UNION OF INDIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petition has been filed seeking for issuance of a writ of certiorari, calling for the records of the first respondent-Central Administrative Tribunal, made in O.A.No.37 of 1997, dated 4.3.1999 and quash the same. THE operative portion of the order of the Tribunal is as follows:

(2.) THE contesting respondents 2 to 12 herein are the applicants before the Tribunal. THEy were working in the post of Junior Accounts Officer (hereinafter referred to as "JAO") in the scale of Rs.1640-2900 for number of years. It is the case of the contesting respondents that even though they were working in the post of JAO on officiating basis, they were not paid the regular JAO's salary, but were paid basic pay of the substantive post held with officiating allowance of Rs.50/- p.m.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners strenuously submitted that the Tribunal proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the theory of 'equal pay for equal work' will apply and since the contesting respondents have performed the same work as that of regular JAOs, they are entitled to the same benefits during the period they officiated as JAOs and therefore, the Tribunal interfered with the cut-off date, namely 15.1.1996. LEARNED counsel strongly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1991 SC 1145 (Ramakant Shripad Sinai Advalpalkar vs. Union of India), wherein, the Supreme Court in the case of Officer holding lower post when asked to discharge the duties of the higher post, held that it was not a promotion and the Supreme Court held that such a person does not get the salary of the higher post, but gets only that in service parlance is called as "charge allowance". The relevant observation of the Supreme Court reads as follows: