HARJEET SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 where the applicants (numbering seven in all) are aggrieved of two counts. In the first instance, the applicants are aggrieved with the communication from respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 1 conveying rejection of the proposal for implementation of the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission [hereinafter referred to as CPC] in parity to that of CSS/CSSS cadre. In the second instance, the applicants are aggrieved by the communication of respondent No. 1 conveying that their earlier proposal for grant of Grade Pay of Rs. 4600/ - to the Stenographers Grade -II (PAs) of the respondent No. 3 had been considered and rejected by the respondent No. 2 vide their UO No. 19 dated 05.06.2012.

(2.) THE applicants have sought for the following relief(s): -

(3.) THE applicants have based their arguments mainly on three grounds. The first of these grounds relate to the historical parity which they claim to have enjoyed vis -a -vis Assistants/Personal Assistants of CSS/CSSS. The 6th C.P.C. also placed both the contending cadres into PB -2 scale of Rs. 9300 -34800/ - with a Grade Pay of Rs. 4200/ -. The problem arose for the applicants when the Ministry of Finance issued OM dated 16.12.2009 upgrading the pay scale of CSS/CSSS grade personnel from existing GP of Rs. 4200/ - to Rs. 4600/ - in PB -2 scale but did not extend the OM to the applicants herein and thus disturbed the historical equilibrium for no apparent reasons. The respondents moved a proposal for similar up gradation of the applicants to the GP of Rs. 4600/ - to which both the respondent Nos. 1 & 4 concurred. However, it was the respondent No. 2 who without any valid and cogent grounds rejected the proposal thus making it necessary for the applicants to move the instant Application. The second ground that has been adopted by the applicants is that functionally there is no difference between the two services in the sense that not only are the posts comparative in grade but they bear the same classification and have the same mode of recruitment. The third ground adopted by the applicants is that the denial of the proposal moved by the respondent No. 4 has created a huge gap between the pay structure and the prospects of the two cadres. These facts have been totally ignored by the respondent No. 2 whose order is not only arbitrary but also cryptic and lacking in reasons. The applicants have relied upon a decision of this Bench in the matter of S.R. Dheer & Others versus Union of India & Others [OA No. 164/2009 with MA No. 141/2009 decided on 19.02.200]. The applicants have also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Sh. Kaushik Paik & Others versus Union of India & Others [WP(C) No. 116/2013 decided on 06.09.2013] wherein the petitioners belong to the Indian Coast Guard organization established in 1977 a separate service like the BPR & D. Now it is a well settled principle of law that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can be logically deduced therefrom. The proposition laid down in this case should not have been automatically extended to other cases like the present one.