C L SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri C.L.Sharma, one of the Assistants and Shri Vikramjit,one of the Junior Readers, on the establishment of this Court, have sought an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to upgrade their posts to the pay-scalcof Rs.2000-3200 on parity with the pay-scale already granted to Senior Stenographers. They have averred in the petition that under the Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972, framed under Article 229 of the Constitution of India, the posts in categories (9) Assistant, (10) Senior Translator and Proof Reader, (11) Junior Reader, (13) P.A. to Registrar and (14) Stenior Stenographer in the Schedule to the Delhi High Court Officers and Servants (Salaries, Leave, Allowances and Pension) Rules and also under the Delhi High Court Staff (Seniority) Rules, 1971, are equal status posts and according to Rule 8(c) of the Delhi High Court Establishment (Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972, the persons appointed to these posts are interchangeable and they are also the feeder posts for promotion to the posts of Superintendent, Court Master and thus, all these posts must have same pay-scale. It is pointed out that when initially the said Rules were framed equal pay-scales were prescribed for these categories of posts treating them as equal status posts. Senior Stenographers have been given basic pay-scale of Rs.2000-3200 with effect from January 1, 1986, on the basis of a judgment of this Court given in Civil Writ Petition No.3197/89 decided on October8, 1991. Hence, the prayer is made that the petitioners should be also granted the same pay-scale as has now become available to the Senior Stenographers on the basis of the judgment of this Court.

(2.) Union of India has contested this petition and has opposed the grant of same pay-scale to these petitioners pleading that duties and functions assigned to the Senior Stenographers are quite different from the duties and functions performed by the Assistants and Junior Readers of this Court. It is urged that an Assistant or a Junior Reader cannot possibly be posted as Senior Stenographer because of his lack of knowledge of shorthand and similarly Senior Stenographers may not be equipped to perform the duties of an Assistant or a Junior Reader. It is averred that it is only for the administrative convenience that a common seniority of these categories of posts is being maintained by the Court for the purposes of promotion to the higher post but that alone would not make these posts as equal status posts or similar posts having the samc type of duties and functions and so.it is urged that the basic principle of "equal pay for equal work" enunciated by the Supreme Court in various judgments is not applicable to the present case. The matter is not res integra.

(3.) In Civil Writ Petition No.190/85,S.S.Bhatia Vs Union of India, decided on December 10,1986, the Senior Stenographers had claimed parity of pay-scale with the pay-scale being enjoyed by Assistants and Senior Translators of this Court. It appears that the Assistants and Senior Translators on the basis of the judgment of this Court given in Civil Writ Petition No.462/K3 decided onDecembcr9, 1986 and Civil Writ Petition No.662/82 decided on April 12, 1983, had been allowed higher pay-scales. The Senior Stenographers claimed that they are having equal status posts with the-posts of Assistants and Senior Translators and their posts being inter-changeable and thus, they are also entitled to have same pay-scale, as originally before those writs were decided, all these posts of same categories were having similar pay-scale. The Court upheld the contentions of the Senior Stenographers and directed that Senior Stenographers should be placed in the same pay-scale as being available to the Assistants and Senior Translators. The contention of the Union of India raised in that case that these posts are not having similar functions and duties was not accepted.