Service Law – Pay Scales – Parity in – Private Secretaries (Grade-II) (“PS-II”) employed in the Eastern Central Railways (Field Office/Zonal Railways) made claim for parity in pay with their counterparts working in the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service (“CSSS”)/Railway Board Secretariat Stenographers Service (“RBSSS”)/Central Administrative Tribunal (“CAT”) – Held: There is no continued history of parity insofar as present case is concerned, i.e., sometimes parity was given and sometimes not – It is not as if the 6 th Pay Commission was unaware of the plea of disparity between the Secretariat and field offices, but despite having taking note of the same some difference was sought to be made between Secretariat and non-Secretariat offices – Yet to some extent, a separate recommendation was made qua Secretariat Organizations and non-Secretariat Organizations – Once these recommendations are separately made, to direct absolute parity would be to make the separate recommendations qua non-Secretariat Organizations otiose – Further, the Courts ought not to interfere if the Commission itself had considered all aspects and after due consideration opined that absolute equality ought not to be given.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The correct perspective has been taken in V.N. Narayanappa & Ors. insofar as which clause of the 6 th CPC recommendations would be applicable. This Court finds that once it comes to the conclusion that the regional offices of the Railways are to be treated as non-Secretariat Organizations, then the specific recommendations in para 3.1.14 of the report of the 6th CPC relating to such non-Secretariat Organizations will apply. The observations made in para 3.1.9 which are qua Secretariat offices giving parity between the Private Secretary/equivalent to a Section Officer cannot be said to be mutatis mutandis applicable even to non-Secretariat Organizations. If this Court were to opine otherwise and equate everybody there would have been no purpose in the 6th CPC making separate recommendations for non-Secretariat Organizations in their wisdom. It is not as if the Commission was unaware of the plea of disparity between the Secretariat and field offices as that was dealt with in paras 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 but despite having taken note of the same some difference was sought to be made between Secretariat and nonSecretariat offices. [Para 14][1173-E-H]
2. The Pay Commission is a specialized body set up with the objective of resolving anomalies. It is relevant to note that the anomaly in question was referred to the Pay Commission at the request of candidates similarly situated to the respondents and thus, the 6th CPC was aware of the claim for parity and the requirement of making a recommendation in that regard. In its wisdom while giving better scales it has still sought to maintain a separate recommendation for non-Secretariat Organizations. [Para 15][1174-A-B]
3. There is also a plea by the respondents that the recruitment process for the two cadres was common and persons used to be transferred from one to the other. Some illustrations have been given of this. In fact, the plea of the respondents is that there have been times when a common competitive exam was conducted and sometimes the exams were conducted separately. In this regard, it has been explained by the Additional Solicitor General on behalf of the appellants that the cadres are separate and the rules governing them are also separate. The Stenographers under the Railway Board are governed by the RBSS Rules, 1971, the Central Secretariat Stenographers are governed by the CSS Rules, 1969 and the CSSS Rules, 2010 and the Stenographers in the Central Administrative Tribunal are governed by the CATSS Rules, 2013. These are the posts with which the respondents sought parity. On the other hand, the respondents working in the Zonal Railways were governed by Rule 107 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. The avenue and channel of promotion of stenographers in the Railway Board and the Zonal Railways, it has been stated, are entirely different. [Para 16][1174-C-F]
4. The appellants did accept that there were some cases of transfer, but those were persons who were brought to the Railway Board for exigency of work – it was not as if they were absorbed in the Railway Board. There were also cases where transfers took place from the Railway Board to the Zonal Railway offices, but that was on the specific request of such officers and considered on a case-to-case basis and they had to take then seniority at the bottom of the list. [Para 17][1174-F-G]
5. Para 3.1.3 which dealt with the disparity between the Secretariat and field offices has canvassed a case for parity between similarly placed persons employed in field offices and the Secretariat; in view of the field offices being at the cutting edge of administration. However, it came to the conclusion that parity would need to be absolute till the grade of Assistant. It was clearly stipulated that beyond that “it may not be possible or even justified to grant complete parity because the hierarchy and career progression will need to be different taking in view the functional considerations and relativities across the board.” If this principle is observed, the benefit cannot accrue to the respondents and we cannot accept the plea that as a result of parity being given up to the level of Assistant (which would put them in the grade of Rs.4200 (later Rs.4600)), the respondents, being one post higher, would automatically have to get one higher grade. [Para 18][1174-G-H; 1175-A-B]
19. This Court is fortified in the view we are seeking to adopt in interpreting the paragraphs of the report of the Pay Commission by the observations in Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das, where it was opined that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied merely on basis of designation. While dealing with the 5 th Pay Commission recommendations with respect to functional requirements, it was held that there was no question of any equivalence on that basis. The said case dealt with Stenographers of the Geological Survey of India. While observing that as a general statement it was correct to state that the basic nature of work of a Stenographer remained by and large the same whether they were working for an officer in the Secretariat or for an officer in a subordinate office; it was held that Courts ought not to interfere if the Commission itself had considered all aspects and after due consideration opined that absolute equality ought not to be given. [Para 19][1175-C-E]
20. In the end this Court would like to reiterate that the aspect of disparity between the Secretariat and the field offices was a matter taken note of by the Commission itself while making the recommendations. Yet to some extent, a separate recommendation was made qua Secretariat Organizations and nonSecretariat Organizations. Once these recommendations are separately made, to direct absolute parity would be to make the separate recommendations qua non-Secretariat Organizations otiose. If one may say, there would have been no requirement to make these separate recommendations if everyone was to be treated on parity on every aspect. [Para 20][1175-E-G] V. N. Narayanappa & Ors. v. The Secretary, Railway Board Etc. (CAT, Bangalore in Original Application Nos.640-649 and 1001-1030 of 2014 decided on
13.04.2016); S. R. Dheer & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (CAT at Delhi in case OA No.164/2009 decided on 19.02.2009); Rabindra Nath Basu & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (Bangalore Bench, CAT in OA
No.2102/2010 decided on 16.05.2011); Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das (2003) 11 SCC 658 : [2003] 4 Suppl. SCR 339 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.