H K BHATIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER dated 1. 12. 2006 passed in this writ petition would depict the controversy involved. This order reads as under:

(2.) THE petitioner who was working as Junior Programme Assistant with the deputy Director General, Computer Centre in the Ministry of Statistics and P. I. has since retired from service. She, however, is pressing her claim for stepping up of her pay. The claim is founded on the averments that she was promoted to the rank of Jr. Programme Assistant on 18. 6. 1987 and another person smt. Lovlin Jain was promoted as Jr. Programme Assistant w. e. f. 26. 2. 1988. Thus she was promoted prior to Smt. Lovlin Jain and Smt. Lovlin Jain was also junior to her in the lower rank, namely, Data Processing Assistant/tape Librarian (DPA/tl ). Post of Jr. Programme Assistant was re-designated as Data Processing assistant-A (DPA-Grade A) on 11. 9. 1989 and this decision was given effect from 1. 1. 1986. Pay scale was also revised to Rs. 1600-2660. The increment of Smt. Lavlin Jain in the grade of Rs. 1600-2660 was preponed from September to April vide orders dated 30. 7. 2004 As a result thereof, her pay was stepped up to the same stage as her junior, namely, junior of Smt. Lavlin Jain to avert an anomaly. In these circumstances, as on 1. 4. 1986 pay of Smt. Lavlin Jain was fixed at Rs. 1650/- whereas basic pay of the petitioner as on that date was rs. 1600/ -. Since the stepping up of the pay of Smt. Lavlin Jain by preponing the date of increment was to remove the anomaly which has arisen because of her junior getting higher pay, same treatment had to be meted out to the petitioner as well who was senior to Smt. Lavlin Jain. On this basis she requested for pre-poning of her increment in a similar manner from September to April. This representation was rejected. Her OA filed to claim this relief before the central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi has also been dismissed vide judgment dated 13. 4. 2006. She even preferred Review Application which met the same fate. Feeling aggrieved, present petition is filed.

(3.) A perusal of the judgment dated 13. 4. 2006 passed by the learned Tribunal would reveal that the Tribunal was of the view that even if Smt. Lavlin Jain and three other persons were junior to the petitioner as DPA, her case was not similarly placed to the aforesaid officials. The petitioner had earned increment on first day of September every year. She was promoted to the post of DPA in the year 1984 on ad hoc basis and regularized on 16. 6. 1987 and Smt. Lavlin Jain etc. were appointed in subsequent years. Further, the petitioner's pay was fixed in the said grade in terms of option furnished by her. Moreover, when the petitioner's pay was fixed in the revised pay scale of Rs. 1600-2660, on that date there was no anomaly as far as pay fixation is concerned. This anomaly had arisen because of the accrual of next increment to different persons in different months, which certainly varies. Therefore, such a fixation could not be termed as anomaly and the Tribunal was also of the view that the petitioner was claiming equal pay for equal work which claim was unjustified and untenable in law as there could be variety of reasons which may contribute to different pay irrespective of seniority and the claim could not be made on this ground, inasmuch as, doctrine of ?equal pay for equal work? cannot be read in article 14 of the Constitution. The date of increment which varies from individual to individual is reasonable classification. The Tribunal referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. G. Sreenivasa Rao and Ors (1989) 2 SCC 290 and quoted the following observations: