TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSO Vs. UOI & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against an order dated July 04, 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal ("the Tribunal") in OA No. 2441/2004. Petitioner no. 1 is a society comprising, inter alia, of employees of the Enforcement Branch of the Directorate of Transport, Govt. of NCT Delhi ("the Enforcement Branch"). The other petitioners are individual employees of various ranks. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has rejected the petitioners' claim for pay parity with the corresponding ranks in Delhi Police w.e.f. January 01, 1996.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioners that, until the report of the Third Pay Commission the parity in pay scale between the various ranks of the Enforcement Branch and corresponding ranks of the Delhi Police was maintained, but has thereafter been disturbed.

(3.) The petitioners first agitated their grievance by filing OA No. 1087/1994 before the Tribunal, which was disposed of on May 26, 1994 with a direction that the petitioner would make a representation to the concerned expert body. Pursuant to this order, the petitioner made a representation to the Fifth Central Pay Commission, which clarified that it did not intended to re-open past cases or make recommendation with respect to rectification of past anomalies with retrospective effect. A meeting was thereafter held with the Chief Minister of the Govt. of NCT Delhi who directed that same pay scale be given to the employees of the Enforcement Branch as to Delhi Police. As this decision was not implemented, they filed a second application before the Tribunal, being OA No. 1242/1999. This was disposed of by an order dated March 21, 2001 directing the concerned respondents to dispose of the representations of the petitioner association. The Government of NCT Delhi thereafter wrote a letter dated January 30, 2003 to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India in this regard (which, according to the petitioners supported their case), but the Ministry of Home Affairs rejected the representation by an order dated March 09, 2004. It was consequent upon this rejection that OA No. 2441/2004 was filed, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated July 04, 2005. The Tribunal has inter alia held that the determination of the executive with regard to pay fixation can be interfered with only if hostile discrimination is established.