B D SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner herein who is working as Private Secretary to the Chair man/Members of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission(for short "the MRTP Commission) is entitled to get the same pay-scale as that of the post of Principal Private Secretary(for short the PPS'). The petitioner was appointed as Stenographer Grade-II in the Department of Company Affairs. While he was working as such, his services were placed at the disposal of MRTP Commission from 16.12.1970 in the same capacity as Stenographer Grade-II. Thereafter he was promoted as Private Secretary from 1.8.1985 in accordance with the provisions of the recruitment rules. The Government of India issued a circular and clarification extending the benefit of appointment of PPS in other departments under the control of Ministries. The petitioner herein alleging that he fulfills all the eligibility conditions for grant of promotion to the post of PPS on 10.8.1999 contended that as per Section 5.2 of the MRTP Act, the Chairman of the MRTP Commission is a person who is qualified to be a Judge of the Supreme Court or a High Court and Members thereto who have always been persons of ability and integrity. The petitioner, therefore, pleaded that he is entitled to claim parity of pay-scale with that of the PPS in his capacity as Private Secretary to the Chairman/ Members. It was also contended that on the recommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission, the Government of India had issued orders for creation of posts of PPS which is a Group 'A' Gazetted post in the pay-scale of Rs.10000-15200(revised) and since the petitioner is discharging similar duties and responsibilities as that of the PPS, he should be granted the same pay-scale as that of the post of PPS from 1.8.1993.

(2.) The aforesaid contentions raised in the Original Application filed by the petitioner were considered by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Upon going through the records, the Tribunal held that two posts of different organisations would not be alike and, therefore, cannot be equated. The Tribunal took notice of the fact that one Shri K.N.Virmani who was also working as Private Secretary to the Chairman of the MRTP Commission had filed OA No.2711/1992 which was dismissed by order dated 25.2.1999. In the said OA, similar issues were raised as raised in the OA filed by the petitioner herein and, therefore, the Tribunal held that it would be inappropriate to go into the same controversy once again. It also took notice of the fact that during the pendency of the Original Application, the respondents had granted the scale of pay of Rs.7500-12000 to the Private Secretaries to the Chairman and Members of the MRTP Commission by an administrative decision, by substituting the pay-scale of of Rs.6500-10500. The Original Application was accordingly dismissed. The said order is under challenge in this petition.

(3.) Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted before us that although the Tribunal dismissed the application of K.N.Virmani, working as Private Secretary to the Chairman, MRTP Commission but it allowed the application seeking similar relief filed by Shri S.K. Sareen who was working as Private Secretary to the Vice-Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The said order of the Tribunal reads as follows: