UOI v. Jagdish Singh and Ors.

1. The undisputed position is that the 5th Central Pay Commission considered the issue concerning the ‘Secretariat Security Force’ (SSF) with respect to the similarity with Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). Considering the cadre structure in the two organizations and finding complete parity with the nature of duties performed, vide para 70.106 of its report, the Pay Commission recommended merger of SSF and CISF.

2. Neither effecting merger nor paying salary in the pay in the pay scales in which Jawans and Officers of CISF were placed, the respondents were compelled to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal vide Original Application No.1797/2010. In the Original Application they simply pleaded that the Pay Commission had found complete parity in the work performed by Jawans and Officers of SSF and CISF and had therefore recommended a merger of the two cadres. Pleading that the Government did not effect merger, it was projected that a specialised body i.e. the Pay Commission 2013:DHC:2455-DB having found complete parity in the qualitative and quantitative duties performed, equivalence of pay scales have to follow because both serve under the same master i.e. the Central Government.

3. In the reply filed to the Original Application, the writ petitioner did not dispute the recommendations of the Pay Commission. It did not dispute parity (complete) in the two organizations vis-a-vis work to be performed. But on the subject of merger simply pleaded that due to ‘legal and administrative problems’ the merger could not be effected.

4. What were those ‘legal and administrative problems’, none were disclosed.

5. Be that as it may, at the core of the issue was whether there was any complete parity between SSF and CISF. A specialised body i.e. the Pay Commission had already found so. Accordingly vide impugned decision dated March 09, 2011, Original Application No.1797/2010 has been allowed.

6. Challenging the decision taken it is pleaded in paragraph 9 of the writ petition that merger recommended could not take place because no personnel of SSF filled up the Option Form.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to urge that administrative and legal problem faced by the department was that no SSF personnel filled up Option Form.

8. Now, this was not a plea taken before the Tribunal.

9. Besides, when asked, as to when option was sought for; whether any Office Order exists to prove the same? Learned counsel for the petitioner concedes ‘No’.

10. Therefore, nothing remains for the petitioner to argue and for us to consider.

11. A specialised body i.e. the Pay Commission has already found complete parity between an organizational structure and work performed by the Jawans and Officers of SSF and CISF. It recommended merger. If merger cannot be done, whatever may be the reasons which we do not know because the writ petitioner has not disclosed the same, parity in the pay scale must follow.

12. The writ petition is dismissed but without there being any order as to costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (V. KAMESWAR RAO)

JUDGE MAY 13, 2013 skb