CHAUDHARI RAKESH EKANATH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant, posted as Private Secretary with Member, National Commission for Scheduled Tribes (for short NCST) in the Pay Band -2 of Rs. 9300 -34800/ - plus Rs. 4600 grade pay has filed the present Original Application seeking issuance of direction to respondents to treat his post (PS) as having historical parity with PS in CSSS for the purpose of application of Notification (G.S.R. 622 (E) dated 29.08.2008 and to grant him the grade pay of Rs. 4800/ - as is given to PS in CSSS cadre. Salient grounds taken in the Original Application are: - -

(2.) WE have heard the Counsel appearing for parties and perused the record. As can be delineated from the reply filed on behalf of respondent No. 1, the applicant was appointed as PS to Member of NCST on co -terminus basis from time to time, lastly w.e.f. 26.11.2010 in Pay Band -2 (Rs. 9300 -34800 +þ Grade Pay of Rs. 4600). One post each of APS to Chairperson and Vice Chairperson and three posts of Private Secretary to Members in the pre -revised scale of pay Rs. 6500 -10500 were sanctioned for the Commission by Ministry of Tribal Affairs vide Office Order No. 17014/12/24 -TDR dated 19.4.2004. The Chairperson/Vice Chairperson of the Commission are conferred with the status of Union Cabinet Minister and Minister of State respectively while the Members of the Commission are of the status of the Secretary to Government of India and their tenure is for a period of three years. The appointment of APS/PS (ibid) in the Commission is made on co -terminus basis collateral with the tenure of Chairperson/Vice chairperson/Members. Consequent upon the implementation of the report of Sixth CPC vide Notification dated 29.08.2008 issued by the Department of Expenditure (Ministry of Finance), the post of PS and equivalent in CSSS were upgraded from the pay scale of Rs. 6500 -10,500 to Rs. 7500 -12000 (Pay Band -2 of Rs. 9300 -34800) with grade pay of Rs. 4800/ - w.e.f. 1.01.2006. In the starred footnote below Section 2 of Para B of said G.S.R. 622 (E) dated 29.08.2008, it is provided that the upgraded pay scale shall be available only in such of those organizations/services which have had a historical parity with CSS/CSSS, i.e. AFHQSS/AFHQSSS/RBSS and Ministerial/Secretarial posts in Ministries/Departments organizations like MEA, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, CVC, UPSC, etc. For easy reference, Section II of Part -B of GSR 622 (E) dated 29.08.2008 along with footnote is extracted hereinbelow: - -

(3.) AS far as the present case is concerned, the PS to Member, ST Commission is not comparable with CSSS. So far as the issue of discrimination and violations of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is concerned, as been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Service Secretariat Personal Staff Association (Civil Appeal No. 3518/1997 decided on 10.07.2002), : 2002(3) SLJ 205 (SC) : JT 2002(5) SC 189), ordinarily a pay structure is evolved keeping in mind several factors for example, (i) the work programme of his department (ii) the nature of contribution expected of him (iii) the extent of his responsibility and accountability of the discharge of his diverse duties and functions (iv) the extent and nature of freedoms/limitations available or imposed on him in the discharge of his duties (v) the extent of powers vested in him (vi) the extent of his dependence on superiors for the exercise of his powers (vii) the need to co -ordinate with other departments, etc. Thus, in order to claim pay parity with PS in CSS, the applicant need to establish similarity of his service with that of PS in CSS/CSSS in respect of all the aforementioned factors. Apparently, none of the said factors are similar in respect of post of the applicant and PS of CSSS. Besides the equation of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post and Court's interference is absolutely necessary to undo the injustice. Paras 9 and 10 of said judgment read as under: - -