http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: SHRI NAIN SINGH BHAKUNI & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       08/01/1998

BENCH: S.B. MAJMUDAR, S. SAGHIR AHMAD, M. JAGANNADHA RAO

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J  U D G M E N T S.B. Majmudar. J.      This appeal by grant of special leave under Article 136 of the  constitution of  India has  brought in challenge the judgment and  order rendered  by the  Central Administrative Tribunal. Principal  Bench at  New Delhi  in O.A.  No. 1  of 1989. filed  by  the  429  original  applicants  before  the Tribunal insofar  as the  Tribunal as  not granted them full relief as  prayed for  therein. In  order to  appreciate the grievance of these appellants it will be necessary to note a few introductory facts. Background facts      The appellants  are working as draftsmen in the Central water commission  (CWC for short). It is not in dispute that the sad  commission is  functioning under  the  Ministry  of water resources  Government of  India.  According  to  these appellants the Third pay commission appointed by the Central Government has  observed that  the pay scales allowed to the Draftsmen were  rather low  and  the  were  required  to  be upgraded as  per the recommendations of the said commission. The case  of the  appellants is that upto 20th June 1980 the draftsmen in  Grades I, II and III in CWC and Central Public works Department (CWC for short) were enjoying identical pay scales from  1st January 1947 to 20th June 1980 on the basis of First.  Second and Third pa commission’s recommendations. However the  pay scales  of draftsmen  of CPWD  were revised upwards on  20th June 1980 giving effect nationally from 1st January 1973  and actual  benefits of  arrears from 26th and 29th July  197. The  appellants contend  that the were doing similar type of work as draftsmen in CPWD and they were also entitled to  the similar  treatment and  revised pay scales, notional and  actual, on  the same lines as those granted to their counterpart  draftsmen in  CPWD. They  made number  of representations the respondent authorities. But they were of no avail.  The recruitment  rules of appellants were revised somewhere in  1982. The respondent authorities constituted a sub-committee for  the purpose  of Cadre Review of Draftsman cadre in  CWC. According to the appellants the sub-committee recommended that  the  anomaly  created  regarding  the  pay scales of  Draftsmen in  CWC as compared to Draftsmen in the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

CPWD shall  be rectified  and be brought at par with the pay scales  awarded   by  the   Board  of  Arbitration  to  CPWD draftsmen.  But   despite  these   recommendations   nothing happened. Ultimately Ministry of Finance issued a Memorandum on 13th March 194. According to it all draftsmen Grade I, II and III  working in all the Government Departments similarly qualified were  required to  be placed and given revised pay scales with  effect from  1st May  1982 in view of the award given by the Board of Arbitration to CPWD Draftsmen in 1980. That thereafter  the Recruitment  Rules  of  Draftsmen  were amended 27th  November 1987  and consequently the pay scales of the  appellants were revised and brought at per with CPWD draftsmen from  9th November  1987. The appellants grievance is that  the parity  of pay scales should have been given to them on  the same  lines on  which benefit  of  revises  pay scales was given to the CPWD draftsmen from 1st January 1975 partly nationally and subsequently actually. The appellants, therefore  represented  that  their  pay  scales  should  be revised  on the same lines as the revised pay scales of CPWD draftsmen with effect from 1st January 1973  instead of from 9th November 1987. As their representation remained abortive the appellants  moved the Central Administrative Tribunal in the aforesaid  O.A. No.1 of 199. The relief which the prayed fr was  to the  effect that  the  applicants  may  be  given revised pay scales with effect from 1st January 1973 instead of  9th   November  1987  as  ordered  to  be  paid  by  the respondents. The said prayer was based on the ground tat the draftsmen Grade I,II and III in CWC were discharging similar type of  duties as  the draftsmen  in CPWD  and  that  their qualifications   were   also   substantially   similar   and consequently  they  were  entitled  to  be  given  the  same treatment regarding revised pay scales as was given to their counterparts in CPWD. The Tribunal after hearing the parties came to  the conclusion  in  paragraph  9  of  the  impugned judgment that  it is  not necessary fr the posts in question to be  exactly identical  for allotment of the same scale of pay. All  that is  required is that the responsibilities and duties attached  to the  posts should  be broadly comparable and similar  in nature.  The Tribunal further noted that the recruitment qualifications  of the  draftsmen  in  CWC  were brought at per with draftsmen in CPWD from 9th November 1987 as by  that  date  the  conditions  of  qualifications  were relaxed. In  this connection  the Tribunal noted two salient features emerging on the record of the case . Firstly it was observed that  CPWD draftsmen were awarded national revision of pay  scales  from  1st  January  1973  and  arrears  from 28th/29th July  1978 in  view of  the award  of the Board of Arbitration before  which the  dispute raised  by  the  CPWD draftsmen was  placed for  adjudication. There  was no  such development so  far as the CWC draftsmen were concerned. The second distinguishing feature noted by the Tribunal was that the respondent  authorities on account of the O.M dated 13th March 1984  issued by  the Ministry  of Finance  had granted revision of  pay scales  nationally from  13th may  1982  to draftsmen in  other Government  departments with  benefit of actual  payment   with  effect   from  1st   November  1983. Accordingly  similar  benefit  was  made  available  to  the appellants by  the Tribunal. As noted earlier the appellants being partly  aggrieved by  the aforesaid  decision in their O.A. have filed the present appeal on grant of special leave to appeal  seeking national benefit of revised pay scales of draftsmen from 1st January 1973 to 16th November 197 instead of from 13th May 1982 to 31st October 1983 as granted by the Tribunal. Their  further claim  is about  actual benefits of arrears of  revised pay  scales to be given to them not from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

1st November  1983 as  granted by the Tribunal but from 16th November 1978  upto 13th  May 1982.  We may  mention at this stage that  in the  meantime the  respondent authorities had also moved  a cross-Special Leave Petition No. 10992 of 1991 being aggrieved  by that  part of  the judgment and order of the Tribunal  by which  the  aforesaid  limited  relief  was granted to  the appellants.  A Bench  of This Court by order dated 26th  July 1991  granted social leave to appeal to the petitioners in S.L.P. (C) No. 11268 of 1991 out of which the present appeal  arises, and directed that the said appeal be tagged on  with S.L.P,(C)  No. 10992  of 1991  moved by  the respondents against  the very  same impugned judgment. Leave was granted on 22nd July 1991 in that Special Leave Petition also and it was registered as Civil Appeal No. 2936 of 1991. Both   the    appeals,   therefore,   were   to   be   heard simultaneously. When  the hearing  of these  appeals earlier reached before  a Bench of his Court in January 1995 learned counsel for  the appellants  stated that several authorities had granted  identical relief  from 1st January 1973 and pay from 1978  to similarly  situated draftsmen.  The counsel of the Union of India was, therefore, directed to look into the matter and  see  if  the  statement  was  accurate  so  that uniformity was  maintained. Thereafter  when  these  appeals reached for  further final  hearing before this court on 8th April 1997  cross-Civil  Appeal  No.2936  of  1991  was  not pressed by  learned counsel  for the  respondents who stated that  the   impugned  order  of  the  tribunal  was  already implemented and  there was  a decision  of this Court in the case of  Union of  India and others v. Debashskar and others [1995 Supp  (3) SCC 528] which clearly got attracted against the present  respondents who  were the  appellants  in  that cross-appeal. Therefore,  thereafter there  remained in  the arena of contest only the present civil appeal.      In  this   appeal  Under   Secretary,   Central   Water Commission  has   filed  counter   affidavit  on  behalf  of respondent no  1 on 2nd November 1992. We will refer to this counter hereinafter.  A further  afficafil was also filed on behalf of  respondent no  1 in  compliance with direction of this Court  issued on  9th January  1995  and  reiterated  a latter order  of this Court dated 8th April 1997 wherein the respondents were  required to  put on  record with affidavit whatever material  the might  have collected  in  connection with the  uniformity of  pay scales  granted to draftsmen in other Government  departments. The  appellants in other turn have filed  reply-affidavit of  appellant no. 1 on behalf of the appellants.      When this  appeal reached  further hearing  before this Court on  12th November  1997 we were informed that judgment in the  case of  Debashis Karr (supra) which has been relied upon by  this Court  in dismissing  the  respondents  cross- appeal against  the  very  same  judgment  of  the  Tribunal insofar as  the relief  was granted  to  the  appellants  is pending scrutiny  before the  larger Bench  of three learned judges. Consequently  this appeal was adjourned awaiting the decision of the larger Bench. Subsequently it was brought to our notice  that the  larger Bench by its decision dated 2nd December 1997  dismissed those  referred Civil  Appeal  Nos. 11477-11479 of  1995 and  reiterated the  decision  of  this Court in the case of Debashis Kar (supra). Three Judge Bench confirmed the  decision of  the  Tribunal  in  the  impugned judgments before  them by  observing that  the Tribunal  had taken into  consideration educational qualifications for the posts of  Draftsmen Grade  II and  Grade III  in the Defence Research and  Development Organisation  (DRDO) and Draftsmen Grade I  and II  in the CPWD and held that the appellants in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

DRDO were  not entitled  to the same pay scales. It was also observed that  after considering  the  qualifications  which were prescribed  for appointment  for the  post of Draftsmen Grade II  and Grade  III in  the DRDO and comparing the same with  the   qualifications  prescribed   for  the  posts  of Draftsmen Grade III, Grade II and Grade I, this court was of the view  that the  Tribunal had rightly negatived the claim of the  appellants  before  them  .  All  the  appeals  were accordingly dismissed.  Thereafter when  this appeal reached further hearing  before us  learned senior  counsel for  the appellants Shri  M.N. Krishnamant  as well as learned senior counsel for  he respondents  Shri N.N.  Goswami  raised  the following contentions in support of their respective cases. Rival Contentions      Shri  Krishnamani   learned  senior   counsel  for  the appellants, submitted  in support  of the  appeal  that  the Tribunal had  already come  to the  conclusion on facts that the draftsmen  in CWC  were carrying  on the similar type of work as  their counterparts  in CPWD.  It has  also observed that from  1987 their  qualifications were  also brought  on par. In fact according to the learned senior counsel for the appellants the  ay scales of he draftsmen in CWC were at par with those  in CPWD  at least  from 1st January 1947 to 20th June 190  and thereafter  even  though  the  pay  scales  of draftsmen grades  I,II and  III in  CPWD got revised upwards and the  pay scales  of the  appellants remained the same by 1987 they  were also  brought  on  par.  Therefore  for  the interregnum also  appellants were  required to be treated at par from  the  point  of  view  of  pay  scales    as  their counterparts in  CPWD.  Learned  senior  counsel    for  the appellants in  this connection  submitted that  the Tribunal has given  a Limited  relief to  the appellants  only on the ground that draftsmen in CPWD has got he benefit of an award while the appellants had not got such benefit. But that is a fortuitous circumstance.  On the  principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work the appellants were entitled to be treated at per with draftsmen  of CPWD. Even otherwise the sub-committee of the Department  had already recommended varity of pay scales for the  appellants on  the same  lines as  granted  to  the draftsmen  in   CPWD.  It   was   further   submitted   that substantially there  was no difference in the qualifications of the draftsmen working in CWC as compared to those working in CPWD  and consequently  the Tribunal  had  erred  in  not granting full relief to the appellants as prayed for. It was also submitted  that decision  of this Court in Debashis Kar (supra), placing reliance on the O.M of 1984, had considered limited grievance  of parity asked for by the respondents in that case  in the  light of the O.M. and that they had never prayed for  further relief,  on the lines of CPWD draftsmen, of notional  benefit from 1st January 1973 and actually from 16th November  1987 so  far as  the revised  pay scales were concerned and  consequently the  aforesaid decision  of this Court or  for that  matter  the  latter  three  Judge  Bench decision also  should not  come in the way of the appellants as there  was not  basic  disparity  in  the  light  of  the recommendations of the third Central Pay Commission, between draftsmen in  CWC and  CPWD when  these recommendations were accepted by  the authorities,  so far  as the CPWD draftsmen were concerned.  Consequently when the draftsmen in CWC were doing the  same type  of work  and were having substantially the similar  qualifications for  recruitment  there  was  no reason wh  similar treatment  on the  principle of Equal Pay for Equal  Work should not be given to the appellants as was given to their counter arts in CPWD.      Learned  senior   counsel  Shri   Krishnamani  for  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

appellants  next   contended  that   despite  O.M.  of  1984 authorities   of    the   Central   Government   had   given retrospective benefit  of pay  scales for a larger period to similarly situated  draftsmen working  in  other  Government departments and  there was  no reason for the respondents to deny  such   similar  treatment   in  connection   with  the implementation of the same O.M. to the appellants. He sought to rely  upon various  instances of different departments in which said benefit was given.      Learned senior counsel Shri Goswami for the respondents on the  other hand  submitted on  behalf of respondent no. 1 that the  nomenclature of  the appellants was different from that  of   their  counterparts   in  CPWD   .   That   their qualifications of  recruitment were  also different at least till 1987 when they were brought on par and, therefore, they were not entitled to be given any relied of the principle of Equal Pay  for Equal  Work. However  because of  the O.M. of 1984 the  Tribunal has  granted the relief on the same lines as directed by the O.M. to be paid to draftsmen in all other Government departments,  therefore, there  was no reason for the appellants  to claim  any better  right  specially  when during the  relevant period  from 1975  to 192 and even upto 1987 the  qualifications of  the appellants  as draftsmen in CWC were  different from  those of  the Draftsmen Grade I,II and  III   in  CPWD.   Therefore,  the   appellants   cannot automatically claim  any parity with the pay scales of those draftsmen for  that period.  They formed a separate class of employees. Thus there was no discrimination meted out to the appellants by  he authorities  in giving  them pay scales as assumed by  the Tribunal but as the decision of the Tribunal against the  respondents has  become  final  learned  senior counsel at  this stage accepted whatever relief was given by the Tribunal  to the  appellants. But  in his  submission no further relief could be given to the appellants.      Learned senior counsel for the respondents joined issue also on the alternate contention of Shri Krishnamani learned senior counsel  for the appellants that despites the O.M. of 1984 further  relief was given to various draftsmen in other Government  departments  who  were  similarly  situated.  He submitted that  whatever relief  was given  to them  was  on account of  some of  the decisions of the Tribunal which had to be  obeyed by  the respondents  and they  centered  round their own  facts. That  no  such  contention  was  canvassed before the Tribunal by the appellants. In this connection he invited  our   attention  to   the  averments  made  in  the additional affidavit  filed on  behalf of respondent no.1 in May 1997. He, therefore, submitted that their cases were not comparable with  those of  the appellants  and  consequently there was no question of any discrimination on that ground. Points for Consideration      In  view   of  the   aforesaid  rival  contentions  the following points arise for our consideration : 1.   Whether the  Tribunal was  in error in not granting the      revised pay  scales to  the draftsmen of CWC notionally      from  1st  January  1973  to  16th  November  1978  and      actually by  way of  arrears of revised pay scales from      16th November 1978 to 13th May 1982. 2.   In any  case whether  O.M. of  1984 was  diluted by the      respondent-authorities  in   the  cases   of  similarly      situated  draftsmen   working   in   other   Government      departments  and   whether  on   that  count  also  the      appellants  are   entitled   to   similar   relief   of      retrospective grant  of benefits  notional as  well  as      actual.      We shall deal with these points seriatim.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

Point No. 1      So far  as this  point is concerned the Tribunal in the impugned judgment  has clearly  noted that  the  recruitment qualifications of  draftsmen in CWC were not at per with the qualifications of  draftsmen of  Grade I,II  and III in CPWD and they were brought on par only from 9th November 1987. It is of course true that despite that the Tribunal had granted additional relief  to the appellants by way of notional rise in the  pay scales  and therefore  parity of pay scales from that day  had become  operative. The  Tribunal noted that in view of  the fact  O.M. of 1984 had given hike in pay scales retrospectively from  13th May  1982 to  31st  October  1983 notionally and  from 1st  November 1983 actually in the case of draftsmen in other departments same relief could be given to the  appellants. That  order in  favour of the appellants has become  final. The  appellants want  further  relief  as noted earlier.,  So  far  as  that  art  of  the  relief  is concerned the  Tribunal has  given two  reasons for  denying that relief.  Firstly because  the CPWD  draftsmen had  gone before the  Board of  Arbitration which  had recommended sch relief in  their favour  while the  CWC  draftsmen  had  not approached such  Board of  Arbitration and  secondly because their educational  qualifications were  different. The first ground given  by the  Tribunal for distinguishing he case of these two  sets of  employees,  in  our  view  is  not  well sustained. We  agree with  learned senior  counsel  for  the appellants that  merely because  the appellants had not gone to the Board of Arbitration, if the relief given to the CPWD draftsmen  by  the  said  Board  of  Arbitration  which  was accepted  by   the  authorities   became  available  to  the appellants who  were identically situated and were doing the same type  of work  as the draftsmen in other departments of the Government  question whether  they had  gone for similar arbitration or  not would  pale into insignificance. However so far  as the  second ground  on which  the  Tribunal  gave aforesaid limited  relief to the appellants, is concerned we find the  same to  be well sustained. The reason is obvious. Even if the appellants prior to 1965 as submitted by learned senior counsel for the appellants and even assuming that the parity of  ay scales  was on  the basis  of almost identical recruitment  qualifications   a  sharp   cleavage  both   in connection with  the  pay  scales  as  well  as  educational qualifications  for   recruitment  of   these  two  sets  of employees arose  at least  after 1965  so far as educational qualifications went and though their pay scales remained the same upto 1980 thereafter even the pay scale parity was also disrupted. The  case of  the appellants for notional benefit from 1st  January 1975 and actual benefit from 16th November 1978 will  have to be examined in the light of the nature of educational   qualifications   which   were   required   for recruiting draftsmen  in CPWD  on the one hand and draftsmen in CWC  on the other. It would also be required to be noted, as averred  in the counter affidavit dated 14th October 1992 filed on  2nd November  1992 in  paragraph 31 at page 104 of the paper  book, that  the comparison made by the appellants with draftsmen  of CPWD is quite misleading inasmuch as even the nomenclature  of draftsmen Grade,III,II and I which were prevalent in  CPWD  were  not  prevalent  in  CWC  unit  the issuance of  notification dated  6th  August  1986  and  9th November 197.  Even that  apart, so  far as  the educational qualifications were  concerned the  comparative statement of Recruitment Rules  at page  93 which  is Annexure  II to the Affidavit of  May 1997  of Shri  B.R. Sharma  on  behalf  of respondent no.1  shows that  before the arbitration award of 20th June 1980, in CPWD there were three grades of draftsmen

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

Grade III, draftsman Grade II and draftsman Grade I while in CWC the  corresponding cadres  were of Tracer, Jr. Draftsman and Sr.  Draftsman. So  far as draftsmen Grade III with whom parity of  pay scale  of Tracer  in CWC for a direct recruit matriculation plus  two  years  experience  in  tracing  was required. In  CPWD draftsmen Grade II consisted of employees who could  be promoted 100% from amongst draftsmen Grade III with three years service and draftsmen Grade I in CPWD which was  a   further  promotional  post  could  be  obtained  by draftsmen Grade  II with  eight years  service. While on the other hand  so far a Jr. Draftsmen in CWC were concerned who were on  the  same  pay  scale  upto  20th  June  1980  with draftsmen Grade II in CPWD and with whom parity of pay scale is sought by the appellants retrospectively tracers could be promoted upto  the extent of 75% by promotion from qualified tracers holding  two years  diploma  in  draftsmanship  with three  years   service   or   having   passed   departmental examination with total six years service while so far as Sr. Draftsmen in  CWC who  were having  varity of pay scale with Draftsmen Grade  I on  CPWD prior  to 20th  June  1980  were concerned Junior  Draftsman in  CWC could be promoted to the Sr.  Draftsman  if  he  had  three  years  experience.  Thus experience wise  as well  as qualification  wise there was a sharp difference  in the  cadres of  draftsman Grade  III at grassroot level in CPWD and Tracer at grassroot level in CWC and their  channels of  further promotions  from  these  two grassroot level  cadres in  both these  establishments  also required different  weightage of  experience. It  could  not therefore, be  sad that  qualification wise the draftsmen in CWC at  the base  level or in the higher echelons of service were identically  situated as  compared to their counterpart draftsmen Grades  III,II and  I in  CPWD.  Consequently  the general recommendations  for the  hike in pay scales as made by the Third Central  Pay Commission which were adopted with necessary changes  by the  Government authorities  in  their application to  draftsmen in  different services  under  the Union of  India  could  not  be  found  fault  with  on  the touchstone of  Article 14  of the  Constitution of India. On the  findings  reached  by  the  Tribunal  whatever  maximum benefit could be made available to the appellants is already granted by  the  Tribunal  by  treating  them  at  par  with draftsmen of  other departments  for the  purpose of hike in pay scales  nationally from  13th May 1932 and actually from 1st November 193 on the basis of the aforesaid O.M. of 1984. A mere  look at  the said  O.M. which  is at page 148 of the paper book being Annexure R-4 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf  of respondent  no. 1 by Shri P.C. Jain shows that the President  was pleased to decide  that the scales of pay of draftsmen  Grade III,II  and I  in officer/Departments of Govt. of  India  ,  other  than  the  Central  Public  Works Department,  may   be  revised   as  above   provided  their recruitment qualifications  are similar  to those prescribed in the case of draftsmen in Central Public Works Department. Those   who   did   not   fulfil   the   above   recruitment qualifications were  to continue  in the pre-revised scales. It was further directed that the benefit of this revision of scales of  pay would  be given  notionally with  effect from 13.5.1982 and  actual benefit  was to be allowed with effect from 01.11.83. It becomes at once clear that for getting the benefit of  that O.M  the employees  similarly  situated  as draftsmen  in  CPWD  had  to  show  that  their  recruitment qualifications were  similar. In  the case of the appellants the said  similarity was  obtained only  in 1987.  Therefore strictly speaking  even the  national benefit and the actual benefit ordered  to  be  given  by  the  O.M.to  identically

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

situated draftsmen in other Government departments would not have been made available to the appellants. But the Tribunal considering the equities of the case and having held that at least from  1987 the educational qualifications were brought on per  so far  as the appellants ware concerned as compared to their  counterparts in CPWC granted to the appellants the benefit of  O.M. of  1984 for  retrospective revision of pay scales on  the same  lines as  granted to similarly situated draftsmen in  other Government  departments.  To  grant  any further relief to the appellants going beyond the directions of the  O.M. would create a situation wherein the appellants would get  more favourable  treatment as  compared to  their counterparts in  other Government  department and that would result in reverse discrimination in favour of appellants. It is also  interesting to  note that though this O.M. was very much on  the record  of the  case before the Tribunal and on which reliance  was placed  by the respondents no effort was made by  the appellants to challenge that O.M. either before the Tribunal  or even  in  S.L.P.  before  this  Court.  The appellants  pitched   their  case  only  on  the  ground  of discrimination vis-a-vis  CPWD draftsmen  who, according  to them were  almost similarly circumscribed as the appellants. It is,  of course,  true that  the Tribunal  has observed in favour of  the appellants that they were doing the same type of work  as their counterparts in CPWD but that by itself is not  sufficient.   If  there  was  clear-cut  difference  in recruitment qualifications between the two sets of employees in CPWD  on the hand and CWC on the other there cannot be an automatic linkage  and parity of treatment for retrospective revision of pay scales as sought to be pressed in service by Learned senior counsel for the appellants.      In this  connection we  may  profitable  refer  to  the decision of  this Court in Debashis Kar (supra) to which one of us  S. Saghir  Ahmad, J.,  was a party. In that case that Tribunal  had  granted  parity  of  treatment  to  draftsmen working in ordnance factories as well as army base workshops in EME  so far  as rise in their ay scales on the same lines as the  hike given  to their  counterparts in  CPWD  by  the Government Memorandum  dated 13th  March 1984 was concerned. IT was  observed that  the pay  scales fixed on the basis of First, second  and Third Central Pay Commissions showed that tracers in  ordnance factories  had all  along been  treated equivalent  to   tracer/draftsman  Grade   II  in  CPWD  and draftsman in  ordnance factories  had all along been treated as equivalent  to Assistant  Draftsman/Draftsman Grade II in CPWD and  accordingly they  were entitled  to the benefit of O.M. dated  13th March  1984. The  said  decision  therefore upheld the  action of the authorities based on the aforesaid O.M. It  is this  O.M which  has been  given effect to by he Tribunal n  Favour of  the present  appellants. Under  these circumstances, in  our view,  no more relief on the facts of this case  as discussed  by us,  could  be  granted  to  the appellants than what is granted by the Tribunal to them.      We may  also usefully  refer to the decision of a three member Bench  of this  Court rendered  in Civil  Appeal Nos. 11477-11479  of  1995  on  2nd  December  1997  wherein  the draftsmen  employed  in  the  Defence  Research  Development organisation Ministry  of  Defence  were  found  not  to  be entitled to parity of treatment as was made available to the draftsmen Grade  I and  II in  CPWD even in the light of the O.M.  dated   13th   March   1984   as   their   educational qualifications were different. In the light the ratio of the aforesaid judgment  of three  member Bench  of  this  Court, therefore, it  must be  held  that  strictly  speaking  full benefit of  the O.M.  of 13th March 1984 would not have been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

available   to   the   appellants   as   their   educational qualification as at the relevant time were different. But as the Tribunal has given them that benefit and which order has become final  the appellants  would not  stand to  lose that benefit .  But in  any case they are not entitled to further hike in  the pay scales either notionally or actually beyond this limit fixed by the said O.M. of 1984.      Learned senior  counsel for  the appellants invited our attention to  a decision of this Court in the case of Jaipal and others  etc. V. State of Haryana and others etc. [(1998) 3 SCC  354] for  submitting hat  even different  educational qualifications would  not by  itself be  a criterion to deny equal  pay   for  equal  work  to  the  employees  otherwise similarly circumscribed.  In the  aforesaid decision  it was noted in  para 9 of the Report that squad teachers possessed JBT certificates and many of them were graduates but minimum qualification for  squad teachers was also matric. Similarly minimum qualification for instructors was matric but many of the petitioners were graduates and some of them were trained teachers  possessing   JBT  certificates.   As  the  minimum educational qualifications  for these  two sets of employees were similar they were held entitled to equal treatment. The facts of  the present  case as  we have  noted  earlier  are different.  The   minimum  educational   qualifications   at grassroot level for entry in service in CWC for tracers, re- designated from  1987 as draftsmen Grade III, were different from the  educational qualifications  of  their  counterpart draftsmen  Grade  III  in  CPWD  till  1987.  The  aforesaid decision therefore  cannot assist the learned senior counsel for he appellants.      Before parting  with discussion  on this  point we  may briefly refer  to written  propositions submitted by learned counsel for  the appellants  in support of the appeal. It is submitted that  admittedly Draftsmen  Grade I,II  and III in CPWD and  in CWC  were treated  as equals upto 20th June 190 and they  are treated  as equals  w.e.f. 13th  May 1992 . If they were  equals for 40 years before and are equals for all time o  com after  1982 how  can they be unequals during his short interval  of 1  year and 11 months alone? The question that is  posed assumes that they are being treated as equals after  1982.  In  fact  as  we  have  seen  above  upto  197 qualification wise  the were not equals but only because the Tribunal stretched  a point  in favour of the appellants and gave them the benefit of O.M. of 1984 it cannot be said that qualification wise  they became  equals all  throughout even prior to  1982 .  So far  as the  question about prospective effect of  revision of  pay scales of CPWD and CWC draftsmen is concerned because the became equals qualification wise at least from  197 prospective  effect was being given to their pay scales  at least  from that  time  onwards.  So  far  as retrospective application  was concerned appellants remained unequals as  compared to  draftsmen in CPWD between 1982 and 1987 and it is only because of he application of O.M of 1984 that they were given the benefit by the Tribunal which could not be  further enhance  in their  favour.  So  far  as  the submission in connection with the revision of a scales fixed by the  Third Central  Pay Commission  with effect  from 1st January 1973  is concerned  the  said  revision  granted  to draftsmen in CWC whose educational qualifications during the relevant period in dispute were not the same. The submission based  on   the  nature   of  work,  duties,  functions  and responsibilities being  the same, would not advance the case of the  appellants any  further as their qualifications were not on  par till 1987, as seen earlier. As discussed earlier it is  true that  one of  the reasons  given by  the Central

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

Administrative Tribunal  to  deny  benefit  of  revised  pay scales from  1978 to 1982 to CMC draftsmen only because CPWD people had  gone to Board of Arbitration is not sustainable. However  the  ultimate  conclusion  to  which  the  Tribunal reached could  be sustained on the ground that qualification wise the  draftsmen in CWC at least at grassroot level could clearly be  distinguished as a separate category as compared to that  of the draftsmen under CPWD at grassroot level. The submission  that  difference  in  educational  qualification should not be a discriminating factor for a truncated period cannot be  sustained for  the simple  reason that the period got truncated only because the Tribunal stretched a point in favour of  the appellants by narrowing the gap for the short period by  giving retrospective benefit of pay scales to the appellants both  notionally and actually from 1982-83 though the difference in educational qualifications for recruitment at grassroot level so far as draftsmen in CWC were concerned remained upto  1987. The  submission based on the difference between draftsmen  Grade III  in CWC  and  CPWD  so  far  as educational  qualifications   were  concerned   though   was confined to  Grade III  draftsmen only  even, in promotional avenues,  as   we  have  seen  earlier  there  was  a  clear distinction  so   far  as   requirements   for   promotional eligibility even  to higher grades were concerned during the relevant time.  Consequently in  the light  of  these  clear distinguishing features  between the two cadres of draftsmen in CWC  and CPWD  which are  well established  on record  no useful purpose  could be  served by  remanding the matter to Central Administrative Tribunal as lastly submitted in these written submissions.  The first  point for  determination is consequently  answered   in  the   negative     against  the appellants and in favour of the respondents. Point No. 2      So far  as  this  point  is  concerned  learned  senior counsel  for   the  appellants  was  very  sanguine  in  his contention that  despite the  limited  retrospective  effect given to  the rise  in pay  scales to  draftsmen employed in other departments  of the  Government as per O.M of 1984, in many  departments   of  the   Central  Government  similarly situated draftsmen were given further retrospective benefits of the  rise in  pay scales  both actual  and national  and, therefore, at  least on  this ground  the appellants  can be said to  be discriminated  against. This  contention in  the first instance  was never canvassed for consideration before the Tribunal.  Therefore, it would raise a disputer question of fact  these appellate proceedings. But even leafing aside this aspect  of the  matter this  contention is  tried to be repelled by  learned senior  counsel  for  the  respondents, placing reliance  on the  additional affidavit  of Shri B.R. Sharma for  respondent no.1  filed on  9th May  1997. In the said affidavit  it has  been clearly  averred that so far as employees in  other departments are concerned various orders of the  Tribunal had  required the  respondents to give them the said  benefit and which orders have become final. It is, therefore obvious  that on  merits the  Tribunal had held in favour of  those concerned  employees in  other  departments that they  were similarly  circumscribed as the draftsmen in CPWD and on those peculiar facts these reliefs were given to them. In  the present case such similarity of qualifications of employees was not available to the appellants as found by the Tribunal  itself. We  fail co  appreciate   how judicial orders passed  against employees in other departments on the basis of  the separate  face  situations  which  were  found established in their cases by the Tribunal or other judicial authorities  could   ever  be   pressed  in  service  almost

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11  

automatically by the appellants in the peculiar facts of the present case  wherein they  are not  similarly  situated  as their counterparts  in CPWD.  Consequently it  could not  be said   that the  appellants have  been discriminated even on this additional ground by the respondents in not giving them further   benefit of  revised pay scales both nationally and actually than  that which  was given to them by the Tribunal pursuant to  the O.M  of 1984  and which  relief. as we have seen earlier,  was made  available to the appellants by even stretching the  relief by  the  Tribunal  in  their  favour. Consequently  even   the  second  contention  is  not  found sustainable on merits and stands rejected.      These were the only contentions canvassed in support of the appeal  and as  they fail  the inevitable result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in the facts and circumstances of the case.