AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Suresh Kait, J.—The present petition is directed against the order dated 02.04.1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No. 2591/93.
The brief facts of the case are that Respondent No. 1 herein was appointed as Artist-cum-Draftsman in the pay scale of Rs. 260-400 w.e.f. 09.10.1980 and was declared quasi permanent on 31.12.1984. It is not disputed that this was an ex-cadre post and till date Respondent No. 1 is continuing to hold the post without any promotional avenue. She made various representations and sought her encadrement so that she may avail normal promotional channel but all in vain. Being aggrieved, she filed OA No. 2591/1993 before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking the aforesaid relief. The said OA was allowed vide order dated 02.04.1997.
Being aggrieved, the Petitioners have challenged the order/judgment passed by the Tribunal on the main ground that qualification and experience of Respondent No. 1 herein is different from the posts referred. The principle of equal pay for equal work is not applicable in case of respondent No. 1 because the level of qualifications and responsibilities are much lower in order where respondent No. 1 is working.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners pointed out that besides the Respondent No. 1, there was another post of artist-cum-photographer in the Directorate of Family Welfare in the pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200 with five years course of photography as basic qualification, besides there is another post of artist-cum-photographer in higher pay scale with higher qualifications. Further learned Counsel for the Petitioners has denied that there is any post of artist-cum-draftsman in Directorate of Education, Delhi Administration. She further pointed out that there was a post of Drawing Teacher where minimum essential qualification was MA in Drawing and Fine Articles In the Women Polytechnic, there is no post of artist-cum draftsman in the Institute. There was also a post of draftsman-cum-artist with higher pay scale at the time of creation of the post with different pay scale of Rs. 425-700 and the duties and responsibilities were totally different as compared to respondent No. 1. Therefore, there was no parity in the post of artist-cum-draftsman in the Health and Family Welfare Training Centre.
The main parity sought by Respondent No. 1 is that she may be encadred in an equivalent post in order to avail promotional opportunities and the consequent promotions. She also sought higher pay scale on the ground of �Equal pay for Equal work� and on the basis of the Third Pay Commission Report.
We have observed that by an order dated 02.05.1967, the Lt. Governor, Delhi sanctioned 15 posts, setting up of a Family Planning Training Centre under Delhi Administration including the post of artist-cum-draftsman held by Respondent No. 1 and classified the posts into Grade II, Grade III and Grade IV. The post created by the aforesaid order indicates that all the posts so created were ex-cadre posts and even after 30 years, the department had continued to exist and there was no reason forthcoming why they continued to be ex-cadre posts. Though Respondent No. 1 herein had made several representations to this effect but all in vain.
We have observed from the order of the Tribunal that it had left upon the petitioners herein that whether these 15 posts should continue to be ex-cadre posts or not. The Tribunal has also held it � unjust� that ex-cadre posts which even after 30 years, without attention of the department, continued to be without any promotional avenue.
In the present case, Respondent No. 1 herein remained without any single promotion for the last 30 years. The service under the welfare State requires scrutiny of service under rules and the rule should not be arbitrary. The service is a matter of status and if there is any anomaly, it should be removed. In the absence of any promotional avenue, it generates the stagnation of skill of the persons concerned.
The Tribunal has relied on the case of AIR 1988 1033 (SC) . It was observed by their Lordships that:
Reasonable promotional opportunities should be available in every wing of public service that generate efficiency in service and fosters the appropriate attitude to grow for achieving excellence in service. In the absence of promotional prospects, the service is bound to degenerate and stagnation kills the desire to serve properly.
The main contention of the Respondent herein is that she carries the same educational and other qualifications as under the Directorate of Training and Technical Education. The post of draftsman-cum-artist, the same post as that of the Respondent, is likewise a Class-III post wherein the prescribed educational and other qualifications required, are almost identical.
Learned Counsel for the Respondents pointed out that the qualifications for both the posts are under different departments of Delhi Administration only; one is the Directorate of Family Welfare in the pay scale of Rs. 262-400, and second the qualification of draftsman-cum-artist in Directorate of Training and Technical Education are the same, which are as under:
i) Matriculation or equivalent from a recognised University/Board.
ii) Diploma/Certificate in Commercial Art from a recognised institution.
iii) Experience of letter designing and drawing work.
Undisputedly, the function and duties assigned to both these posts in a different department are also identical. The reply of the Petitioners herein before the Tribunal was that these posts belonged to different departments; one belongs to the Directorate of Family Planning and the other to the Directorate of Technical Education. He further pointed out that both the posts are equivalent but the pay scales are different. Similar issue has already been dealt by the Hon�ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Savita v. Union of India reported in 1985 (Supp) SCC 1994.
The Government issued an order dated 19.09.1988 wherein it was mentioned that this order will be applicable to all the similarly placed Draftsmen of the Delhi Administration. In spite of the benefit given by the Hon�ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision in the case of P.Savita (Supra) and order of the Union of India, the benefit was not extended to Respondent No. 1 herein.
It is clear from the record that the Petitioners themselves made a mistake in the year 1976 when they issued the order dated 07.09.1976 whereby the Petitioners had given benefits to all the 21 incumbents in the Directorate of Family Planning and unfortunately committed a patent error while giving benefit of the Third Pay Commission to the Respondent. An LDC, UDC and the Artist-cum-Draftsman among the Directorate of Family Planning cadres were holding the pay scale of Rs. 110-210, 130-300 and 150-380 respectively, but at the time of giving benefit of revision in pay scale in accordance with the Third Pay Commission, the equivalent scales granted by the Delhi Administration happened to be 260-400, 330-560 and 260-400 respectively.
The principle of �Equal pay for Equal work� is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. It is certainly a Constitutional goal. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims � equal pay for equal work for both men and women�. Equal pay for Equal work means Equal pay for Equal work for everyone. Their Lordships decided in the case of Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, that the principle of Equal pay for Equal work is deducible from Article 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India and it should be properly applied to the cases in unequal scales of pay based on no classification order irrelevantly classified through those drawing the different scales of pay, doing identical work under the same employer.
The preamble of the Constitution also declared the solemn resolution of the pole of India. The word �Socialistic� means Equal pay for Equal work. The principle of Equal pay for Equal work is expressly recognized by all socialist systems throughout the world.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Anr. v. Mahajabeen Akhtar. In our opinion this judgment is not relevant, rather this is against the plea and contention of the Petitioners. Their Lordships have observed in that judgment which is reproduced below:
On the facts obtaining in this case, therefore, we are of the opinion that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work has no application. The matter may have been different, had the scales of pay been determined on the basis of educational qualification, nature of duties and other relevant factors. We are also not oblivious of the fact that ordinarily the scales of pay of employees working in different departments should be treated to be on a par and the same scale of pay shall be recommended. The respondent did not opt for her services to be placed on deputation. She opted to stay in the government service as a surplus. She was placed in list as Librarian in National Gallery of Modern Article She was designated as Assistant Librarian and Information Assistant. Her pay scale was determined at Rs. 6500-10,500 which was the revised scale of pay. Her case has admittedly not been considered by the Fifth Pay Revision Commission. If a scale of pay in a higher category has been refixed keeping in view the educational qualifications and other relevant factors by an expert body, no exception thereto can be taken. Concededly it was for the Union of India to assign good reasons for placing her in a different scale of pay. It has been done. We have noticed hereinbefore that not only the essential educational qualifications are different but the nature of duties is also different. Article 39(d) as also Article 14 of the Constitution of India must be applied, inter alia, on the premise that equality clause should be invoked in respect of the people who are similarly situated in all respects.
In Mahajabeen Akhtar�s case (Supra) the essential qualifications and nature of duties were different but in the present case, the nature of duties and required qualification are same of the above referred departments of the Delhi Government.
Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the order and judgment passed by the Tribunal is not required to be interfered under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with a costs of Rs. 10,000/-. The petitioners are hereby directed to comply with the orders of the CAT passed in OA No. 2591/1993 dated 02.04.1997 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.