$~R-6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: January 02, 2013
+ WP(C) 2029/2001
ALL INDIA RADIO AND DOORDARSHAN
& ANR. ..... Petitioners
Represented by: Dr.M.P.Raju, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Mr.R.V.Sinha, Advocate and Mr.A.S.Singh,
Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Challenge in the writ petition is to the decision dated December
15, 2000 dismissing OA No.255/1997.
3. Claim of the writ petitioners before the Tribunal was to be
granted the same benefit which was granted by the Tribunal to V.R.Panchal
and others in OA No.1448/1993 decided on January 10, 1996 (sometimes
the order is being referred to as dated January 19, 1996).
4. V.R.Panchal and others were working as Stenographers in CBI
and were aggrieved by the fact that they were being paid salary in the pay-
scale `1400-2600; claiming an entitlement to be placed in the pay-scale of
`1640-2900. The petitioners also relied upon a decision allowing OA
No.548/1994 pertaining to Stenographers working in the Directorate of Field
Publicity, a subordinate office of the Ministry of Information &
Broadcasting, Union of India.
WP(C) 2029/2001 Page 1 of 6
5. Denying relief to the petitioners who were working as
Stenographers in All India Radio and Doordarshan, the Tribunal has noted
that after the Original Application was filed the recommendations of the 5th
Pay Commission had come into being and in paragraph 46.31 to paragraph
46.34 of its report the pay-commission had noted as under:-
"46.31 The pay scale of Assistants in the Central
Secretariat Service (CSS) and Stenographers in the
CSSS was revised by the Government on 31.7.1990,
effective from 1.1.1986. Some of the Assistants/Crime
Assistants and Stenographers Grade II working in the
CBI, Directorate General of Income Tax (Investigation)
and Directorate of Field Publicity filed a number of
petitions before the Principal Bench of the Central
Administrative Tribunal seeking benefit of the orders
dated 31.7.90. Rejecting the contention of the Union of
India that Stenographers Grade II and Assistants in the
non-Secretariat offices could not be compared with
Stenographers Grade ,,C of CSSS and Assistants of CSS
because of the different classification, method of
recruitment, nature of duties and responsibilities and
eligibility for promotion to higher grade, the CAT
directed the UOI to place the petitioners in the pay scale
of `1640-2900. The judgment of the CAT has been
implemented.
46.32 The comparative position of Stenographers in
the Secretariat and offices outside the Secretariat as it
existed at the time of constitution of the Fifty CPC is as
under:-
Secretariat Non-Secretariat
a) Stenographer Grade D a) Stenographer Gr.III
(`1200-2040) (`1200 2040)
b) Stenographer Grade C b) Stenographer Gr.II
(`1640-2900) (`1400-2300)
(`1400-2600)
(`1640-2900)
c) Stenographers Grades c) Stenographer Gr.I
,,A & ,,B (Merged) (`1640-2900)
WP(C) 2029/2001 Page 2 of 6
(`2000-3500)
d) Principal Private d) Senior Personal
Secretary Assistant
(`3000-4500) (`2000-3200)
e) Private Secretary
(`2000-3500)
f) Principal Private
Secretary
(`3000-4500)
46.33 Associations representing stenographers have
urged before us that there should be complete parity
between stenographers in non-secretariat offices and in
the Secretariat in matters relating to (a) pay scales, (b)
designations, (c) cadre structure, (d) promotion avenues,
(e) level of stenographic assistance to officers in
technical, scientific and research organizations, etc.
Suggestions have also been made for a higher pay scale
for stenographers in the entry grade, treating advance
increments granted for acquiring proficiency in
stenography at higher speed as pay, allowing
stenographers in non-Secretariat offices to compete in
the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination
(LDCE), and grant of Special Pay for operating
computers, fax machines, etc.
46.34 We have given our careful consideration to the
suggestions made by Associations representing
stenographers in offices outside the Secretariat in the
light of observations made by the Third CPC. The
Commission had observed that as a general statement, it
was correct to say that the basic nature of a
stenographers work remained by and large the same
whether he was working with an officer in Secretariat or
with an officer in a subordinate office. The Commission
was of the considered view that the size of the
stenographers job was very much dependent upon the
nature of work entrusted to that officer and that it would
not be correct, therefore, to go merely by the status in
WP(C) 2029/2001 Page 3 of 6
disregard of the functional requirement. By the very
nature of work in the Secretariat, the volume of dictation
and typing work was expected to be heavier than in a
subordinate office, the requirement of secrecy even in
civil offices of the secretariat could be very stringent.
Considering the differences in the hierarchical structures
and in the type of work transacted in the Secretariat and
in the subordinate offices, the Commission was not in
favour of adopting a uniform pattern in respect of
matters listed in the preceding paragraph. To our mind,
the observations of the Third CPC are as relevant today
as they were at that point of time and we are not inclined
to overlook them totally. In view of the above
mentioned distinguishable features, we do not concede
the demand for absolute parity in regard to pay scales
between stenographers in offices outside the Secretariat
and in the secretariat notwithstanding the fact that some
petitioner stenographers Grade II have got the benefit of
parity in pay scale through Courts. However, pursuing
the policy enunciated by the Second CPC that disparity
in the pay scale prescribed for stenographers in the
secretariat and the non-secretariat organizations should
be reduced as far as possible, we are of the view that
Stenographers Grade II should be placed in the existing
pay scale of `1600-2600 instead of `1400-2300/`1400-
2600. The next available grade of stenographers in non-
Secretariat offices is `1640-2900 (Grade I). We do not
recommend any change in the existing pay scale of
Stenographers Grade I. Senior Personal Assistants and
Private Secretaries are at present in the pay scale of
`2000-3000 and `2000-3500 respectively. Giving the
Senior PAs the benefit of rationalization of pay scales,
we recommend that both Sr.PAs and Private Secretaries
should be placed in the pay scale of `2000-3500 and
known as Private Secretaries. Stenographers in the
newly recommended grade of `2500-4000 should be
known as Senior Private Secretaries and those in the pay
scale of `3000-4500 shall continue to be known as
Principal Private Secretaries."
6. In a nutshell, the Tribunal has noted that the work performed by
Stenographers in the Secretariats of the Union of India is qualitatively and
WP(C) 2029/2001 Page 4 of 6
quantitatively different; much heavier workload as compared to the
subordinate offices. The Tribunal has noted that aforesaid has been brought
out by the 5th Pay Commission in its report submitted to the Government
while justifying different scale of pay in which Stenographers have to be
placed in the Secretariat of the various Ministries of the Government of
India and the Stenographers in the subordinate offices of the Government of
India.
7. The Tribunal has noted the decisions of the Supreme Court
reported as AIR 1989 SC 90 State of U.P. v. J.P.Chaurasia, (1994) 27 ATC
524 State of West Bengal v. Hari Narayan Bhowal and 1997 SCC (L&S)
838 Union of India & Anr. v. P.V.Hariharan & Anr., which decisions hold
that opinions of expert bodies like Central Pay Commission, unless shown to
be manifestly wrong, should not be interfered with and that it is not the
nomenclature of a post but the qualitative and quantitative work performed
by the holder of the post which has to be considered on the subject of parity
in the pay-scale.
8. The Tribunal has noted that the Central Pay Commission had
taken note of the fact that the decision of the Central Administrative
Tribunal although contrary to law had been implemented and has
recommended not to place the Stenographers in the subordinate offices at
par with the Stenographers in the Secretariat.
9. We concur with the reasoning of the Central Administrative
Tribunal inasmuch as two wrongs do not make a right. Learned counsel for
the petitioner has not been able to break the back of the reasoning given by
the 5th Central Pay Commission which has been noted with approval by the
Central Administrative Tribunal i.e. Stenographers working in the
Secretariat performing qualitatively and quantitatively onerous duties as
compared to Stenographers in the subordinate offices. If this be so, merely
because the Stenographers working in the Directorate of Field Publicity and
WP(C) 2029/2001 Page 5 of 6
Doordarshan have under a judicial order obtained the benefit of placement in
a higher pay-scale would by itself not be the justification to extend the same
benefit to the writ petitioners.
10. We highlight once again that the 5th Central Pay Commission
has delved into the issue and has noted all the relevant facts. We have
extracted herein above paragraph 46.31 to 46.34 of the report of the 5 th
Central Pay Commission, contents whereof have not been dented.
11. The view we have taken finds support in the decision of this
Court dismissing WP(C) No.102/2001 `Mohinder Singh & Ors. v. UOI &
Ors. where similar question of pay scale of Stenographers was involved.
12. The writ petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(VEENA BIRBAL)
JUDGE
JANUARY 02, 2013//dk//
WP(C) 2029/2001 Page 6 of 6
|
