Full Text
W.P. (C) 941/2002
R.L.KALA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Ms. Filza Moonis with Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Advocates.
Through: Mr. Vikas Mahajan with Mr. Rohan Gupta and Mr. S.S.Rai, Advocates.
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA O R D E R 02.09.2015
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners were recruited as drawing staff in the General Reserve Engineering Force which is a part of the Border Roads Organisation. They claim higher pay scales and implementation of the recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission, contending that these recommendations have been accepted and implemented w.e.f. 01.01.1996 by the Central Government with respect to several Ministries and Departments of the Central Government, but not to the Border Roads Organisation.
2. The organisational structure of Draughtsmen, with the relative pay scales - in terms of the 4th CPC’s recommendations and the revised pay scales in terms of what is claimed in these proceedings 2015:DHC:7262-DB W.P.(C)941-02 Page 2 has been set out in the writ petition. This is extracted below in a tabular form: Post Old Pay Scale Revised Pay Scale D/man Gr.II 1400-2300 5000-8000 D/man Gr.I 1600-2660 5500-9000 Sr. D/man 2000-3200 6500-10500
3. It is submitted that the then Ministry of Surface Transport (now Ministry of Road Transport and Highways) on 17.10.1997 issued an order indicating revised pay scales applicable to Draughtsmen under its Department and other agencies. The petitioners rely upon the said order and subsequent orders giving effect to it. They also rely upon an order pertaining to officers/employees of the CPWD dated 16.10.1997 to similar effect. They further state that the Comptroller General of Defence Accounts (“CGDA”) issued directions to implement the 5th CPC’s recommendations. It is argued that the petitioners - who were initially recruited as Draughtsman Gr.III, Draughtsman Grade-II or as Draughtsman Gr.I in the General Reserve Engineering Force which was subsequently upon its revamping, absorbed in the BRO ought to be given the parity with those working in the CPWD and other organisations.
4. In the counter affidavit as well as in the course of proceedings, the respondents admit that the hierarchy of posts in the BRO comprised of the cadres of Chief Draughtsman (at the apex level), followed by the Senior Draughtsman, Draughtsman Gr.I and Draughtsman Gr.II. It is stated that consequent to the W.P.(C)941-02 Page 3 recommendations of the 5th CPC, the pre-existing hierarchy was maintained so far as the pay structures were concerned. Respondents rely upon a comparative tabular chart which is extracted below: - Position/scale in BRO Position in other Govt. Deptt. Category/post in BRO Existing pay scales Category/post in other Deptt. Existing pay scales Chief Draftsman 6500-10500 Chief Draftsman/Head Draftsman 6500-10500 Senior Draftsman 5000-8000 Draftsman Grade-I 5500-9000 Draftsman Grade-I 5000-8000 Draftsman Grade-II 5000-8000 Draftsman Grade-II 4500-7000 Draftsman Grade-III 4000-6000
5. It is stated that both Draughtsman Gr.I and Senior Draughtsman are entitled to a single replacement pay scale of `5000-8000 and that such of the petitioners who were either holding the post of Draughtsman Gr.-I or Senior Draughtsman, at the relevant time, were fitted in that pay scale. It is, at the same time, conceded that some of the petitioners might have been promoted or at the time of their superannuation attained the grade of Chief Draughtsman. That post is entitled to the revision pay scale of `6500-10,500. The BRO concedes that at some time, a proposal to increase the pay scale of Senior Draughtsman from `5000-8000 to `5500-9000 was made but was not accepted by the Central Government.
6. The BRO lastly urges that a similar claim of one Shri Kulwant Singh was considered by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in W.P.(C)11892/2000 - Kulwant Singh v. UOI & Anr. On that W.P.(C)941-02 Page 4 occasion, the Court directed the Central Government to consider the question of parity and pass speaking order. A copy of the said speaking order has been produced. The relevant extract of the speaking order reads as follows: -
7. We have heard the counsel for the parties and also considered the submissions in the writ petition. Apart from making a bald claim for parity in the pay scales pursuant to the recommendations of the 5th CPC, no attempt has been made by the petitioner to state that all the elements which go to establish the principle of “equal pay for equal work” are present in the case. The BRO asserts - a fact not disputed by the petitioners - that the hierarchy within that organisation in terms of the cadre structure, Recruitment Rules, eligibility norms, the nature of pay and allowances and other perks admissible to its employees were quite different from those admissible and given to members of other services and civilian organisations.
8. Having regard to these undisputed facts, the Court is of the opinion that the declaration sought cannot be granted. At the same time, it is clarified that if any of the petitioners were in fact promoted or treated as Chief Draughtsman, they would be entitled to the pay scales of `6,500-10,500 w.e.f. those dates. Such of the petitioners who attained the age of superannuation immediately or just W.P.(C)941-02 Page 6 contemporaneously with the grant of such promotion would be entitled to refixation of their pension and payment of differential salary/pension etc.
9. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
DEEPA SHARMA, J SEPTEMBER 02, 2015 /vikas/