UNION OF INDIA Vs. G CHAKRAPANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Allahabad High court dated September 16,19 (sic) allowing the writ petition filed by the respondents.

(2.) In the railways there is a department known Research, Designs and standards Organisation (for short "organisation"). Appointment on the Class I posts Assistant Directors/deputy Directors in the Organisation is made by transfer of employees from other departments well as by promotion within the organisation. Persons who are appointed by way of transfer are given special pay of Rs. 200. 00 per month for the post of Deputy Director and Rs. 150. 00 per month for the post of Assistant Director. Those who are appointed as Deputy director/assistant Director by promotion are denied the said special pay. The respondents were appointed as Assistant Directors/deputy Directors in the organisation by promotion. They moved the High court under Article 226 of the Constitution and submitted that the denial of special pay to them was violative of the right to equality guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution. The said writ petition has been allowed by the High court by the judgment under appeal. The High court has held that the respondents should be treated on a par with the transferee officers holding similar posts in the matter of scales of pay including special pay.

(3.) A similar question involving entitlement to special pay has been considered by this court in Telecommunication Research Centre Scientific officers' (Class 1 Assn. v. Union of India. That case related to Class I posts in the Telecommunication Research Centre of the Posts and Telegraphs Department. Appointments to those posts were being made partly by direct recruitment through Union public service commission and partly through transfer of Group 'a' and Group 'b' Field Officers. The officers brought into the Centre ontransfer were being paid special pay in addition to their pay but the direct recruits were denied this privilege. This court held that the denial of special pay to Class I direct recruits amounted to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution and that they were entitled to special pay at the same rates at which it is paid to the transferred officers working in the Centre.