2) are eligible. On the other hand, as per the Model R.Rs

circulated vide DoPT OM dated 24.1.2011, the post of Private Secretary

(GP of Rs.4600/-, PB 2) in non Secretariat Organizations is to be filled up

by selection from Stenographers Gr.I (GP of Rs.4200/-, PB 2). This also

establishes that the mode of recruitment in case of the Central Secretariat is

qualitatively more stringent, as compared to that in case of non Secretariat

Organizations. The existing structure of pay scales of Stenographer in the

Subordinate Offices is as under :



S.            Prior to 6th CPC                                   Post 6th CPC
No Designation               Scale             Designation                Pay scale
                   1                   2                     3                    4
1    Steno Gr.III                4000-6000     Steno Gr.II                PB-1 + GP 2400
2    Steno Gr.II                 5000-8000     Steno Gr.I                 PB-2 + GP 4200
3    Steno Gr.I                  5500-9000
4    Private Secretary           6500-10500 Private Secretary             PB-2 + GP 4600*
5    Senior Private Secretary 7500-12000 Senior Private Secretary PB-2 + GP 4800
                                                                  PB-2 + GP 5400
                                                                  (on completion of
                                                                  four years)
* 6th CPC had recommended the GP of Rs.4200, but the Government vide order of
13.11.2009 upgraded it to Rs.4600. (Annexure R-5)




4.    The revision of pay scale in the OA is as under :

        (i)   In case of Stenographer in the existing Grade Pay of Rs.4200, the
        Grade Pay sought is Rs.4600 at par with PA of CSSS.


        (ii)      In case of Private Secretary in the existing Grade Pay of Rs.4600,
       the Grade Pay sought is Rs.4800 at par with PS of CSSS.


5.    The respondent would argue that the above issue has to be seen in the

light of the recommendations of the 6 th CPC contained in Para 3.1.14 of its

report, relating to non secretariat organizations including stenographers

therein, and the recommendations contained in Para 3.1.9 of its report

relating to Central Secretariat including post of Central Secretariat

Stenographers Service. In respect of Non-Secretariat organizations, the 6 th

CPC recommended the following pay scales in case of Stenographers :


       (i)    In case of posts including Steno Grade - II in the pre-revised pay
       scales of Rs.4500-7000/Rs.5000-8000, the Commission recommended
       the GP of Rs.4200/-. This has been accepted by the Government.

       (ii)   In case of posts including Steno Grade - I in the pay scale of
       Rs.5500-9000, the Commission recommended the GP of Rs.4200/-. This
       has been accepted by the Government.

       (iii) In case of posts including Private Secretary in the pay scale of
       Rs.6500-10500, the Commission recommended the GP of Rs.4200/-.
       However, this has been subsequently upgraded to the GP of Rs.4600/- in
       terms of this Department's OM dated 13.11.2009.

       (iv)   In case of posts including Senior Private Secretary in the pay scale
       of Rs.7500-12000, the Commission recommended a two tier structure,
       comprising the GP of Rs.4800/- and GP of Rs.5400/- after 4 years. This
       has been accepted by the Government.


6.    On the other hand, in case of Central Secretariat Stenographers

Service, as per the recommendations contained in Para 3.1.9 of its report

read with Para 2.2.18 the following pay structure for Stenographers already

in place in Central Secretariat has been given :

       (i)    Steno D - Pre-revised pay scale Rs.4000-6000 and Revised GP of
       Rs.2400/-.
       (ii)   PA - Pre-revised pay scale Rs.6500-10500 (made effective from
       15.9.2006) - Revised GP of Rs.4600/-.
       (iii) Private Secretary - Pre-revised scale Rs.6500-10500 and Revised
       two tier structure, GP of Rs.4800/- and Rs.5400/- after 4 years.

       (iv)  Principal Private Secretary - Pre-revised scale Rs.10000-15200
       and Revised GP of Rs.6600/-.

       (v)   Senior Principal Private Secretary - Pre-revised scale Rs.12000-
       16500 and Revised GP of Rs.7600/-.

       (vi)  Principal Staff Officer - Pre-revised scale Rs.14300-18300 and
       Revised GP of Rs.8700/-.


7.    The 6th CPC has kept separate pay structure of Stenographers in

Secretariat and Non-Secretariat organizations. The scale of pay of PA in the

CSSS was revised from Rs.5500-9000 to Rs.6500-10500 in the year 2006

itself, whereas the report of the 6 th CPC was submitted in March, 2008 and,

hence, the 6th CPC was fully aware of this fact and yet the Commission did

not recommend for any upgradation of the post of Steno Grade I in the

subordinate offices; rather the Commission recommended a common

scale/merged scale for posts of Steno Gr.II, Gr.I and PS existing in

subordinate offices in the pre-revised scales of Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-

9000 and Rs.6500-10500 by recommending a common GP of Rs.4200.

Based on the order of the Department of Expenditure issued on 13.11.2009,

posts in the pre-revised scale of Rs.6500-10500 have been placed in a

higher GP of Rs.4600. Consequent upon revision of pay scale of PA in the

Central Secretariat from Rs.5500-9000 to Rs.6500-10500 with effect from

15.9.2006 as per the orders dated 25.9.2006 and consequent grant of Grade

Pay of Rs.4600 in this Grade as per the orders dated 16.11.2009, it was

specifically mentioned in the orders dated 16.11.2009 that in order to

continue to maintain parity between Field and Secretariat offices,
introduction of a level in the hierarchy of Central Secretariat having Grade

Pay of Rs.4200 in the Pay Band 2 between the UDC and Assistant is

necessary. In pursuance of this decision, an order was issued by DoPT on

22.6.2011, creating a new grade in the Grade Pay of Rs.4200 in the Central

Secretariat Stenographer Service. Stenographers Grade D (Grade Pay of

Rs.2400) are eligible for placement in the Grade Pay of Rs.4200 on

completion of 5 years of approved service. Thus, it is obvious that a Grade

Pay corresponding to the same in case of Non-Secretariat offices at the level

of Rs.4200 has been created in the Central Secretariat and this being so

there is no basis for equating this Grade Pay with the next higher Grade Pay

of Rs.4600.



8.    So far as the parity between the post of PS in the Subordinate Offices,

which was in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 and which has

been placed in the revised Grade Pay of Rs.4600, with the post of Private

Secretary in the Secretariat, which is in the Grade Pay of Rs.4800, is

concerned, the 6th Central Pay Commission in para 3.1.9 had made a

specific recommendation for placing the post in Central Secretariat in the

Grade Pay of Rs.4800 with Grade Pay of Rs.5400 after 4 years. On the

other hand, in the case of Subordinate Offices, the 6 th CPC recommended

the Grade Pay of Rs.4800 (Grade Pay of Rs.5400 after 4 years) for the post

of Senior Private Secretary in case of Subordinate Offices, who were in the

pre-revised scale of Rs.7500-12000 and not in the scale of Rs.6500-10500.
Thus, the 6th CPC did not recommend for parity between post of PS in Non-

Secretariat in the scale of pay of Rs.6500-10500 vis-a-vis to the post of PS

in the Secretariat.



9.    Heard the counsel for the parties and considered the written

submissions made and various court orders produced in support of

contentions made. The applicants who are working as Stenographers in

various grades in various Central Government Departments under

Subordinate Stenographers Secretariat Service are seeking pay parity with

their counterparts in Central Secretariat Stenographer Service (CSSS) with

effect from 1.1.2006 with all consequential benefits. This pay parity also

includes granting automatic non functional upgradation on completion of 5

years of service with GP Rs.4200 and Grade Pay of Rs.4600 for Steno

Grade I and GP Rs.4800/- for Private Secretaries with automatic

upgradation as applicable to Stenographers of CSSS with consequential

benefits with effect from 1.1.2006, the date of 6th CPC implementation.



10.   The applicants are working as Stenographers in Subordinate/Field

Offices of various Central Government Offices located in different parts of

the country. They are treated differently from their colleagues working in

the headquarters of their respective departments in the capital city of Delhi,

though they claim that they do similar type of work, have been recruited

with the same educational qualification and fulfill the same recruitment
criteria. The common recruitment notification provides an option to work

either in the CSSS or in the Subordinate offices, both placed under the

Government of India. The appointments are also made from a common

rank list based on merit cum option submitted by the candidates.

Applicants submit that there was a historical pay parity between

Stenographers in CSSS and the Subordinate/Field Offices. The field offices

being small units opportunities for promotion are less as compared to CSSS

which, having a larger canvas has better promotion opportunities as it

operates in common over various Ministries/Departments of the

Government of India and is not restricted to individual services/departments

as in the field set up. The difference in promotional opportunities despite

similar nature of work is brought out by the applicants.



11.   Applicants contend that entry grade of Steno Grade D is with Grade

Pay Rs.2400/- in both field offices and CSSS. On completion of 5 years the

Steno Grade D in CSSS is given GP of Rs.4200 on the same post. The

Stenographer Grade D in field offices continue to draw the initial Grade

Pay. The Steno in CSSS has the opportunity of reaching the post of Senior

Private Secretary/Principal Staff Officer with GP Rs.7600/- in view of the

large canvas in which the service operates with larger number of

Ministries/Departments. The Steno in field offices has to content with post

of Senior Private Secretary with GP Rs.4800/-.

12.   There have been several rounds of litigations by Stenographers of
individual subordinate field offices culminating with ruling in favour of

field offices. This has created a further disparity as some subordinate field

offices are the beneficiary of pay parity with CSSS on the basis of judicial

pronouncements whereas other have not been extended the benefit. The pay

parity between CSSS and Subordinate Offices was also subject to

arbitration, ruling in favour of persons like the applicant, by extending scale

of pay of Steno of CSSS to the Stenographers of Subordinate Offices with

effect from 1.1.1986. Thus pay parity was established from 1986 onwards.

But time bound upgradation in Subordinate Offices on lines similar to CSSS

was not acceded to.



13.   The 5th CPC merged the scale of Rs.2000-3200 of Private Secretaries

in Subordinate Offices with pay of Private Secretary of Rs.2000-3500 in the

CSSS into a common scale Rs.6500-10500 thereby taking cognisance of the

earlier litigation for parity and the 1989 arbitration award of parity of pay

scales. Similarly the Stenographers Grade I in the subordinate service pre-

revised scale of Rs.1640-2900 and Grade C of CSSS was revised to

Rs.5500-9000.



14.   The above parity was disturbed when Stenographer Grade C were

given an upgradation, outside the Pay Commission, from Rs.5500-9000 to

Rs.6500-10500 on 25.9.2006 without extending the similar benefit to the

subordinate offices.    This superiority was maintained in the 6 th CPC
replacement scale effected. This may have been done to restore the earlier

disparate and superior status of CSSS but ignoring the judicial review of

parity and the subsequent 5 th CPC attempt to retain this parity between

subordinate offices and CSSS. The superior status may be justified on the

ground that these offices of CSSS have to work with Cabinet Ministers,

Ministers of State etc. attend to Parliament related functions and duties and

functions of Parliamentary Committees etc. But what is ignored to be

considered is that the material and data for the above work is drawn from

the data supplied by the subordinate/field offices. As a matter of fact most

of the work is generated and compiled in the field offices and in these days

of computer and internet, the data transferred by field offices on the net is

used without much modification in the CSSS occupied offices. The duties

and responsibilities of Stenographers as circulated by the Department of

Personnel are same for the Stenographers of all cadres including CSSS.

Therefore, any claims of superiority in the current scenario of email and

internet is laid to rest here.



15.    The existing pay structure/Grade Pay in the CSSS/Attached Offices

and Field/Subordinate Offices have been brought out in the following

comparative table :




1.Stenographers of the Central Secretariat & 2. Stenographers Non-Secretariat   :
Attached Offices                             Subordinate/Field Offices
Entry level      Steno Gr.D   Rs.2400/- Steno Gr.D/III             Rs.2400/-
Upgradation in Steno Gr.D     Rs.4200/- Although the Steno Gr.III Rs.2400/-
the same post as                        post is now upgraded to
Steno Gr.D after                        Steno Gr.II (new), no
5 years of service                      upgraded grade pay is
(automatic)                             given.
Next promotion   Steno Gr.II/C Rs.4600/- Grade II & I (erstwhile Rs.4200/-
                                         posts)    (2    promotions
                                         received in the old pattern
                                         are merged)
Next promotion   PS           Rs.4800/- PS                         Rs.4600/-
Next promotion   Automatic     Rs.5400/- No such upgradation
                 upgradation
                 to Rs.5400/-
                 after 4 years
Next upgradation PPS          Rs.6600/- Sr.PS (only one post exist Rs.4800/-
                                        in few departments)
Next promotion   Sr.PPS       Rs.7600/- No such post exists




16.   The issue that comes up for consideration is, is this a case where

whenever parity is restored by the judicial forum or by arbitration, there is

an executive attempt to restore the superiority of CSSS which existed before

the first attempt at parity was made. The applicants have also not made a

cogent effort to consolidate the data made available in various annexures as

arguments favouring their assertions.        They are produced as disparate

documents without linking the assertions thereon to the reliefs sought in the

O.A and using them as arguments thereon in support of their case. Even in

the judicial pronouncements the case of applicants was dismissed in

O.A.No.151/1991. But in the R.A filed in the case, on the ground that full

relevant facts were not placed earlier, the prayer was allowed on the ground

of equal pay for equal work and similarities of nature of work, duties and

responsibilities of Stenographer Grade C in CSSS and Stenographer Grade I
in subordinate offices.



17.   In the Civil Appeal No.8173/2003 Union of India vs. Tarit Ranjan

Das filed in the Apex Court the argument bordered on whether the onus of

proving the concept of equal pay for equal work was to be established by

the employer or employee. The Apex Court while rendering the order in

this Civil Appeal referred to its judgment in Union of India vs. Pradip

Kumar Dev 2000 (8) SCC 580 wherein while dealing with a similar

question had in para 8 held :

       '8.      In our considered view, the Division Bench of the High Court was not
       right and justified in straight way giving direction to grant pay scale to the
       respondent when there was no material placed before the Court for comparison
       to order to apply the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' between the Radio
       Operators of CRPF and the Radio Operators working in civil side in the Central
       Water Commission and the Directorate of Police Wireless. In the absence of
       material relating to other comparable employees as to the qualifications,
       method of recruitment, degree of skill, experience involved in performance of
       job, training required, responsibilities undertaken and other facilities in addition
       to pay scales, the learned Single Judge was right when he stated in the order
       that in the absence of such material it was not possible to grant relief to the
       respondent. No doubt, the Directorate of CRPF made recommendations to the
       Pay Commission for giving higher pay scales on the basis of which claim is
       made by the respondent for grant of pay scale. The factual statements contained
       in the recommendation of a particular department alone cannot be considered
       per se proof of such things or they cannot by themselves vouch for the
       correctness of the same. The said recommendation could not be taken as a
       recommendation made by the Government. Even otherwise a mere
       recommendation did not confer any right on the respondent did not confer any
       right on the respondent to make such a claim for writ of mandamus.'

       8.      Yet, in another decision in State Bank of India vs. M.R. Ganesh Babu
       2002 (4) SCC 556 ) a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court, while dealing
       with the same principle, in para 16 has expressed      that : (SCC p.563)

       '16.     The principle of equal pay for equal work has been considered and
       applied in many reported decisions of this Court. The principle has been
       adequately explained and crystallized and sufficiently reiterated in a catena of
       decisions of this Court. It is well settled that equal pay must depend upon the
       nature of work done. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work; there
       may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions
       may be the same but the responsibilities made a difference. One cannot deny
       that often the difference is a matter of degree and that there is an element of
       value judgment by those who are charged with the administration in fixing the
scale of pay and other conditions of service. So long as such value judgment is
made bona fide, reasonably on an intelligible criterion which has a rational
nexus with the object of differentiation, such differentiation will not amount to
discrimination. The principle is not always easy to apply as there are inherent
difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work done by different persons in
different organizations, or even in the same organization. Differentiation in pay
scales of persons holding same posts and performing similar work on the basis
of difference in the degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality
would be a valid differentiation. The judgment of administrative authorities
concerning the responsibilities which attach to the post, and the degree of
reliability expected to an incumbent, would be a value judgment of the
authorities concerned which, if arrived at bona fide, reasonably and rationally,
was not open to interference by the court.'
(Also see State of Haryana and Anr. vs. Tilak Raj and others, 2003 (6) SCC
123) and Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology and Anr. vs. Manoj K.
Mohanty 2003 (5) SCC 188 ).

9.      In this case, the Tribunal and High Court seem to have completely lost
sight of the fact that the Fifth Pay Commission specifically considered the
question and held that there is no question of any equivalence. The Commission
observed as follows :

'46.34.          We have given our careful consideration to the suggestions
made by Associations representing Stenographers in Offices outside the
Secretariat in the light of observations made by the Third CPC. The
Commission had observed that as a general statement, it was correct to say that
the basis nature of a Stenographer's work remained by and large the same
whether he was working with an officer in the Secretariat or with an officer in a
subordinate office. The Commission was of the considered view that the size of
the Stenographer's job was very much dependent upon the nature of work
entrusted to that officer and that it would not be correct, therefore, to go merely
by the status in disregard of the functional requirement. By the very nature of
work in the secretariat, the volume of dictation and typing work was expected
to be heavier than in a subordinate office, the requirement of secrecy even in
civil offices of the secretariat could be very stringent. Considering the
differences is the hierarchical structures and in the type of work transacted the
Commission was not in favour of adopting a uniform pattern in respect of
matter listed in the preceding paragraph. To our mind, the observations of the
Third CPC are as relevant today as they were at that point of time and we are
not inclined to overlook them totally. In view of the abovementioned
distinguishable feature, we do not concede the demand for absolute parity in
regard to pay scales between stenographers in offices outside the secretariat and
in the secretariat notwithstanding the fact that some petitioner stenographers
Grade II have got other benefit of parity in pay scale through courts. However,
pursing the policy enunciated by the Second CPC that disparity in the pay scale
prescribed for stenographers in the Secretariat and the non- secretariat
organizations should be reduced as far as possible, we are of the view that
Stenographers Grade II should be placed in the existing pay scale of Rs. 1600-
2660 instead of Rs. 1400-2300/ Rs. 1400-2600'.


10.     Strangely, the Tribunal in the review petition came to hold that the
Commission had not based its conclusion on any data. It is trite law that it is not
open for any Court to sit in judgment as on appeal over the conclusion of the
Commission. Further the Tribunal and the High Court proceeded as if it was the
employer who was to show that there was no equality in the work. On the
contrary the person who asserts that there is equality has to prove it. The
equality is not based on designation or the nature of work alone. There are
several other factors like, responsibilities, reliabilities, experience,
confidentiality involved, functional need and requirements commensurate with
the position in the hierarchy, the qualification required which are equally
relevant.

11.    In State of W.B. and others vs. Hari Narayan Bhowal and others 1994
(4) SCC 78 ) it was observed :

'This Court in the case of Delhi Veterinary Assn. vs. Union of India (1984) (3)
SCC 1) said that in addition to the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', the
pay structure of the employee of the Government should reflect many other
social values. It was said :

'The degree of skill, strain of work, experience involved, training required,
responsibility undertaken, mental and physical requirements, disagreeableness
of the task, hazard attendant on work and fatigue involved are, according to the
Third Pay Commission, some of the relevant factors which should be taken into
consideration in fixing pay scales. The method of recruitment, the level of
which the initial recruitment is made in the hierarchy of service or cadre,
minimum educational and technical qualifications prescribed for the post, the
nature of dealings with the public, avenues, of promotion available and
horizontal and vertical relatively with other jobs in the same service or outside
are also relevant factors.'

12.      In the case of State of U.P. vs. J.P. Chaurasia 1989 (1) SCC 121 ) it was
pointed out that whether two posts are equal or should carry the equal pay,
depends on several factors. It does not depend just upon either the nature of
work or the volume of work done. Primarily it requires among others,
evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts by the
Competent Authorities constituted for the purpose and Courts cannot ordinately
substitute themselves in the place of those authorities. The quantity of work
may be the same but the quality may be different. That cannot be determined by
relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parties. It must be determined
by expert bodies like Pay Commission and the Government, who would be the
best judges, to evaluate the nature of duty, responsibility and all relevant
factors. The same view was reiterated in the case of State of M.P. vs. Pramod
Bhartiya 1993 (1) SCC 539 ) by a three-Judge Bench of this Court. In the case
of Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India 1994 (2) SCC 521 ) a claim for equal
pay by a group of Pharmacists was rejected saying that the classification made
by a body of experts after full study and analysis of the work, should not be
disturbed except for strong reasons which indicate that the classification made
was unreasonable.

13. These aspects have been completely lost sight of by the Tribunal and the
High Court.

14. The Tribunal passed the impugned order by reviewing the earlier order. A
bare reading of the two orders shows that the order in review application was in
complete variation and disregard of the earlier order and the strong as well as
sound reasons contained therein whereby the original application was rejected.
The scope for review is rather limited and it is not permissible for the forum
hearing the review application to act as an appellate authority in respect of the
original order by a fresh and rehearing of the matter to facilitate a change of
opinion on merits. The Tribunal seems to have transgressed its jurisdiction in
dealing with the review petition as if it was hearing original application. This
aspect has also not been noticed by the High Court.

15. Looked at from any angle, the judgment of the Tribunal in review
       application and of the High Court confirming it have no leg to stand. They
       deserve to be set aside which we direct. The appeal is allowed.'


18.   The applicants have produced the above judgment as Annexure A-6

but appear to have overlooked perusing the advice rendered by the Apex

Court dismissing the judgment of the Tribunal in R.A and High Court

judgment while considering a similar case. The Apex Court has clearly laid

down in para 8, 11 and 12 the issues which are required to be addressed and

considered by both the applicants and respondents while presenting their

case before the judicial forum for adjudication. The applicants have made a

cursory presentation of their case without adducing to the observations

made in the above Apex Court judgment for a proper adjudication of the

matter. The respondents have also made an equal and opposite response.

The applicants have also not given any arguments as to why the suggestions

made by the Apex Court in the above case have not been adhered to while

presenting their case. It is also observed that the Department of Personnel

who is the cadre controlling authority of matters relating to the service has

not been impleaded as a party to explain why the parity which was sought

to be established from time to time is being disturbed with subsequent

orders to establish superior status.       For adjudicating on the principles of

equal pay for equal work, it is necessary that the facts raised in above paras

be brought out in the body of O.A so that a decision on the merit of the

relief sought can be arrived at. Though applicants have produced the above

judgment, they have apparently not perused or followed the principles laid
thereon for a proper adjudication of a similar matter.



19.   The case is dismissed not on merits but for not conforming to the

principles laid down by the Apex Court for adjudication of such matters.

The applicants are given the liberty to reapproach the Tribunal with an O.A

along the above lines indicated.       In view of the order in the O.A.,

M.A.No.180/00011/2014 is closed.

                    (Dated this the 6th day of April 2016)




(P. GOPINATH)                                    (N.K. BALAKRISHNAN)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER                               JUDICIAL MEMBER


asp

Tuesday, 5 April 2016

CAT PARITY UPDATE


Dear Members,


                    It is sad to inform all that  our Parity case (filed by Secretary General and 5 other Stenos from Income Tax, Passport, Customers)  judgement prononced today and  the judgement is not in our favour.  The CAT  rejected our demand for parity though  we produced  all documents in favour of   parity.

             

                      I invite suggestions from our members in filing  appeal  immediately in High Court, Ernakulam after receipt  of the copy of judgement.  Kindly give your suggestions immediately  as still  we  have hope in winning the case.

Harisuthan
Secretary General


Thursday, 17 March 2016

7th Pay Commission notification to be issued after states polls

7th Pay Commission notification to be issued after states polls
New Delhi: The notification to put into effect the Seventh pay commission recommendation will be issued after the completion of states assemblies’ poll process as the model code of conduct is currently in place, sources of Finance Ministry said on Wednesday.
The assemblies’ election of Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Assam, Kerala and Puducherry states, which will be held from April 4 to May 16 and the counting of votes in the states will take place on May 19 but the model code of conduct will remain in place till May 21.
So, it is believed that the government will announce Seventh pay commission award after the end of model code of conduct of states assemblies election.
The government doesn’t want to give any chance to the Opposition to deter its image in the polls and hence, sources, said that the announcement of the dates of the the model code of conduct of states polls seems to be the cut-off point for notification of the Seventh pay commission award.
The Seventh pay commission recommendations will benefit 48 lakh central government employees and 52 lakh pensioners including dependents.
“The BJP led central government decided execution time of the pay commission’s proposals in April but the Empowered Committee of Secretaries headed by cabinet Secretary can’t sort out some anomalies of Seventh pay commission recommendations like scrapping of advances, allowances and minimum pay before declaration of states Assemblies polls,” sources said.
Sources also said the Implementation cell of the Empowered Committee of Secretaries for the Seventh pay commission recommendation in Finance Ministry works hard to send a summary of the pay commission implementation to PMO for its nod. After PMO’s nod, it would be placed before the cabinet for its nod through cabinet secretary.
Sources said the Seventh Pay Commission recommendations implementation notification will be issued in June, after cabinet nod.
The Seventh Pay Commission was set up by the UPA government in February 2014, The Commission headed by Justice A K Mathur submitted its 900-page final report to Finance Minister Arun Jaitley on February 19, recommending 23.55 per cent hike in salaries and allowances of Central government employees and pensioners.
The panel recommended a 14.27 per cent increase in basic pay, the lowest in 70 years. The previous 6th Pay Commission had recommended a 20 per cent hike, which the government doubled while implementing it in 2008.
The Seventh pay commission recommended fixing the highest basic salary at Rs 250,000 and the lowest at Rs 18,000and its increased the pay gap between the minimum and maximum from existing 1:12 to 1: 13.8
The government constitutes the Pay Commission almost every 10 years to revise the pay scale of its employees and pensioners, often these are adopted by states after some modifications. However, the Seventh Pay Commission suggested to discontinue the practice of appointing pay commissions in future.


Wednesday, 16 March 2016

CAT UPDATE

Dear members,

       Due to technical reason the CAT  Paritty  details cannot be updated  for a week.  The details will be posted soon.  Please be patient.


Harisuthan