Sh. Kaushik Paik and Ors v. Union of India and Ors

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J (JUDGE)

NAJMI WAZIRI, J (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 6, 2013 RN

WP(C) No.116 /2013 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Decided on: September 6, 2013 + WP(C) NO. 116/2013 SH. KAUSHIK PAIK AND ORS. ..... Petitioners Through Ms.Jyoti Singh, Sr.Adv. with Ms.Tinu Bajwa and Ms.Sahilla Lamba, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through Mr.C.K.Sharma, Adv. for R-1 to 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI % MR. JUSTICE S.RAVINDRA BHAT(Oral) 1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners had approached the Tribunal for a direction to grant them grade pay of Rs.4800 (PB-2) and Rs.5400/- (PB-3) upon completion of four years as per the provisions of part-B Section II, serial No.1(1) of CCS (RP) Rules, 2008 w.e.f. 1st January, 2006. The petitioners are working in Indian Coast Guard Organization which was established in the year 1977 by virtue of a decision of the Central Government. The said organisation was to have its own regular composite cadre of civilians for the headquarters and lower formations of employees. Till this end was achieved, the Government was to induct suitable persons WP(C) No.116 /2013 Page 2 on deputation from other Central Government Cadres. The Coast Guard used to resort to direct recruitment in the post of LDC, Assistant and Stenographers, Grade-D. 3. The petitioners have relied upon the hierarchy of posts and a pay structure that existed from time to time in view of recommendations of 3rd, 4th and 5th Pay Commissions. This has been disclosed in the form of tables sharing parity. The same is extracted below for convenience :- Promotion & Feeder Grade in CGO Equivalent Promotion & Feeder Grade in CSS Equivalent Promotion & Feeder Grade in AFHQ SCSO ↑ CSO ↑ SO ↑ Assistant ↑ UDC ↑ LDC DS ↑ US ↑ SO ↑ Assistant ↑ UDC ↑ LDC JD ↑ DD ↑ SO ↑ Assistant ↑ UDC ↑ LDC 4. The grievance by the petitioners in the proceedings before CAT was that the parity which existed between a Section Officer in the Coast Guard of the two different groups, i.e. PB-2 and PB-3 with other similarly placed WP(C) No.116 /2013 Page 3 officials in the Central Secretariat Services and Armed Forces Headquarters, was sought to be denied by the respondents. It was argued before the CAT that this denial of parity was arbitrary and not based on any rationale. In support of their submissions, the petitioners relied upon the Recruitment Rules and the staffing pattern in the Coast Guard as compared with the other organisations which contain a similar hierarchy of civilian posts. 5. The Tribunal heard the matter. Since the respondents resisted the petitioner's claim, it relied upon its previous ruling in OA no.143/2004 decided by the Lucknow Bench on 10.10.2011. The following extracts of the Tribunal's order are reproduced below:- "5. Respondents have also relied upon the order dated 10.10.2011 in OA no.143/2004 decided by the Lucknow Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which held as follows:- "Parity cannot be claimed merely on the basis that earlier the subject post and the reference category posts were carrying the same scale of pay. The Pay Commission has two functions: to revise the existing pay scale, by recommending revised pay scales corresponding to the pre- revised pay scales and, secondly, make recommendations for upgrading or downgrading posts resulting in higher pay scales or lower pay scales, depending upon the nature of duties and functions attached to those posts. Thus one of the functions of the pay than what was earlier being enjoyed with reference to their duties and responsibilities, and extend such higher scale to those categories of posts. One post which is considered as having a lesser pay scale may WP(C) No.116 /2013 Page 4 be assigned a higher pay scale and another post which is considered as having a lesser pay scale may be assigned a higher pay scale and another post which is considered to have a proper pay scale may merely be assigned the corresponding revised pay scale but not any higher pay sca