Hari Singh and Another vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Barin Ghosh, C.J.—Petitioners were Tool Makers. In 1972, they wanted to become Precision Mechanics. They were not permitted to participate in the selection process for becoming Precision Mechanics only on the ground that the pay scale of Tool Makers and Precision Mechanics is the same. Subsequently the pay scale of the Precision Mechanics was revised upwardly, as a result Petitioners started receiving lesser remuneration than those who were working as Precision Mechanics. It is the contention of the Petitioners that when they wanted to participate in the selection process to become Precision Mechanics, people junior to them working as Turners, fitters etc. and drawing lesser salary were permitted to participate in such selection process and being successful they become Precision Mechanics and as a result started drawing more than what the Petitioners were drawing. The Petitioners made a representation. The representation remained undecided in view of a claim petition filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, Bangalore in 1989 by people similarly situate to that of the Petitioners. The said Tribunal, on 5th December, 1990 dismissed the petition which was pending before it. In the circumstances, the claim of the Petitioners was not acceded to by the Respondents. Petitioners, accordingly, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal at Allahabad. By the judgment and order dated 15th April, 1999 of the said Tribunal, assailed in the present writ petition, the claim petition filed by the Petitioners has been rejected. The principal reason for rejecting the claim of the Petitioners is delay. Apart from holding what pay should be given to what kind of workman is a matter which exclusively vests in employer, it has been held that in the event what the Petitioners are contending is accepted, the same would create a great anomaly amongst a large number of people similarly situate to that of the Petitioners. Although as was submitted before us, we proceeded on the basis that the Petitioners were Tool Makers but the Tribunal held that all of them were not in the same trade; to that there appears to be no controversy. It is not the contention of the Petitioners that they discharged same duties and responsibilities as that of Precision Mechanics and, accordingly, question of equal pay for equal work did not arise in the instant case. It is true that at one stage the pay scale of the Petitioners and the pay scale of the Precision Mechanics were same but that did not prevent the employer to give a better pay scale to Precision Mechanics taking into account the job responsibilities owed and duties performed by them. Petitioners have not been able to establish any ground or reason for increasing their pay scale in parity with that of Precision Mechanics. That Precision Mechanics discharge more responsible duties has been held by expert committees which resulted in the employer agreeing to pay them a better pay scale. Petitioners have not been able to establish that expert committees erred in their evaluation. That being the situation, we are also of the view that a claim based on the chance the Petitioners may have missed in 1972 to become Precision Mechanics, because at that time the pay scale of the Petitioners was equal to the pay scale of Precision Mechanics, could not be agitated in the year 1991 when the Petitioners approached the Tribunal and as a result there is no scope of interference.

The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.