NAIN SINGH BHAKUNI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by grant of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India has brought in Challenge the judgment and order rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Principal Bench at New Delhi in O.A. No. 1 of 1989, filed by the 429 original applicants before the Tribunal insofar as the Tribunal has not granted them full relief as prayed for therein. In order to appreciate the grievance of these appellants it will be necessary to note a few introductory facts.

(2.) The appellants are working as Draftsmen in the Central Water Commission ('CWC' for short). It is not in dispute that the said Commission is functioning under the Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India. According to these appellants the Third Pay Commission appointed by the Central Government had observed that the pay scales allowed to the Draftsmen were rather low and they were required to be upgraded as per the recommendations of the said Commission. The case of the appellants is that upto 20th June 1980 the draftsmen in Grades I. II and III in CWC and Central Public Works Department (CPWD for short) were enjoying identical pay scales from 1st January 1947 to 20th June 1980 on the basis of First, Second and Third Pay Commission's recommendations. However the pay scales of draftsmen of CPWD were revised upwards on 20th June 1980 giving effect notionally from 1st January 1973 and actual benefits of arrears from 28th and 29th July 1978. The appellants contend that they were doing similar type of work as draftsmen in CPWD and they were also entitled to the similar treatment and revised pay scales, notional and actual, on the same lines as those granted to their counterpart draftsmen in CPWD. They made number of representations to the respondent authorities. But they were of no avail. The recruitment rules of the appellants were revised somewhere in 1982. The respondent authorities constituted a sub-committee for the purpose of Cadre Review of Draftsman cadre in CWC. According to the appellants the sub-committee recommended that the anomaly created regarding the pay scales of Draftsmen in CWC as compared to Draftsmen in the CPWD shall be rectified and be brought at par with the pay scales awarded by the Board of Arbitration to CPWD draftsmen. But despite these recommendations nothing happened. Ultimately Ministry of Finance issued a Memorandum on 13th March 1984. According to it all draftsmen Grades I, II and III working in all the Government Departments similarly qualified were required to be placed and given revised pay scales with effect from 1st May 1982 in view of the award given by the Board of Arbitraion to CPWD Draftsmen in 1980. That thereafter the Recruitment Rules of draftsmen were amended on 27th November 1987 and consequently the pay scales of the appellants were revised and brought at par with CPWD draftsmen from 9th November 1987. The appellants grievance is that the parity of pay scales should have been given to them on the same lines on which benefit of revised pay scales was given to the CPWD draftsmen from 1st January 1973 partly notionally and subsequently actually. The appellants, therefore, represented that their pay scales should be revised on the same lines as the revised pay scales of CPWD draftsmen with effect from 1st January 1973 instead of from 9th November 1987. As their representation remained abortive the appellants moved the Central Administrative Tribunal in the aforesaid O.A. No. 1 of 1989. The relief which they prayed for was to the effect that the applicants may be given revised pay scales with effect from 1st January 1973 instead of 9th November 1987 as ordered to be paid by the respondents. The said prayer was based on the ground that the draftsmen Grades I, II and III in CWC were discharging similar type of duties as the draftsmen in CPWD and that their qualifications were also substantially similar and consequently they were entiled to be given the same treatment regarding revised pay scales as was given to their counterparts in CPWD. The Tribunal after hearing the parties came to the conclusion in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment that it is not necessary for the posts in question to be exactly identical for allotment of the same scale of pay. All that is required is that the responsibilities and duties attached to the posts should be broadly comparable and similar in nature. The Tribunal further noted that the recruitment qualifications of the draftsmen in CWC were brought at par with draftsmen in CPWD from 9th November 1987 as by that date the conditions of qualifications were relaxed. In this connection the Tribunal noted two salient features emerging on the record of the case. Firstly, it was observed that CPWD draftsmen were awarded notional revision of pay scales from 1st January 1973 and arrears from 28th/29th July 1978 in view of the award of the Board of Arbitration before which the dispute raised by the CPWD draftsmen was placed for adjudication. There was no such development so far as the CWC, draftsmen were concerned. The second distinguishing feature noted by the Tribunal was that the respondent authorities on account of the O.M. dated 13th March 1984 issued by the Ministry of Finance had granted revision of pay scales notionally from 13th May 1982 to draftsmen in other Government departments with benefit of actual payment with effect from 1st November 1983. Accordingly similar benefit was made available to the appellants by the Tribunal. As noted earlier the appellants being partly aggrieved by the aforesaid decision in their O.A. have filed the present appeal on grant of special leave to appeal seeking notional benefit of revised pay scales of draftsmen from 1st January 1973 to 16th November 1978 instead of from 13th May 1982 to 31st October 1983 as granted by the Tribunal. Their further claim is about actual benefits of arrears of revised pay scales to be given to them not from 1st November 1983 as granted by the Tribunal but from 16th November 1978 upon 13th May 1982. We may mention at this stage that in the meantime the respondent authorities had also moved a cross-Special Leave Petition No. 10992 of 1991 being aggrieved by that part of the judgment and order of the Tribunal by which the aforesaid limited relief was granted to the appellants. A Bench of this Court by order dated 26th July 1991 granted special leave to appeal to the petitioners in S.L.P. (C) No. 11268 of 1991, out of which the present appeal arises, and directed that the said appeal be tagged on with S.L.P.(C) No. 10992 of 1991 moved by the respondents against the very same impugned judgment. Leave was granted on 22nd July 1991 in that Special Leave Petition also and it was registered as Civil Appeal No. 2936 of 1991. Both the appeals, therefore, were to be heard simultaneously. When the hearing of these appeals earlier reached before a Bench of this Court in January 1995 learned counsel for the appellants stated that several authorities had granted identical relief from 1st January 1973 and pay from 1978 to similarly situated draftsmen. The Counsel of the Union of India was, therefore, directed to look into the matter and see if the statement was accurate so that uniformity, was maintained. Thereafter when these appeals reached for further final hearing before this Court on 8th April 1997 the cross-Civil Appeal No. 2936 of 1991 was not pressed by learned counsel for the respondents who stated that the impugned order of the Tribunal was already implemented and there was a decision of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Debashis Kar, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 528 : (1995 AIR SCW 4642), which clearly got attracted against the present respondents who were the appellants in that cross-appeal. Therefore, thereafter there remained in the arena of contest only the present civil appeal.

(3.) In this appeal Under Secretary, Central Water Commission has filed counter affidavit on behalf of respondent No. 1 on 2nd November 1992. We will refer to this counter hereinafter. A further affidavit was also filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 in compliance with direction of this Court issued on 9th January 1995 and reiterated by a latter order of this Court dated 8th April 1997 wherein the respondents were required to put on record with affidavit whatever material they might have collected in connection with the uniformity of pay scales granted to draftsmen in other Government departments. The appellants in their turn have filed reply-affidavit of appellant No. 1 on behalf of the appellants.