DIGANT INDRAVADAN DAVE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have preferred the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment dated 28 -02 -2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in Original Application No. 174 of 1993 whereby the Original Application was dismissed and the petitioners were denied the pay -scale of Rs. 1350 2200 of Data Entry Operators ("DEO", for short) Grade -B from September 1989.

(2.) THE petitioners are working as DEO in the Income Tax Department. They are Graduates and appointed as DEO in pursuance of the advertisement bearing No. 30 -A/88 dated 25 -07 -1988 published by the Central Employment Exchange, Ministry of Labour. Original Application No. 174 of 1993 was preferred by two applicants, namely, Alkesh Joshi, who is petitioner No. 29 in the present petition, and the Association of Railway and Post Employees. Since Original Application No. 174 of 1993 was preferred by the Association of Railway and Post employees on behalf of all the petitioners, they have got the locus standi to prefer the present petition in their individual names.

(3.) MR . Shalin Mehta, learned Advocate for the petitioners, submitted that in view of the advertisement issued by the Central Employment Exchange, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi bearing No. 30 -A/88, the minimum qualification for DEOs was reduced from Graduation to Matriculation. The learned Advocate submitted that even in view of the decision rendered by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, confirming the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, the petitioners be also given the higher pay -scale of Rs. 1350 2200 as applicable to Grade -B DEOs. It is further submitted by the learned Advocate that since the petitioners, who were appointed after 13th August, 1988 stood on the same footing, as those who had been given such benefits by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad, which was confirmed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the decision was accepted by the Central Board of Direct Taxes, the petitioners also ought to have been given such benefit. The learned Advocate also placed reliance on the subsequent decisions rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench passed in Original Application No. 204 of 2001 on 25 -10 -2002, which was in respect of giving the higher pay -scale to the DEO Grade -B. The order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal was confirmed by High Court of Kerala in WP (C) No. 12074 of 2004 (S) decided on 26 -05 -2005. The matter, thereafter, went right up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court where the Hon'ble Supreme Court, ultimately, dismissed the appeal preferred by the Commissioner of Income Tax and Others. The Hon'ble Apex Court, thus, confirmed the order passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam which confirmed the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal at Ernakulam. In view of the aforesaid ruling given by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioners cannot be denied the higher pay -scale in the grade of Rs. 1350 2200 as they are identically situated with other employees. Thus, the learned Advocate submitted that the petitioners who are similarly situated cannot be given dissimilar treatment by respondent No. 1 and the petition, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, requires to be allowed.