RANI JAMSHED PARAKH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is now restricted to deciding whether or not petitioner is entitled to the differential vis-a-vis the salary received by her and that allegedly due to her for the period 1-8-1982 to 25-4-1989.

(2.) PETITIONER and respondent 3 both joined the employment of the second respondent - hereinafter referred to as the BPT-in the secretarial cadree. The BPT until April 1975 had a Chairman without a deputy. In April 1975 the post of a deputy Chairman was created. The Chairman as also the Deputy Chairman had private secretaries. The private secretaries though attached to Officers enjoying a difference in pay, rank and status, drew the same salary i. e. 950-40-1110-45-1245-EB-45-1380-50-1630. Sometime, in December 1961 a question arose as to who as between petitioner and the third respondent was senior. The then Secretary of the BPT recorded a decision holding the third respondent to be senior to the petitioner. The decision as such is untraceable but the noting relating thereto was intimated in, June 1963 to both the persons concerned. The posts being equal in so far as the monetary benefits were concerned, petitioner and the third respondent worked sometime with the Chairman and at other for the Deputy Chairman. The question of sanctioning the substantive appointment of the rivals came up for consideration and the Departmental Promotion Committee recommended that petitioner be confirmed as the private secretary to the Chairman and the third respondent as the private secretary to the Deputy Chairman. Accepting the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the Chairman had this order communicated to the Chief Accountant of the BPT and also the incumbents thus :---

(3.) PETITIONERS case is that having regard to the order passed on 28th November, 1977 whereby she was given the substantive appointment of the private secretary to the Chairman and the respondent No. 3 that of private secretary to the Deputy Chairman, the BPT could not confer on respondent 3 the benefit of the pay-scale not annexed to her post. Conversely, the BPT could not deny to her the benefit of the pay-scale attached to the post of private secretary to the Chairman. As a result of the wrongful acts of the BPT she had been deprived of dues admissible to her for the period 1-8-1982 to 25-4-1989. The BPT in its return contends that the order dated 28th November, 1977 made it clear that appointments of petitioner and respondent 3 in different capacities would not affect their confirmation to the said post. This was because that depended upon inter se seniority. In so far as seniority was concerned, respondent 3 was senior to the petitioner. This fact had been made known to petitioner as also respondent 3. Petitioner had not taken exception to the declaration of respondent 3 being senior to her. The upgradation of the post of the private secretary to the Chairman proceeded on a rational basis inasmuch as the said private secretary carried a heavier and more responsible workload as compared to that borne by the private secretary to the Deputy Chairman. By virtue of seniority the upgraded post had to go to the third respondent and the mere fact that by an accident petitioner happened to be holding that designation when the revision came into force, would not deprive respondent 3 of their rank. In any case petitioner not having functioned as private secretary to the Chairman, apart from the rightness or wrongfulness thereof, she was not entitled to a salary and allowances for work not done by her. The first respondents return explains the reasons for the upgradation of the post of private secretary to the Chairman of the Major Port Trust. With that aspect of the matter we are not concerned in this petition.