Latest Expert Exchange Queries

GST Demo Service software link:
Username: demouser Password: demopass
Get your inventory and invoicing software GST Ready from Binarysoft
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Popular Search: cpt :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: due date for vat payment :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: VAT RATES :: form 3cd :: empanelment :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes :: VAT Audit :: TDS :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4%
From the Courts »
 Order of a Four-Member Appellate Authority constituted under Chartered Accountants Act is Valid: Delhi HC
 Emami Infrastructure Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Kolkata)
  Anand Agarwal vs. Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar (Bombay High Court)
 Bar Council of India vs. A. K. Balaji & Ors (Supreme Court)
 ITO vs. Venkatesh Premises Co-op Society Ltd (Supreme Court)
 Pr CIT vs. Amphenol Interconnect India P. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 Pr CIT vs. Amphenol Interconnect India P. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 Anand Agarwal vs. Vilas Chandrakant Gaokar (Bombay High Court)
 Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central)-I Vs. Smt. Ritu Singal
 Vinod Kumar Gupta Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Circle-17
 How you can gift and still save tax on top of HRA, tuition fee, more Income Tax Returns (ITR) filing top hack

March, 28th 2013

%                                         Date of Decision: January 02, 2013

+                          WP(C) 2029/2001

       & ANR.                                    ..... Petitioners
            Represented by: Dr.M.P.Raju, Advocate.

       UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                      ..... Respondents
           Represented by: Mr.R.V.Sinha, Advocate and Mr.A.S.Singh,



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

           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

                   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)

           c) Stenographers Grades       c) Stenographer Gr.I
           ,,A & ,,B (Merged)            (`1640-2900)
WP(C) 2029/2001                                                  Page 2 of 6

           d)    Principal    Private    d)    Senior      Personal
           Secretary                     Assistant
           (`3000-4500)                  (`2000-3200)

                                         e) Private Secretary

                                         f)   Principal     Private

           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
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)

                                           (VEENA BIRBAL)
JANUARY 02, 2013//dk//

WP(C) 2029/2001                                                Page 6 of 6
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Desktop Application Development Outsourcing Desktop Application Development Offshore Desk

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions