MADAN LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of appropriate writs/order/directions in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the ppetitioner the arrears of consolidated salary and other consequential benefits according to revised pay scale thereby granting him parity with his counterparts in other similarly placed autonomous organisations/central government.

(2.) The necessary facts are that the petitioner is a former employee of National Council for Teacher Education(hereinafter "NCTE"). His grievance is that the respondent No.2 has denied him parity with respect to pay with other similarly situated persons. According to counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner had superannuated from the post of Assistant in the pay-scale of 1640-2900 in the Department of Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development on 30.11.1994. After superannuation, the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Officer in the National Council for Teacher Education in the pay scale of Rs.1640-60-2600-EB- 75-2900 w.e.f. 1.12.1994 for a period of one year in the first instance. According to the appointment order dated 30.11.1994, additional pay of the petitioner was to be fixed in accordance with the re-employment rules of the Government of India. According to the petitioner another sister organisation NIEPA had also employed Project Assistants and the salary fixed for Project Assistant was Rs.6500/-. Similar salary was fixed for the petitioner. Subsequently, by an order dated 17.2.1999 the Under Secretary, Government of India, in terms of communication dated 17.2.1999 fixed the consolidated salary of a Project Assistant to Rs.8300/-. The counsel for the petitioner submits that since he is similarly placed to the Project Assistants in NIEPA, thus, the same terms and conditions and same salary should be paid to the petitioner as well. Counsel for the petitioner has further drawn the attention of the court to the noting in the file wherein it has been recorded that as NCTE was in the initial stages of being set up and the rates of consolidated salary for the project staff by NEIPA, an autonomous body of the Ministry of HRD shall be followed in the NCTE. Consequently Rs.3500/- was fixed for Project Assistant i.e. the petitioner as well. Counsel for the petitioner relies on the resolution of the Finance Committee, wherein the Finance Committee recommended the proposal for grant of salaries for project staff on the line of the salaries approved by the Ministry for the project staff employed for NIEPA. The Finance Committee desired that the proposal be referred to the Ministry for approval before implementation. As this resolution was not implemented the present writ petition has been filed.

(3.) This Court in terms of Order dated 17.1.2005 had recorded that "the counsel for respondent No.2 states that a proposal shall be sent back to the Union of India and Ministry of Human Resource Development for fresh consideration." Upon fresh consideration the Director (EE) has rejected the proposal sent by respondent No.2. Although the copy of the order dated 19.10.2005 has been filed along with an additional affidavit by respondent No.2, this writ petition has not been amended to assail this order of 19.10.2005.