Anjali Arora vs Union Of India

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s).333 OF 2018

ANJALI ARORA AND OTHERS ….PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ….RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

NAVIN SINHA, J.

The Petitioners seek mandamus under Article 32 of the

Constitution, for grant of pay scale on the basis of parity as granted by

this Court on 21.10.2010 to the appellants in Yogeshwar Prasad &

Ors. vs. National Institute of Educational Planning and

Administration & Ors. (in short, “National Institute”), (2010) 14 SCC

323.

2. It is the contention of the petitioners that they are similarly

situated as the appellants in Yogeshwar Prasad (supra), working in the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2019.02.11 17:38:37 IST Reason:

National Institute and are therefore also entitled to the benefit of

1 Regulation 4(2) of the National Institute Regulations for grant of pay

scale at par with that being given to persons holding similar posts in

the Central Government. The petitioners have been pursuing the

matter with the respondents by filing representations since 2015 and

were assured that their claims were under consideration till it was

finally rejected on 05.02.2018. Even while the respondents contend

that this Court had confined the relief to the appellants only in the

aforesaid appeal, nonetheless they have themselves granted similar

relief to four other persons who were not parties to the appeal, by

order dated 02.11.2012. The petitioners have therefore been

subjected to arbitrary and hostile discrimination.

3. The respondents have denied entitlement to relief on the basis of

parity. It is their contention that the petitioners are not similarly

situated as the appellants in Yogeshwar Prasad(supra) or those

granted relief on the basis of the same.

4. We have considered the submission on behalf of the parties. The

controversy relates to the grant of pay scale of Rs.1640­2900 with

effect from 01.01.1986 pursuant to the 4 th Central Pay Commission

recommendation, and the consequent revisions of that scale. It is not

in dispute that the petitioners are also working in the National

2 Institute alike the appellants in Yogeshwar Prasad (supra). The

petitioners will therefore be equally entitled to the benefit of Regulation

4(2) of the National Institute which reads as follows:

“4(2) Group ‘A’ officers, other than faculty members and those on UGC grades of pay groups ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees shall draw salary and allowances in such scales of pay as may be applicable to the corresponding categories of Central Government employees and be subject to such conditions of service as are or may be applicable to Central Government employees from time to time.”

5. But parity of pay scale can be granted to the petitioners provided

they were similarly situated as the appellants in the Yogeshwar Prasad

(supra). If that be so, they would undoubtedly be entitled to be

considered for grant of similar relief notwithstanding the observations

in Yogeshwar Prasad (supra) confining grant of relief to the appellants

therein, in view of the respondents having granted similar relief to

others situated alike on 02.11.2012.

6. The respondents in their counter affidavits have specifically

contended that the petitioners are not similarly situated as the

appellants in Yogeshwar Prasad (supra). The petitioners were

appointed as Junior Stenographer/Stenographer Grade­II which is a

post lower than that of Senior Stenographer/Stenographer Grade­I

held by the appellants in Yogeshwar Prasad (supra). The posts carry

3 different pay scales and merely acquiring ACP/MACP to the pay scales

of Rs.1400­2600/5000­8000 under the 4 th Central Pay Commission

and the 5th Central Pay Commission does not entitle the petitioners to

grant of similar relief as granted to those holding higher posts.

Therefore, UDCs/Junior Stenographer (Stenographer Grade II) who

acquired identical pay scales as those of Assistants/Senior

Stenographers/Stenographer Grade­I by virtue of ACP/MACP cannot

be considered at par so as to be entitled to parity of pay scales.

7. The pay scale of Rs.1640­2900 for the post of Stenographer ‘C’

(Senior Stenographer/Stenographer/Stenographer Grade­I) was

operationalized in terms of Government of India’s order dated

31.07.1990, during the regime of 5 th Central Pay Commission which

was during the period w.e.f 01.01.1996 till 31.12.2005. Both

Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were not holding the post of Senior

Stenographer Grade­I. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 were promoted as

Stenographer Grade­I only w.e.f. 02.11.2017 and 12.07.2018

respectively. Thus, both Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 became

Stenographer Grade­I, only when the 6th and 7th Pay Commission were

operational and they were already drawing their pay in the pay scale of

Rs.9300­34800 with grade pay of Rs.4200. Petitioner No.3 never

4 got regular promotion during her entire period of service and retired

on 28.02.2016 as Junior Stenographer (Stenographer Grade­II) only

and thus is not eligible to claim the pay scale of Senior Stenographer

(Stenographer ‘C’/Stenographer Grade­I) at all.

8. The petitioners not being similarly situated as the appellants in

Yogeshwar Prasad (supra), we find no merit in the present Writ

Petition. The Writ Petition is dismissed.

…………...................J. [R.F. NARIMAN]

…………...................J. [NAVIN SINHA]

NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 11, 2019

5