http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: GOPIKA RANJAN CHOUDHARY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT25/10/1989

BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. BENCH: SAWANT, P.B. MISRA RANGNATH RAMASWAMY, K.

CITATION:  1990 AIR 1212            1989 SCR  Supl. (1) 727  1989 SCC  Supl.  (2) 616 JT 1989 (4)   173  1989 SCALE  (2)898

ACT:     Assam Rifles Act, 1920: Assam Rifles  Force--Ministerial Staff-Higher  pay  scale for staff at  headquarters  against their counterparts in Units/Battalions--Whether  discrimina- tory.

HEADNOTE:     Consequent  to  the re-structuring of the  Assam  Rifles Force  in 1962 a separate Unit known as Central  Record  and Pay  Accounts  Office (C.R. and P.A.O.) was created  at  the Headquarters of the force. Pursuant to the recommendation of the Third Central Pay Commission the staff at the  Headquar- ters were given higher pay scales than those attached to the Battalions/Units.     The  Petitioners sought parity in emoluments with  their counterparts  working at the Headquarters by filing a  peti- tion  before the Central Administrative Tribunal  contending that; (i) the C.R. and P.A.O. Unit situated at the Headquar- ters  was not a part of the Headquarters  establishment  but was a separate Unit; and (ii) there is no difference  either in  the  nature of work and duties of the two  or  in  their qualifications  and  that the services of the staff  at  the Units/Battalions are transferrable to the Headquarters.  The Tribunal  rejected the claim of the petitioner holding  that the  C.R. and P.A.O. is a different unit and not a  part  of the  establishment  of the Headquarters and  its  staff  are enjoying the scale of pay allowed to the staff of the  Head- quarters since its inception. Hence this appeal. Allowing the appeal, this Court,     HELD:  1. There is a contradiction between  the  finding recorded  by  the Tribunal that the C.R. and P.A.O.  at  the Headquarters  is quite a "distinct" establishment  from  the range Headquarters/Battalions, and the justification made by it of the higher emoluments of the staff at the Headquarters on the ground that they are enjoying the same as allowed  to the  other  staff of the Headquarters since  its  inception. [731C-D] 1.1. If the C.R. and P.A.O. at the Headquarters is a differ- ent 728

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

unit  and  not a part of the Headquarters,  then  the  staff attached  to the office at the Headquarters is not  entitled to  emoluments higher than those drawn by the staff  of  the Units/Battalions. [731D]     2.   The payment of higher emoluments to the said  staff merely on the ground that the establishment is at the  place where  the  Headquarters is situated, is  discriminatory  as against  the staff at the Units/ Battalions since it  is  no way different from the other Units. [731E]     [Matter remanded to the Tribunal for recording a finding on (i) whether the qualifications for appointment at the two establishments viz. C.R. and P.A.O. at the Headquarters  and the  Units  are different, (ii) whether the  nature  of  the duties and responsibilities of the Ministerial staff at  the Headquarters is of a higher order than that of those at  the Units/Battalions,  and (iii) whether transfer of  the  staff from  the  Units/ Battalions to the  Headquarters  was  done arbitrarily and without applying any test.  [732B-C]

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Civil Appeal No. 3288  of 1988.     From  the  Judgment and Order dated 11.8.  1986  of  the Central  Administrative  Tribunal  at Gauhati  in  G.C.  No. 102/86 (C.R. No. 905 of 1983).     Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, K. Madhav Reddy, Mrs. Kitty  Kuma- ramangalam,  Kailash  Vasdev  and Ms.  Vijayalaxmi  for  the Appellant.     B.  Dutta,  Additional Solicitor  General  (N.P.),  V.C. Mahajan,  P.P. Singh and Ms. Sushma Suri, for  the  Respond- ents, The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     SAWANT,  J.  This appeal is directed against  the  order dated August 11, 1986, passed by the Central  Administrative Tribunal,  Gauhati Bench rejecting the claim for  parity  in emoluments between the  Upper Division Assistants and  Lower Division  Assistants  (hereinafter referred to as  UDAs  and LDAs) in the branch establishments on the one hand and their counterparts working at the Headquarters on the other.     2.  The  admitted  facts are that the  Assam  Rifles,  a para-military  force  was created by the  then  Assam  Govt. under the Assam Rifles 729 Act,  1920,  for its protection. It was taken  over  by  the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs under  its direct control in October 1947. It appears further that  the Government  of India appointed, an Inspector General as  the Head  for conducting mainly the administrative work  of  the Force.  The Force which was controlled by the North  Eastern Frontier  Agency  (NEFA) had 25  Battalions/Units  and  each Battalion  consisting  of about 1400  personnel  which  also included  some  civilians. In 1962, on account of  the  then exigencies, the Force underwent re-structuring of its organ- isation  as a result of which a separate Unit known as  Cen- tral  Record and Pay Accounts Office (C.R. and  P.A.O.)  was created at the Headquarters. Each Battalion/Unit had to send its  detailed  note on the pay and service  record  to  this office.     3.  The Third Central Pay Commission (1973)  recommended unified  pay scales to the combatant staff of the  Force  on parity with the Army staff. However, as regards the ministe- rial staff of the Force (such as the UDAs and LDAs with whom we are concerned in the present case), the Commission recom-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

mended  two different scales of pay, one for those  attached to the Head Quarters and the other to the  Battalions/Units, and the same came into force by an order of the Ministry  of Home  Affairs  issued in March 1975. The pay scales  of  the staff  at  the Headquarters were higher than  those  of  the staff attached to the Battalions/Units.     4.  The appellant in his capacity as the General  Secre- tary  of the Union of Assam Rifles, Non-Gazetted  Employees, North  East Region made representation against this  on  the allegation  of  discrimination.  The only  response  of  the Headquarters  to  this  representation was a  reply  that  a unified  cadre for all ministerial employees had  been  pro- posed  to  the Ministry of Home Affairs for better  pay  and promotions. The appellant, therefore, filed a writ  petition before  the Assam High Court which was later transferred  to the Central Administrative Tribunal.     5.  The  case of the appellant before the  Tribunal  was that there was no difference in the nature of the work,  the duties and responsibilities of the UDAs and LDAs working  in the  Battalions/Units and of those working at the  Headquar- ters.  There  was also no difference in  the  qualifications required  for  appointment in the  two  establishments.  The service  of the staff from the Battalions/Units were  trans- ferrable to the Headquarters, and in fact some UDAs and LDAs were transferred from Battalions/Units to the  Headquarters. What was more noteworthy was that many who were  transferred from the 730 Units/Battalions  to  the Headquarters were  so  transferred without  either applying the criterion of seniority or  sub- jecting  the staff to any selection process. The result  was that those who were juniors and less experienced and/or less qualified  were transferred to the Headquarters  arbitrarily and  had  been  receiving higher emoluments  than  the  more deserving ones either on account of their seniority,  quali- fications or merit. It was also the contention of the appel- lant that the Central Record and Pay Accounts Office situat- ed  at the Headquarters was not a part of the  Headquarters- establishment  but  was a separate Unit  having  merely  its office  at the place where the Headquarters  were  situated. Hence  even the practice of paying higher emoluments to  the staff  of  the  Headquarters could not  be  invoked  in  the present case.     6. The contention of the respondent namely, the Union of India,  was that the Central Record and Pay Accounts  Office was  a part of the Headquarters establishment and hence  the higher  emoluments  paid to the staff  at  the  Headquarters compared to their counter-part in the Units/Battalions  were justified. It was also their contention that for appointment to  the  post  of UDAs and LDAs at the C.R.  and  P.A.O.,  a higher qualification was required, and their duties and  the responsibilities  were different and of a higher order  than those of their counter-part at the Units/Battalions. It  was further  submitted on their behalf that there was  no  arbi- trary  transfer of the UDAs and LDAs from the  Units/Battal- ions  to the Headquarters, and they were transferred on  the basis of merits.     7. It appears from the Judgment of the Tribunal,  howev- er,  that  the Tribunal considered only the question  as  to whether  the  Central Record and Pay Accounts Office  was  a part  of the establishment of the Headquarters or was  inde- pendent  of  it, and contrary to the contention of  the  re- spondent--Union of India, came to the conclusion that is was independent  of the establishment of the Force at the  Head- quarters.  Having thus come to the conclusion, the  Tribunal

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

proceeded to hold that the Central Records Officer and  Unit Pay  & Accounts Officer (hereinafter referred to as CRO  and UPAO)  at the Headquarters "being entrusted with the  duties of  higher  responsibility and of  controlling  nature"  the grant  of the higher scale of pay to the  ministerial  staff thereof  was justified. The Tribunal further  observed  that "as  a matter of fact these staff are enjoying the scale  of pay allowed to staff of the Headquarters since its inception in 1962". The Tribunal gave this additional reason to justi- fy higher emoluments paid to the UDAs and LDAs at the  Head- quarters. 731     8. It is obvious from the decision of the Tribunal  that in  the  first  instance the Tribunal did not  go  into  the question as to whether the staff appointed at the  Headquar- ters  required higher qualifications. Secondly, it  did  not consider  the grievance of the appellant whether  the  staff was  transferred from the Units/Battalions to the  Headquar- ters arbitrarily and without either considering their  sein- ority  or subjecting them to a selection  process.  Thirdly, the Tribunal has nowhere discussed as to in what respect the duties and responsibilities of the staff at the Headquarters are  different and higher in nature than those of the  staff at  the Units/Battalions. There is only a statement made  in that behalf in paragraph 17 of the judgment without  assign- ing  any reason for it. What is further, there is a  contra- diction  between the finding recorded by the  Tribunal  that the  CRO  and UPAO at the Headquarters is  quite  "distinct" establishment  from the range  Headquarters/Battalions,  and the justification made by it of the higher emoluments of the staff at the Headquarters on the ground that they are enjoy- ing the same as allowed to the other staff of the  Headquar- ters  since  its inception in 1962. The  Tribunal  has  thus obviously  missed  the  substance of the  grievance  of  the appellant namely, that if as is alleged by the appellant and contrary  to the contention of the Union of India,  the  CRO and  UPAO at the Headquarters is a different unit and not  a part  of  the Headquarters, then the staff attached  to  the office  at  the Headquarters is not entitled  to  emoluments higher  than those drawn by the staff of  the  Units/Battal- ions.  The  payment of higher emoluments to the  said  staff merely on the ground that the establishment is at the  place where  the  Headquarters is situate,  is  discriminatory  as against the staff at the Units/Battalions since it is in  no way  different from the other Units. This is apart from  the grievance  of  the  appellant that there  is  no  difference either  in  the nature of work and duties of the two  or  in their  qualifications and that the services of the staff  at the Units/Battalions are transferrable to the Headquarters.     9.  There is, however, some substance in the  submission advanced  by  the learned counsel for the  respondents  that before the Tribunal no sufficient material was placed by the appellant to show, firstly; that the nature of work, and the duties and the responsibilities of the two were the same and the qualifications for appointment at the two establishments were  also  similar. It was also not shown to  the  Tribunal that those who were transferred from the Units/Battalions to the Headquarters were transferred arbitrarily without either taking into consideration their seniority or subjecting them to  the process of selection. The Tribunal will have  there- fore,  to  apply its mind to these aspects  and  record  its finding as to whether although the CRO and 732 UPAO is not a part of the establishment of the Headquarters, the  higher emoluments would be justified on account of  the

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

said other factors.     10.  While therefore, the finding given by the  Tribunal that CR and PAO at the Headquarters is a different unit  and not  a part of the establishment of the Headquarters is  not disturbed  by us, we remand the matter to the  Tribunal  for recording  a finding on (i) whether the  qualifications  for appointment  at the two establishments viz; CRO and UPAO  at the Headquarters and at the Units are different, (ii) wheth- er the nature of the duties and responsibilities of the UDAs and LDAs at the Headquarters is of a higher order than  that of  those  at the Units/ Battalions and  (iii)  whether  the transfer  of  the staff from the Units/  Battalions  to  the Headquarters  was done arbitrarily and without applying  any test.  The Tribunal will give a proper opportunity  to  both the  sides to place the relevant material on  the  aforesaid points  before  it and give its findings  on  the  aforesaid aspects  and  will also decide whether on that  account  the difference in the emoluments of the two is justified.     11.  The appeal is allowed accordingly. The Tribunal  is directed  to dispose of the matter according to law  in  the light of what is stated hereinabove. The parties to bear their own costs. T.N.A                                                 Appeal allowed. 733