The Council for Advancement of Peoples'' Action and Rural Technology (CAPART) and Another vs CAPART-C.G.C. Employees and Others

Barin Ghosh and Sheema Ali Khan, JJ.—The writ petitioners are employees of Council for Advancement of Peoples'' Action and Rural Technology (CAPART) at its Bihar Chapter. They were appointed upon being selected in response to the advertisement issued by the predecessor-in-interest of CAPART from time to time. They were accorded consolidated salaries. The writ petitioners went on discharging their duties since 1985 on such consolidated monthly salaries. They approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition which was registered as CWJC No. 780 of 1993 seeking a mandamus upon CAPART to fix them in a pay scale. By the judgment and order dated 26th June, 1997, the said Writ Petition was allowed with a direction upon CAPART to come up with a regular pay scale for the employees of CAPART working in its Bihar Chapter. Against this judgment and order, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed.

The principal contention in the appeal is that CAPART is not an other authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, accordingly, no writ petition lay against it. While the appeal was admitted, an interim order was passed staying the operation of the judgment and order rendered by the trial court. However, a condition was imposed that the writ petitioners should not receive salary less than Rs. 1926/- per month, which was payable to the people employed in the lowest rank in any unit of CAPART.

Before the Writ Petition was filed, CAPART was examining as to what scale of pay may be made available to the writ petitioners. However, inasmuch as the writ petition was filed it stopped applying its mind thereto. This having been considered by a Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the instant appeal, it, by an order dated 30th January, 2006, directed CAPART to prepare proper and suitable pay scales for the concerned employees as also the relevant rules governing their service conditions. In view of such direction, once again CAPART started applying its mind as regards grant of proper and suitable pay scales to the writ petitioners.

At the meeting of the Committee constituted by CAPART for the purpose of fixation of appropriate pay scales for the writ petitioners held on 19th June, 2006 it gave a proposal to give three types of pay scales on the basis of the job profile and educational qualifications of the writ petitioners. It found as a fact that the writ petitioners are involved mainly in clerical job, while some of them are rendering mechanical job. They found that some of the writ petitioners are matriculates and above, some of them are non-matric and the remaining are Class VIII pass or below. In those circumstances it proposed three pay scales; one for matriculates and above, the other for non-matric and the last one for those who have passed Class VIII or below.

At the said meeting itself it was decided as to which of the petitioners would be fitted in which pay scale. It provided that Bisheshwar Rai and Sri Narain Singh, who have educational qualifications of Madhyama, shall be treated as non-matric and accordingly shall be awarded non-matric pay scale. The writ petitioners have pointed out that Madhyama is equivalent to matriculation. This has now been accepted by CAPART. Therefore, CAPART has agreed now to accord matric scale to Sri Bisheshwar Rai and Sri Narain Singh.

When the proposal was given originally, it was proposed that the people rendering mechanical job shall be entitled to matric scale, but when the proposal was considered at the said meeting it was decided that having regard to their qualification they shall be fitted appropriately and, if their qualification is below non-matric, i.e. Class VIII pass or below, they shall be entitled to such scale as has been fixed for such class of people. Inasmuch as there is a difference in between original proposal and the acceptance thereof, an objection has been raised by the writ petitioners. However, considering the fact that the pay scale has been fixed on the basis of job profile and educational qualification, we do not feel it wise to interfere in the matter. We, however, leave the matter entirely with CAPART as and when any representation is made by any of those people rendering mechanical job.

There is also a dissension pertaining to the scale fixed for P.A. to Director. There is no dispute that P.A. to Director working in any other Office of CAPART gets a better scale. The petitioners, therefore, seek such pay scale for P.A. to Director working in Bihar Chapter of CAPART. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of CAPART has pointed out that insofar as other P.As. to Director are concerned, they are basically Stenographers but insofar as the present incumbent, who is discharging the duties of PA to Director in Bihar Chapter, is not a Stenographer and accordingly he has been given the pay scale applicable to Class III employees. In view of such submission we also do no feel it wise to interfere with the matter but at the same time leave it exclusively for CAPART to decide, if and when a representation to that effect is made. Inasmuch as by reason of the said decision of the committee dated 19th June, 2006, the pay scales of all the employees of CAPART at its Bihar Chapter have been settled finally and accordingly the employer has given what the employees were seeking for a decade and half, it would be appropriate on our part not to go into the question whether the Writ Petition was maintainable but to dispose of the appeal with a request to the Employer-CAPART to implement its decision taken on 19th June, 2006 as modified subsequently pertaining to Bisheshwar Rai and Sri Narain Singh as quickly as possible but not later than six months from today and, accordingly, we dispose of the appeal in those terms.