P N JEEVARATHINAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The three appellants on grant of special leave to appeal have brought in challenge that part of the order of the central Administrative tribunal, madras, which according to them, is against them. The appellants were working as Munshis in Madras Telegraph Office. Their contention before the tribunal was that they were doing the same work as clerks still they were granted the pay scale of Class IV staff and they were entitled to the pay scale of clerks who are in Class III. They made various representations and ultimately filed a writ petition in the Madras High court in 1983. The said writ Petition No. 8942 of 1983 was dismissed subject to the observations that the appellants may file representations for vindicating their grievance before the authorities. The High court directed that the respondents will consider the case of the appellants as to whether they have been discharging the duties of clerks or they were discharging the duties of only Munshis. The said decision of the High court dated 5/12/1984 clearly postulated that the three appellants concerned were in service at the time of the decision of the high court. They filed original application in 1988 before the tribunal which was disposed of on 4/4/1990 by directing the respondents to communicate the decision which might have been taken on the representation of the appellants as the appellants had contended that despite their representations no decision was communicated to them. It appears that thereafter a decision rejecting their representations was communicated to the appellants. They again therefore, approached the tribunal in OA No. 740 of 1990 for redressal of their grievance. The tribunal after hearing the contesting parties came to the conclusion on the evidence laid before it thatthe appellants though styled as Munshis, were discharging the duties of full- fledged clerks, and especially when some of the Munshis themselves were treated as full-fledged clerks by the respondents, there was no reason why the appellants similarly circumscribed should be discriminated against. The tribunal also took the view that the appellants were entitled to be given the pay scale of clerks from 1/1/1975. However, there would be only notional adjustment of the pay scale for them. So far as the arrears of pay scale were concerned, in the view of the tribunal even though the pay scale was revised from 30/9/1975 as the appellants had not moved the matter before any competent court till their actual date of superannuation, no arrears of difference in the pay scale could be awarded to them. The result was that the only benefit available to them would be the hike in the pensionary benefits. The said order of the tribunal is brought in challenge by the appellants in the present proceedings on the ground that the appellants are entitled to arrears of the higher pay scale from the date of their initial entry in service as Munshis, or at least from 30/9/1975 when the revised pay scale was available to clerks and which pay scale according to the tribunal could otherwise be awarded to the appellants.

(2.) It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants were agitating about their rights from the very beginning. They had filed representations earlier in 1978 and 1982. It is true that they approached the High court of Madras in a writ petition in 1983 but as they were actively pursuing the remedy before the respondents themselves it cannot be said that the appellants had indulged in any procrastination or delay in getting redress in connection with their grievance and therefore, according to the learned counsel for the appellants the tribunal had erred in not granting full relief to the appellants by awarding the actual arrears of difference i. e. the hike in the pay scales as clerks from the very inception of their service.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the appellants approached the tribunal much after they were superannuated and therefore, the tribunal was justified in not awarding actual arrears of difference of pay scales to them. He further submitted that on equitable consideration also the appellants would not deserve any reliefs as they had continued in service up to 60 years of age as Munshis and once they were claiming higher pay scale of clerks on the principle of "equal pay for equal work", in the usual course as clerks they would have retired on completion of 58 years. Thus, they got the benefit of two more years of service as Munshis. Because of the benefit they got of extra service of two years, they forfeited their claim of actual payment of higher timescale of clerks. Consequently, their grievance should not be entertained in the present proceeding.