Ashok Nath Chakravarty vs Union of India (UOI)

A.K. Pathak, J.—Petitioner and one Shri. K.C. Ghosh were appointed as Assistants in the Home Ministry after they cleared Assistants'' Grade Examination, 1968. Shri K.C.Ghosh was junior to the Petitioner in the merit list. Both Petitioner and Shri K.C. Ghosh were included in the 1978 select list (seniority quota) and pursuant thereof Petitioner was appointed as Section Officer in the Ministry of Home Affairs; whereas Shri K.C. Ghosh was appointed as Section Officer in the Rural Development Ministry. Pay of Shri K.C. Ghosh was stepped up w.e.f.1st June, 1983 with reference to his junior Shri A.K.Dey, Section Officer in the Ministry of Rural Development.

Petitioner claimed stepping up of his pay equal to that of Shri K.C.Ghosh w.e.f. 1st June, 1983 on the ground that he was senior to Shri K.C. Ghosh. His request was declined vide office memorandum dated 4th October, 1991. On Petitioner filing OA bearing No. 1181/1992 Tribunal set aside the order dated 4th October, 1991 with the direction to the Respondent to pass a speaking order. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a representation dated 24th December, 1996 for stepping up of his pay but same was rejected by the Respondent vide order dated 12th February, 1997.

Petitioner challenged this order by filing OA No. 1188/1997 before the Tribunal and prayed therein that his pay be stepped up in the grade of Section Officer at Rs. 960/-p.m. in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 650-1200 w.e.f.1st June, 1983 at par with his junior Shri K.C.Ghosh with consequential benefits. Vide order dated 11th August, 1998 Tribunal dismissed OA of the Petitioner.

Tribunal held that Shri K.C. Ghosh upon his appointment as Section Officer was placed at the disposal of Rural Development Ministry and was in different cadre than that of Petitioner who was placed under the Ministry of Home Affairs; therefore, his pay was not liable to be stepped up viz-a-viz Shri K.C. Ghosh. Pay of Shri K.C. Ghosh was stepped up and was brought at par with his junior Shri A.K. Dey, who was working in the same Ministry i.e. Rural Development Ministry and belonged to same cadre. Petitioner was working as Section Officer in the Ministry of Home Affairs, which was different cadre. Plea of petitioner regarding "equal pay for equal work" was not tenable as it was not mandatory that all the members of cadre must receive the same pay, irrespective of their seniority, source of recruitment, educational qualification etc.

Aggrieved by the order dated 11th August, 1998 of the Tribunal, Petitioner has filed this writ petition praying therein that the order passed by the Tribunal be quashed and his pay be ordered to be re-fixed in the grade of Section Officer at Rs. 960 p.m. in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 650-1200 w.e.f. 1st June, 1983 with consequential increments and re-fixation of pay in the revised scale of Rs. 2000-3500, Respondent shall pay arrears of pay along with interest @ 18% p.a.

Petitioner has argued that he as well as Shri K.C. Ghosh were recruited through Assistant Grade Examination, 1968 on the basis of open competitive examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission. The rank of Shri K.C. Ghosh was 151 whereas Petitioner was placed at No. 111 in the merit list. Both of them were recruited in the same cadre and their names were included in the 1978 Select List (Seniority Quota). Petitioner was appointed in the Ministry of Home Affairs. Being junior to the Petitioner in the list, Shri K.C. Ghosh was promoted as Section Officer on a later date and was placed at the disposal of Ministry of Rural Development. Since Petitioner as well as Shri K.C. Ghosh were working as Section Officers and as per common seniority list Shri K.C. Ghosh was junior to the Petitioner, his pay was liable to be stepped up at par with Shri K.C. Ghosh. He has further contended that since Petitioner as well as K.C. Ghosh were working as Section Officers and performing same nature of duties he was entitled to equal pay viz-a-viz Shri K.C. Ghosh on the well known settled principles of "equal pay for equal work".

We have considered the arguments of the Petitioner. However, in the factual matrix as stated above as also in law applicable to the context, we do not find any merit in the present case and are not inclined to interfere with the findings of the Tribunal. Merely because Petitioner and Shri K.C. Ghosh were appointed as Assistants together after having been selected through open competition and were working as Assistants in the Home Ministry, at given point of time, would not make much difference. Subsequently, both were promoted to the post of Section Officer and placed at the disposal of different Ministries. Petitioner joined as Section Officer in Home Ministry whereas Mr. K.C. Ghosh joined Ministry of Rural Development. After they were placed in different Ministries on their promotion as Section Officers their cadre changed.

Rule 2(e) of the Central Secretariat Service Rules 1962 (CSS Rules) defines the cadre as group of posts in the grades of Section Officer and Assistant in any of the Ministries or offices as specified in that schedule. Rule 5 of the said Rules provides that a separate cadre in respect of Section Officers� grade and the Assistants� grade shall be constituted for each Ministry or office specified in column (2) of the first schedule and all the Officers specified against such Ministry or office in column (3) of that schedule and officers of these grades in each cadre shall be borne on a separate gradation list drawn up for that cadre. It is thus, clear that on their promotion to the post of Section Officer cadre of Petitioner and Shri K.C. Ghosh changed. Petitioner was assigned cadre of Ministry of Home Affairs; whereas Shri K.C. Ghosh was assigned cadre of Ministry of Rural Development. Since Petitioner and Shri K.C. Ghosh belonged to different cadre on their promotion to the post of Section Officer, pay of the Petitioner could not have been stepped up merely because pay of Shri K.C. Ghosh was stepped up by the Ministry of Rural Development. Pay of Shri K.C. Ghosh was stepped up by the Ministry of Rural Development since Shri A.K. Dey who was working as Section Officer in the same Ministry was drawing more pay though he was junior to Shri K.C. Ghosh. The same principle would not be applicable in the case of the Petitioner as he was in the different cadre.

We also do not find any force in the plea of Petitioner that his pay is liable to be stepped up as he was performing same nature of work, which was being performed by Mr. K.C. Ghosh.

We do not find any infirmity or impropriety in the impugned order; accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.