Full Text
Date of Decision: 05.07.2011
Chiranji Lal & Ors. …. Petitioners
Through Nemo
Through Nemo
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
JUDGMENT
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
NO ANIL KUMAR, J. *
1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 14th August, 2006, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.1814/2005 titled as ‘Chiranji Lal & Ors. v. UOI through Secretary, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport & Highways & Anr., dismissing the original application of the petitioners wherein the petitioners had sought quashing and setting 2011:DHC:3271-DB aside of the OM No.A-18013/1/2004-E II dated 11th July, 2005 issued by the respondents pursuant to the directions of the Central Administrative Tribunal in another OA No.228 of 2004 dated 13th October, 2004 denying them the up-gradation of their pay scales.
2. While dismissing the original application, the Tribunal had noted that the petitioners had agitated the matter for up-gradation of pay before the 5th Central Pay Commission, however, no recommendation was made by the 5th Central Pay Commission for up-gradation of pay scales of the petitioners.
3. The Tribunal has also noted the rulings of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Pramod Bhariya & Ors., 1993 (23) ATC 657 and Shri M.V.R. Rao & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 2002 (2) ATJ 6 holding that if the claim for ‘equal pay for equal work’ is to succeed, the burden of proof rests on the applicants to furnish material regarding qualifications, mode of recruitment, degree of skill, experience involved in the performance of respective job etc.
4. The Tribunal noted that the petitioners have not provided adequate proof to establish the equality in work, and consequently, declined the relief sought by the petitioners.
5. No one is present on behalf of the petitioners. No one had been present on behalf of the petitioners even on 4th July, 2011, however, no adverse order was passed against the petitioners in the interest of justice. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed in default. ANIL KUMAR, J. SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. July 05, 2011. vk