(1.) THE present petition is directed against the order dated 02.04.1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 2591/93.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that Respondent No. 1 herein was appointed as Artist -cum -Draftsman in the pay scale of Rs. 260 -400 w.e.f. 09.10.1980 and was declared quasi permanent on 31.12.1984. It is not disputed that this was an ex -cadre post and till date Respondent No. 1 is continuing to hold the post without any promotional avenue. She made various representations and sought her encadrement so that she may avail normal promotional channel but all in vain. Being aggrieved, she filed OA No. 2591/1993 before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking the aforesaid relief. The said OA was allowed vide order dated 02.04.1997.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Petitioners pointed out that besides the Respondent No. 1, there was another post of artist -cum -photographer in the Directorate of Family Welfare in the pay scale of Rs. 1350 -2200 with five years course of photography as basic qualification, besides there is another post of artist -cum -photographer in higher pay scale with higher qualifications. Further learned Counsel for the Petitioners has denied that there is any post of artist -cum -draftsman in Directorate of Education, Delhi Administration. She further pointed out that there was a post of Drawing Teacher where minimum essential qualification was MA in Drawing and Fine Articles In the Women Polytechnic, there is no post of artist -cum draftsman in the Institute. There was also a post of draftsman -cum -artist with higher pay scale at the time of creation of the post with different pay scale of Rs. 425 -700 and the duties and responsibilities were totally different as compared to respondent No. 1. Therefore, there was no parity in the post of artist -cum -draftsman in the Health and Family Welfare Training Centre.