http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: S.K. SAREEN

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/10/1997

BENCH: K. VENKATASWAMI, V.N. KHARE

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T K. Venkataswami J.      This appeal  is preferred  against  the  order  of  the Principal   Bench   of   Central   Administrative   Tribunal (hereinafter referred  to as  the ’Tribunal"),  New Delhi in O.A. No. 777/92 dated 7.8.192.      The respondent  preferred the  said O.A.  praying for a direction to  the appellants  to grant him (applicant before the Tribunal) the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500/- from 1.1.1986 to which  he s  entitled to in terms of the rules as well as on the  principles of "equal pay for equal work".  The claim of the  respondent was  that he  being attached  to the Vice Chairman of the Tribunal as Private Secretary is entitled to the same scale of Day as drawn by the Private Secretaries to Ministers and  Judges of  the High Court.  This claim of the respondent was resisted by the appellants by filing reply to the affidavit filed by the respondent before the Tribunal.      The  Tribunal   on  the  basis  of  the  pleadings  and arguments advanced  by counsel  on both  sides  granted  the relief in the following terms:-      "Pending the  making of appropriate      provisions in  this regard  in  the      rules, particularly  those relating      to   the   selection   of   Private      Secretaries in  the higher scale of      pay of  Rs. 3000-4500,  it would be      reasonable  to  grant  to  such  of      those Private  Secretaries  to  the      Chairman/Vice   Chairmen   of   the      C.A.T.  who   have  rendered  eight      years  of  service  in  the  feeder      grade of  Rs. 2000-3500,  including      the service rendered by them in the      C.S.S.S.    or     their     parent      departments in a similar grade, the      soale of  pay of  Rs. 3000-4500  on      adhoc  basis.     Accordingly,   we      direct that  the respondents  shall      give the  benefit of upgradation on      an ad  hoc basis  to the  applicant

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

    from  the  date  he  completes  the      period of  eight years’  service in      the feeder  grade of Rs. 2000-3500,      including the  service rendered  by      him in  the C.S.S. Grade ’A’ & ’B’.      The pay  of the  applicant shall be      refixed accordingly and the arrears      paid to him."      It will  be seen  from the above, the respondent in his individual  capacity   prayed  for  the  issue  of  writ  of mandamus, the Tribunal granted the relief which would amount to  re-writing  the  rules  governing  the  service  of  the personnel in  the Tribunal.  In the view, we propose to take it is unnecessary to deal with the matter elaborately.      The crucial  factor in  matters of this nature revolves around  mainly   to  mode   of  recruitment,  qualification, responsibilities  attached   to  the   office,   promotional opportunities and  like  of  that.    On  this  aspect,  the respondent (applicant before Tribunal) has not brought forth materials in  his affidavit  before the  Tribunal.   On  the other hand,  the appellants  in their reply have elaborately stated as follows:-      "4. It  is submitted  that there is      no functional  parity  between  the      Private Secretaries  in the Central      Administrative Tribunal  and  those      attached to  the Secretaries in the      Ministries/departments of the Govt.      of India  and judges of High Courts      as briefly explained below:-      i) The conditions of service of the      employees of Central Administrative      Tribunal  are   entirely  different      from  those   of  the   Secretariat      employees are  formed of  organized      cadres and  the Private Secretaries      come within the Central Secretariat      Stenographers Service (CSSS) cadre.      Similarly,  the  employee  of  High      Courts are  governed  by  different      set of rules separate for each High      Court.   For  instance,  the  Delhi      High Court  employees are  governed      by    the    Delhi    High    Court      Establishment Rules,  1972.  On the      other  hand,   the   employees   of      Central Administrative Tribunal are      governed     by     the     Central      Administrative   Tribunal    (Staff      Conditions of  service) Rules, 1985      notified by  the Central  Govt.  in      exercise of the powers conferred by      clause (b)  of Section  36  of  the      Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.      Under Rule  3 thereof,  the  nature      and categories  of the officers and      other employees of the Tribunal and      the scale  of pay  attached thereto      have to  be  as  specified  in  the      Schedule thereto.   In the Schedule      referred to,  the post  of  Private      Secretary has  been  shown  as  Rs.      200-3500.   Rule 4  of these  Rules      lays down  that the  conditions  of      service of  the officers  and other

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

    employees  of   the  Tribunal,   in      matters of pay, allowances, pension      and  retirement  benefits,  medical      benefits and  other  conditions  of      service,  shall   be  regulated  in      accordance  with   such  rules  and      regulations as  are  for  the  time      being applicable  to  officers  and      employee  belonging   to  Group  A,      Group B, Group C and Group D of the      Central Government  as the case may      be, of  the corresponding scales of      the Pay  stationed at those places.      The applicants  have not challenged      the  validity   of   these   rules.      Therefore, there  is no question of      parity       between        Central      Administrative  Tribunal   and  the      Central  Secretariat   Service  and      High Courts.      (ii)  The   employees  of   Central      Administrative Tribunal  are within      the purview  of the  Administrative      Tribunals Act,  1985,  whereas  the      employees   of   High   Court   are      excluded  from   the   purview   of      Central   Administrative   Tribunal      under  Section   2   (c)   of   the      Administrative Tribunals  Act 1985.      This shows  that the  employees  of      High Courts  stand on  an  entirely      different footing from those coming      within the  purview of  the Central      administrative Tribunal.      (iii)   High   Courts   have   wide      jurisdiction      whereas       the      jurisdiction       of       Central      Administrative Tribunal  is limited      to   adjudicating    the    service      conditions and the matters relating      to  Central   Government  employees      only.   High Courts are required to      follow  Civil  Procedure  Code  and      Criminal  Procedure   code  whereas      Central administrative Tribunal has      to  follow   its   own   rules   of      procedure   which    are   entirely      different  and   much   lesser   in      magnitude than  those  followed  by      the High  Courts.   Thus no  parity      can  be   sought  between   Central      Administrative  Tribunal   and  the      High Courts.   In M.B. Majmudar vs.      UOI (  1191 (14) ATC (SC) 904), the      Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the      assumption  that  the  Tribunal  is      equated  with  High  Court  in  all      resects is fallacious.      (iv)  The  Private  Secretaries  to      secretaries                      in      Ministries/Departments    of    the      Government of  India  have  complex      duties as  compared to  the Private      Secretaries  to  the  Chairman/Vice      Chairman     in     the     Central

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

    Administrative Tribunal.    In  the      Minsteries/Departments, the Private      Secretaries during office hours and      before and  after office  hours  as      also on  holidays.   On  the  other      hand,  the   Vice  Chairman/Members      have to  discharge  quasi  judicial      functions in  Court for  most parts      of the  day and,  therefore,  their      Private Secretaries  do not have as      hectic a schedule or as demanding a      job as  the Private  Secretaries to      secretaries in  the  Government  of      India.      (v) The  eligibility conditions for      appointment as Private Secretary in      Central Administrative Tribunal are      far too lower than those prescribed      for Private  Secretaries  (CSS)  to      Secretary  to   the  Government  of      India.      (vi) The  parity in  pay scales  is      being claimed not with one category      but both  with High  Courts as well      as  Secretariat  offices,  who  are      governed by  two different  sets of      rules and  are not  under the  same      employer.    The  post  of  Private      Secretary in Central Administrative      Tribunal      is      also      not      interchangeable  either   with  the      High Court  or Secretariat  Private      Secretaries."      The  Tribunal   while  dealing  with  this  aspect  has observed as follows:-      "The  respondents  have  sought  to      justify the  grant  of  higher  pay      scales to  the Private  Secretaries      attached to  the Secretaries to the      Government of  India and equivalent      posts on  the ground that they have      more     onerous     duties     and      responsibilities compared, to those      working in the C.A.T.  According to      them, the  Private  Secretaries  to      the     Secretaries      in     the      Ministries/Departments    of    the      Government of  India have to remain      at the beck and call of Secretaries      during office hours and even before      and after  office hours  as also on      holidays.  Be that as it may, there      is no  material  to  support  their      contention   that    the    Private      Secretaries to the Vice Chairman in      the C.A.T.  have to  discharge much      less functions  in terms of quality      and quantity.   In our opinion, the      duties and  responsibilities of the      posts of  Private Secretary  to the      Vice  Chairmen  are  comparable  to      those of  his counterparts  in  the      Central Government and in the Delhi      High Court.  They have to remain at      the  beck  and  call  of  the  vice

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

    Chairmen  and   to  remain  in  the      office  beyond   office  hours  and      attend to  dictation work  at their      residence even on holidays.  In the      Central   Secretariat   patter   of      working, the  Secretary is assisted      by a  large number  of  subordinate      officers  from  Section  Office  to      Additional Secretary.  The Chairman      and   Vice    Chairmen   are   also      entrusted with administrative work,      in addition to their judicial work.      They  have   to  manage   with  the      assistance rendered  by the Private      Secretary and  the Curt  Officer in      the proper  and efficient discharge      of functions which makes the job of      Private Secretaries  quite  arduous      and onerous.   Thus,  their  duties      also   involve    high   integrity,      confidentiality and  efficiency  as      in  the   case   of   the   Private      Secretaries to  the Secretaries  to      the Government of India."      We are  unable to  accept the  view  expressed  by  the Tribunal  throwing   the  burden   on  the   respondent   to substantiate the  point.   On  the  other,  it  is  for  the petitioner to  substantiate the  point by  giving materials. In the  State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. vs. Pramod Bhartiya & Ors. 91993 (1) SCC 539), this Court held as follows:-      "It must  be remembered  that since      the plea  of equal  pay  for  equal      work  has   to  be   examined  with      reference to Article 14, the burden      is   upon    the   petitioners   to      establish that right to pay, or the      plea of  discrimination as the case      may be."      Further  in   the  absence   of  any  pleading  by  the respondent in  his affidavit, the Tribunal has given certain facts regarding  the duties  of Private Secretaries attached to the  Chairman and  Vice Chairmen  of the  Tribunal.    We consider  that   it  would  have  been  appropriate  if  the respondent has  given such materials by filing affidavit and other documents.   In another place, the Tribunal has stated that "There  is no reason or explanation why the respondents did not undertake a review of the recruitment rules relating to the  Private Secretaries  of the  C.A.T. as they are also attached to  Chairman and  Vice Chairman, who are having pay scales equivalent  to that  of Cabinet  Secretary (or  Chief Justice of High Court) and Secretaries to Central Government (or Judges of High Court) and make appropriate provisions in the rules  with a  view to  remove the  existing  anomalies. "Here also one way of disposal of the matter would have been to direct the appropriate authority to take up the review of the recruitment  rules and  instead the  Tribunal  undertook that  task   and  gave  directions  which  would  amount  to amendment of rules.      Further we  are of  the view  that the Tribunal has not considered all  the aspects  brought to  its notice  by  the appellants in  the counter  affidavit.  Still further in the light of  the order  passed by the Tribunal.  The appellants have brought  to the  notice of  this Court  in SLP  certain facts about  the service of the respondent.  It is stated in paragraph III (v) as follows:-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

    "III  (v).  At  this  stage  it  is      necessary to  point  out  that  the      Respondent herein  was holding  the      post of  Grade ’B’  Stenographer in      the  Department  of  Personnel  and      Training on  an ad  hoc basis  from      12.8.1981 and  was selected for the      post of  Private Secretary  in  the      Central Administrative  Tribunal on      deputation   with    effect    from      1.11.1985.   He was  absorbed there      on  1.11.1989.     In  the  Central      Secretariat rules  for promotion to      the  grade   of  Principal  Private      Secretary were  framed on 16.6.1989      and were  given retrospective eject      from   1.3.1989.       The   actual      promotions were  made  with  effect      from 11.5.1989.    In  the  Central      Secretariat last  general  category      candidate  promoted   as  Principal      Private Secretary  belongs  to  the      19/8 Select  List of  Grade ’B’ and      the Respondent  would have been too      junior  to  be  considered  had  he      continued    in     the     Central      Secretariat Stenographers  Service.      Since the  Respondent was  absorbed      with effect  from  1.11.1989  only,      there  is   no  justification   for      allowing him the scale of Rs. 3000-      4500 with  effect  from  7.10.1987.      Moreover only  the approved service      rendered in  the grade  would count      for  purposes  of  eligibility  for      promotion.   Therefore, in the case      of the  Respondent only the regular      service rendered  by him  in  Grade      ’B’ and  Grade ’A’  of the  Central      Secretariat Service  or the Service      rendered     in     the     Central      Administrative  Tribunal   can   be      counted."      Here again there is no denial by the respondent.      This aspect also required consideration      In view of what is stated above, we set aside the order of the  Tribunal under appeal and remit the matter for fresh in accordance with law.  No costs.