Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors v. Krishan Murari & Ors

SANJIV KHANNA, J JANUARY 25, 2011 dk

* THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 25th January, 2011 + WP(C) No.6395/2002 GOVT. OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI & ANR. .... PETITIONERS Through: Mrs.Avnish Ahalawat, Advocate versus SHRI KRISHAN MURARI & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS Through: Mr.Sachin Dutta and Mr.Abhimanyu Kumar, Advocates for Respondent Nos.5 and 6. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No DIPAK MISRA, CJ Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner, namely Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi and another have called in question the legal propriety of the order dated 1.4.2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short "the tribunal") in O.A.No.114 of 2001. 2. Be it noted, initially the writ petition was dismissed by order dated 3.11.2003 and the same was challenged in Civil Appeal No.287/2005 which has been allowed vide order dated 25.3.2010 by the Apex Court and the matter has been remitted for fresh adjudication. 3. The facts which are essential to be stated for adjudication of this writ petition are that the private respondents approached the tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for appropriate direction for grant of higher pay-scale which was being paid to their counterparts in National Civil Defence College, Nagpur. It was contended before the tribunal that they are working as Demonstrators in Central Training Institute under Directorate of Home Guards in the pay scale of Rs.750-940 (pre-revised) while their counterparts in the National Civil Defence College, Nagpur and in Haryana State who are at par with them and are performing the same duties as themselves are in the higher pay scale of Rs.1200-2040 (pre-revised). Thus, in essence, they claimed parity on the foundation of equal pay for equal work. 4. The said stand of the private respondents was combated by the present writ petitioners contending, inter alia, there is no parallel in the recruitment rules of Demonstrators working in the Directorate of Home Guards and those working in NCDC, Nagpur and, hence, the upgradation in pay scales is impermissible. 5. The tribunal in paragraphs 5 and 6 has expressed the view as follows: "5. Neither side have furnished cogent materials to establish whether or not the duties, responsibilities, recruitment rules, eligibility qualifications etc. justify parity of pay scales between Demonstrators working in CTI under Directorate of Home Guards to which category applications belong and the Demonstrators working in NCDC, Nagpur. However, we notice that Home Ministry in its letter dated 27.12.90 (Ann. A-6) addressed to GNCT of Delhi have equated Demonstrators with Haveldars and have called upon GNCT of Delhi to revise the pay scale of the post of Demonstrators at CTI of Home Guards and Civil Defence keeping in view the pay scale of the post of Haveldars in Home Guards and Civil Defence Organisation of Delhi. 6. We are informed that even this has not been done. Respondents in their reply state that this has not been implemented because there is no sanctioned post of Haveldars in the Directorate of Home Gaurds." 6. From the aforesaid reasonings ascribed by the tribunal, it is quite clear that the tribunal did not advert to the issue of duties, responsibilities, recruitment rules, eligibility qualifications, etc. and any kind of justification of parity of pay scale. Emphasis was laid by the tribunal on the letter dated 27.12.1990 and on that basis and taking note of the fact that the Union of India had not filed any separate reply a direction was issued to the present writ petitioners to implement the said letter and grant consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances. 7. It is contended by Mrs. Avn