Himanshi Singh; Monalisha Pradhan; Priya Khurana v. Sanjoy Kar

1. These petitions have been filed, challenging the common Order dated 16.08.2022 passed in O.A. No.795/2015, titled Shri Debananda Bhattacharjee & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.; O.A. No.1498/2015, titled Sh. Sanjoy Kar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.; and O.A. No.1735/2015, titled B.G. Dhamangaokar v. Union of India & Ors. (in W.P.(C) 8910/2024, W.P.(C) 6999/2025, and W.P.(C) 16869/2022, respectively); Order dated 03.02.2022 passed in O.A. No.763/2015, titled All India Postal Accounts Employees Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (in W.P.(C) 15338/2022); Order dated 24.04.2023 passed in O.A. No.1331/2015, titled K.L. Saini & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (in W.P.(C) 12663/2023); Order dated 24.04.2023 passed in O.A. No.396/2015, titled C.S. Chouhan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (in W.P.(C) 12667/2023) and; Order dated 24.04.2023 passed in O.A. No.2282/2015, titled Rakesh Kumar & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (in W.P.(C) 380/2025) by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Tribunal’), allowing the said O.As. filed by the respondents herein with a direction to the petitioners to grant the upgraded pay scales to the respondents with effect from 01.01.1996, along with arrears, within a period of 12 weeks, failing which the petitioners would be liable to pay the arrears with simple interest at 6% per annum thereon. It was further directed by the learned Tribunal that the petitioners shall take a conscious view to grant the said relief to all such similarly placed employees, instead of compelling them to take recourse to litigation.

2. The petitioners further challenge the Order dated 06.03.2023 passed by the learned Tribunal in R.A. No. 7/2023 in O.A. NO. 795/2015 and O.A. No. 1498/2015, dismissing their Review Application.

3. The brief background of the facts in which the present set of petitions arises, is that the respondents are employees of the Organized Accounts Cadre, serving in the Ministry of Railways and the Department of Posts. When the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission (CPC) were accepted by the Union of India, and came into effect from 01.01.1996, the same were also adopted by the Ministry of Railways and other Ministries. However, soon thereafter, certain anomalies were pointed out, especially with respect to implementation of the Fifth CPC recommendations in relation to the Finance and Accounts Department staff across various Ministries. The issue was that the officers and staff of the Accounts Department had not been given pay structure commensurate with their qualification and responsibility in comparison with the Ministerial staff of the Railways and other departments. The general principles adopted by the Fifth CPC were that in categories where there is considerable element of direct recruitment of graduates, a minimum pay-scale of Rs. 1400-2300 (revised to Rs. 4500-7000) was allotted. However, in the case of Junior Accounts Assistants (JAA), where the element of direct recruitment is as high as 80%, the normal replacement scale of Rs. 1320-2040 was given. Further, other similarly placed staff in other departments of the Railways, where the direct recruitment of graduates at entry level is much lower, had been given the higher placement scale of Rs. 1400-2600 which was denied to the Accounts Staff.

4. Accordingly, on 02.02.2003, the Railway Board, Ministry of Railways made a proposal for allotment of the improved pay scales to staff of the Finance and Accounts Department in the Railways with effect from 01.01.1996. This proposal was considered by the Cabinet, and when the matter travelled up to the Standing Group of Ministers, it was decided that while the revised pay scale would be granted notionally from 01.01.1996, the effective date of the grant of the higher pay scale would be 19.02.2003, that is, when the Cabinet Secretariat had approved the same.

5. Pursuant to the Cabinet decision dated 19.02.2003, the Ministry of Finance & Company Affairs issued an Office Memorandum NO. 6/82/E/II(B)/91 dated 28.02.2003, whereby the pay scales of the office staff belonging to the Organized Accounts Department across all Ministries were upgraded on a notional basis with effect from 01.01.1996, with actual payments to be made with effect from 19.02.2003. This was further communicated by the Railway Board vide Circular dated 07.03.2003, specifically for Railway accounts staff, implementing the said Office Memorandum dated 28.02.2003.

6. Similarly, the Department of Posts, Postal Accounts Wing, vide Letter dated 06.03.2003, directed all Heads of Postal Circles and all Heads of Postal Accounts Offices that the O.M. 28.02.2003 be implemented in the cases of Accounts employees in equivalent posts.

7. Aggrieved by the restriction of actual payment to prospective effect from 19.02.2003 despite notional upgradation from 01.01.1996, an O.A. was filed by similarly placed employees working in the Accounts Department of the Railways, before the Ernakulum Bench of the learned Tribunal, being O.A. No. 671/2003, titled Jose Sebastian & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., which came to be allowed by the learned Tribunal by its Order dated 30.06.2006, holding as under: "10) The only question, that arises for consideration is whether the decision to grant the revised pay scales to the Railway Accounts Staff has any nexus to the recommendations of the Vth CPC. The Respondents maintained that the new pay scales do not emanate from the recommendations of the Vth CPC and a separate exercise has been under taken for improvement of the pay scales in the behalf and that the Railway Board held identified the issue as an and the matter had been referred to the anomaly committee. The PA was therefore the contention of the Respondent that the consideration of revision of pay scales of the Accounts Staff in the Railways had nothing to do with the Vth Pay Commission recommendations are not borne out by the facts on record, Further annexure R-1 which is the Railway Board order dated 16.10.1997 implementing the recommendations of the Vth CPC has itself specified that the pay scales of categories like the Accounts Assistants were under examination at the time of issue of the orders. Note-1 on page 8 of the order states: Recommendations of the Vth Pay Commission on pay scales for other specified categories are under examination. Pending decision, the normal replacement scales as in the First Schedule would apply."

11) The recommendations for the Ministerial Staff in other than Accounts Department are contained at S[1]. No. 11 page 6 of this order and that for the Accounts Department at Sl. No. 13 on page 7 of the order. The category of “Junior Accounts Assistant” is not shown under the heading of Accounts Department. This clear point to the fact that this category came under "other specific categories mentioned in the above mentioned. "Note" for which proposals were examination. It was pending such a decision that normal replacement scales were made applicable to this category. The improved scales now given after examination of the anomaly are very much an offshoot of the Vth CPC recommendations Therefore we reject the contention of the Respondents that the Pay Scales now granted by the impugned orders did not emanate from the recommendations of the Vth CPC.

12) Further, as the matter of discrepancies in the Pay Scales of Ministerial Staff in other Departments and Accounts Department was treated as an anomaly and examined for redressal of the same, there is no reason why the same treatment given to other category of staff, like the artisans whose cases were also taken up by the Anomaly Committee and were given the revised scale later w.e.f. 1.1.1996, should be denied to the category of Accounts Assistant. In fact it in seen from the impugned order that the Railways have decided to grant the revised pay scales on notional basis w.e.f. 1.1.1996. If there was no nexus between the Vth CPC recommendations and the scales now granted there was no need for the Government to come to such a decision to make it effective from 1.1.1996. Since this category has already been placed in the normal replacement scale, revision of pay on notional basis will also imply, as argued by the learned counsel for the Applicants, that the pay fixation has to be effected in terms of Railway Services (Revised Pay) Rules 1997. The Respondent have to inevitable take recourse to the provisions of the Revised Pay Rules. Hence mere contending that the revised Pay Scales has nothing to do with the Vth CPC recommendations sounds hollow, it appears that the Respondents are merely repeating the same words for arguments sake."

8. The said decision of the Ernakulum Bench of the learned Tribunal was assailed by the petitioners before the Kerala High Court in W.P.(C) No.22276/2007, which was dismissed vide Order dated 27.03.2012. The SLP, being SLP(C) No.9832/2013, filed thereagainst was also dismissed vide Order dated 25.02.2013, as also the Review Petition thereagainst, being Review Petition(C) No. 1494/2013, vide Order dated 01.08.2013.

9. Simultaneously, a similar O.A., being O.A. No. 925/2003, titled Sudama Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., seeking identical reliefs was preferred before the Patna Bench of the learned Tribunal, by other similarly situated employees of the Railway Accounts Department, however, the same was dismissed by Order dated 30.06.2005. This decision, however, was set aside by the Patna High Court in Order dated 09.04.2010 passed in W.P.(C) No.11452/2005, by holding as under:

5. It is thus evident that of the four categories of employees of the Indian Railways, namely, Artisan Staff, Master Cook in Catering, Medical and Canteen Departments, and Primary School Teachers, have been given uniform treatment by identifying their appropriate pay-scales, and granting them monetary benefits w.e.f. 1.1.1996, the date on which the recommendations of the Vth Pay Commission were enforced. On the other hand, the employees of Accounts Establishment have been given a differential treatment. They have not been given monetary benefits w.e.f. 1.1.1996, but have instead been given notional benefits w.e.f. 1.1.1996, as a result of which they have been deprived of the differential amount of salary for the period 1.1.1996 to 19.2.2003. This calls for serious consideration.

6. The only logic advanced by the respondent authorities before the Tribunal was that these three categories of employees had threatened to proceed on strike, leading to mutual negotiations, and bipartite settlements. The Tribunal has, therefore, concluded that there was a sound basis to treat the three categories of employees differently. In the absence of such agreement governing the employees of the Accounts Establishment, the Tribunal has concluded, it cannot be said to be a case of discriminatory treatment.

7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the matter, and entirely disagree with the approach of the learned Tribunal. Threat of strike, and the consequent agreement, cannot be a valid basis for such a discriminatory treatment. We consider it to be a most unsound basis which can never be said to provide reasonable differentia with the object sought to be achieved. No logic has been advanced that the category of employees of Accounts Establishment have to be differently treated, say, for example, nature of duties and functions, in absence of which we have no hesitation in holding that this category of employees has been subjected to hostile discrimination. It was open to the respondents to give notional benefit to the employees of the Accounts Establishment, provided the same principle were applicable to all categories of employees, in the absence of which it falls foul of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”

10. The Civil Review Petition No.233/2010 filed thereagainst was dismissed vide Order dated 03.04.2013. The SLP filed thereagainst, being SLP(C) Nos. 1587-1588/2014, was also dismissed vide Order dated 07.07.2014, with the following directions: "…The special leave petitions are dismissed. However, the relief granted by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) as affirmed by the High Court shall be confined to the parties before the Tribunal as well as before the High Court. This is without prejudice to the rights of other claimants which will be adjudicated on its own merit as and when any such claim is raised.”