Rup Chand Hassija v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 8th November, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.l609 /2005 titled as 'Rup Chand Hassija (Group C), Lecturer (Retd.) v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr..', declining the prayer of the petitioner for reconstitution of the committee for consideration of the claim of the petitioner for parity to grant a senior WP(C) No.ll64/2007 2011:DHC:18069-DB scale of Rs.2000-3500/- w.e.f. 1.1.1986 which was revised to Rs.7500-12000I-w.e.f. 1.1.1996 as was done in the case of PGTs under the Directorate of Education who had completed 12 years of service and to.re-fix the pension of the petitioner on the basis of his. pay on the revised scale of pay Rs.7500-12000I- and to grant the petitioner all arrears with interest.

2. The plea of the petitioner is that he had joined as a Lecturer with the Commercial and Secretarial Institute (CSI) in 1969 on an initial pay scale of Rs.250-470l-, which was revised over the years and thereafter from 1.1.1996, he was placed in the pay scale of.Rs.6500-10500I-. ~I 3. According to the petitioner, the scale of pay of Lecturers was identical to that of PGTs in the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi of Higher Secondary Schools.

4. The petitioner claimed that the parity with PGT's remained till 3rd CPC and was disturbed thereafter. On 12th August, 1987 when senior scale of Rs.2000-3500 I- was granted to all the PGTs who had completed 12 years in the scale ofRs.l640-2900/-, w.e.f. 1.1.1986 a selection scale of.Rs.2200-4000I- was to be granted to 20% of PGTs WP(C) No.ll64/2007 Page 2 ofS m the senwr scale. However, this benefit was not extended to the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the scale of Lecturer of CSI was at par with the PGTs since 1969 and it became lower than them.

5. The petitioner approached the Tribunal on earlier occasiOns also and sought equivalence in the pay scale of the teachers of the CSI with those of the teachers of ITI. The petitions filed by the petitioner were dismissed on various grounds. The OA No.l609 of 2005 was dismissed after considering the various judgments of the Supreme Court holding that whether two posts are equivalent or should carry equal pay, depends on several factors and it does not just solely depend upon the nature of work or the volume of work ~ done. The Tribunal noted that primarily among other factors evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts by the competent authorities constituted for the purpose is the criteria and courts cannot ordinarily substitute themselves in place of those authorities who had considered the equivalence. It was also held that the quantity of the work may be the same but the quality may be different and cannot be determined only by relying upon the averments made by the interested parties in their affidavits. Considering the averments made and the judgment cited by the \\ parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that instruction imparted by the Lecturers of CSI as revealed by the scheme under which the Institute was created and they are vocation or professionoriented and their work is not the same as in the schools. It was also noticed that features relating to the post of Lecturer, CSI are of a superior level than those of the PGTs of Delhi Schools and nonrecommendation by at least two Central Pay Commission was taken into consideration to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to claim parity with PGTs teachers.

6. Considering all these facts and circumstances, the prayer for reconstitution of the committee was declined and parity was not granted to the petitioner and his claim to revise his pension was also • not accepted.

7. No one is present on behalf of the petitioner. Perusal of the record also reveals that no one had appeared on behalf of the petitioner on 8th July, 2011. However, the matter was allowed to remain on board in the category of 'Regular Matters of Senior Citizens', on that day and no adverse order was passed against the petitioner. WP(C) No.ll64/2007 Page[4] ofS

8. Thereafter the writ petition was again taken up for hearing again on 14th July, 2011, but no one had appeared on behalf of the petitioner even on that date. In the interest of justice, no adverse order was passed against the petitioner (even on that date) and the matter was allowed to remain on board in the category of 'Regular Matters of Senior Citizens'.

9. Today again no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. In the circumstances, this Court has no other option but to dismiss the writ petition in default of appearance of the petitioner and his counsel. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in default. July 28, 2011. vk ANIL KUMAR, J. J.k ·~~tii$' SUDERSHAN KUMAR1VIISRA, J. Page 5 ofS