http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SHRI DEBASHIS KAR & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/07/1995

BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  Supl.  (3) 528 JT 1995 (5)   543  1995 SCALE  (4)528

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: (WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.2125-33/93, S.L.P.(C) NOS.8593-94/87, 22016/93, REVIEW PETITIONS (C) NOS.857-58/91)                     J U D G M E N T S.C. AGRAWAL. J. :      The common  question that  arises for  consideration in these cases  is whether Draughtsmen employed in the Ordnance Factories and  the Workshops  of E.M.E.  in the  Ministry of Defence are entitled to have their pay scales revised on the basis of  the Office  Memorandum of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, dated March 13, 1984.      On the basis of the report of the Third Pay Commission, the pay scales of Draughtsmen employed in the Central Public Works Department (for short ‘C.P.W.D.’) of the Government of India were revised in the following manner:      i) Draughtsman Grade - I     Rs.425-700      ii) Draughtsman Grade - II   Rs.330-560      iii) Draughtsman Grade - III Rs.260-430      The said  employees in  the C.P.W.D. were not satisfied with the  said revision  and were  claiming that they should have been  placed on  higher pay  scales. This  dispute  was referred to a Board of Arbitration. The Board of Arbitration gave the  award on  June 20,  1980 whereby the pay scales of Draughtsmen were revised as under :      i) Draughtsman Grade I     Rs.550-750      ii) Draughtsman Grade II   Rs.425-700      iii) Draughtsman Grade III Rs.330-560      By the  award it  was directed that the above mentioned categories of draughtsmen shall be fixed notionally in their respective scales  of pay as aforesaid from January 1, 1973, but for  computation of arrears, the date of reckoning shall be July  28/29, 1978.  In accordance with the said award the pay scales  of draughtsmen  in C.P.W.D.  were  revised  vide order dated  November 10,  1980. The draughtsmen employed in departments other  than C.P.W.D.  claimed  the  revision  of their pay  scales in the light of the revision of pay scales

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

in the  C.P.W.D. and  on March  13, 1984  the Government  of India, Ministry  of  Finance  (Department  of  Expenditure), issued an Office Memorandum whereby it was directed that the scale of  pay  of  Draughtsmen  Grade  III,  II,  I  in  the office/Department of the Government of India, other than the C.P.W.D., may  be revised as per revised scales for C.P.W.D. provided their  recruitment qualifications  are  similar  to those prescribed  in the case of Draughtsmen in C.P.W.D. and those who  do  not  fulfil  the  said  qualifications  would continue in the pre-vised scales. Thereupen, the Ministry of Defence on  July 3,  1984 issued  an order  whereby the user organisations were  requested to  take necessary  action  in terms of  para 2  of the  Office Memorandum  dated March 13, 1984. It  appears that  in the  Ordnance Factories under the control of the Director General of Ordnance Factories (DGOF) no action  was taken to revise the pay scales of draughtsmen as per  the Office  Memorandum dated  March 13, 1984. A Writ Petition (Civil  Order No.5023(W)  of 1985) was filed in the Calcutta High  Court by  some of the draughtsmen employed in the Ordnance Factories in the State of West Bengal. The said Writ Petition  was disposed  of by  the High  Court by order dated October  8, 1985  whereby the  respondents in the said writ petition  were  directed  to  forthwith  implement  the Office Memorandum  dated March 13, 1984 as well as the order of Ministry  of Defence dated July 3, 1984 to revise the pay scales in accordance therewith. The said order was clarified by order  dated July  14, 1986 whereby it was indicated that the order  passed on  October 8,  1985 was restricted to the writ  petitioners   and  the  added  respondents  only.  The Ordnance Factory  Board appointed a Sub-Committee to go into the matter  and on  the basis  of the  report  of  the  Sub- Committee, the Ordnance Factory Board in its meeting held on September  9,   1986  decided  that  the  qualifications  of draughtsmen employed  in  the  Ordnance  Factories  are  not similar  to   those  of  draughtsmen  in  the  C.P.W.D.  and therefore, they  were not  entitled to revision of their pay scales as  per the  Office Memorandum  dated March 13, 1984. The petitioners  in the  said writ  petition  were  informed about the  said decision  of the Ordnance Factories Board by letter dated  October 9,  1986. While  the matter  was  thus pending consideration  before the  Ordnance Factory Board, a Writ Petition  was filed in the Madhya Pradesh High Court by draughtsmen employed  in the  Ordnance Factories situated in that  State  and  after  the  constitution  of  the  Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’), the said writ petition  was transferred  to the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal and  it  was  registered  as  TAA  111/86.  Another application  (DA-87/86)  was  also  filed  by  some  of  the draughtsmen before  the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal. Both these applications were disposed of by the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal by judgment dated April 21, 1987 whereby it was held that  the applicants  were entitled to be placed at par with Grade  II draughtsmen of the C.P.W.D., i.e., in revised scale Rs.  425-700, and  that if  there are  any  individual exceptions amongst  the applicants to this general equation, they  should   be  identified  by  a  suitable  departmental committee of  three Assessors  of whom  one should  be  from Management, one a technical person of appropriate level from inside the  Ordnance Factory  and one technical outsider not connected  with  the  Ordnance  Factories  of  the  rank  of Professor  or  Addl.  Professor  from  Engineering  College, Jabalpur or  Engineering Institute  at Roorkee, IIT, Kanpur. The Tribunal  rejected the contention urged on behalf of the respondents in  the said applications that the applicants do not possess  the recruitment  qualifications and  experience

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

atleast  equivalent   to  those  of  grade  category  II  of draughtsman of  C.P.W.D. The  justifications and reasons for the decision  of the  Ordnance Factory  Board at its meeting held on  September 9,  1986 based  on the report of the Sub- Committee dated  January 24,  1986 and  the findings  of the Sub-Committee that  the qualifications of draughtsmen in the Ordnance Factories  have to  be treated  as corresponding to those of Draughtsman Grade III in C.P.W.D. were not accepted by the  Tribunal. Special  Leave Petitions  Nos. 8593-94  of 1987 filed by the Union of India and others against the said judgment of the Tribunal were dismissed by the order of this Court dated  November  17,  1987  but  the  said  order  was subsequently recalled  by another  order dated  20th August, 1993 passed in Review Petitions (Civil) Nos. 847-48 of 1991. The respondents  in the  said Special  Leave Petitions have, however, stated  that the  said decision of the Tribunal has already  been   implemented  and  the  applicants  in  those applications have  been allowed  the revised  pay  scale  of Rs.425-700 with  effect from  May 30,  1982  as  per  Office Memorandum dated  March 13,  1984  and  that  the  Assessors Committee which was constituted in pursuance of the decision of the  Tribunal have  found that  the applicants  have  the qualifications  which   are  equivalent   to  the  technical qualifications of Draughtsman Grade II in C.P.W.D.      Two applications  (O.A.No.569 of  1986 and 570 of 1986) were filed  before the  Calcutta Bench  of the  Tribunal  by draughtsmen employed  in the Ordnance Factories in the State of  West   Bengal  whereby   a  direction   was  sought  for implementation of  the  Office  Memorandum  of  Ministry  of Finance dated  March 13, 1984 and the direction contained in the order  dated July  3, 1984  of the  Ministry of  Defence after setting  aside the  order dated October 9, 1986 passed by the  Ordnance Factories  Board. On  the said applications the Tribunal,  on September  10, 1987,  passed an  order for setting up of an expert committee to examine the recruitment qualifications of  draughtsmen in the Ordnance Factories and to examine  as to  whether they can be treated as similar to or higher than the recruitment qualifications of Draughtsman Grade II  in C.P.W.D.  An Expert  Committee was  set  up  in pursuance of the said order of the Tribunal and it submitted its  report  dated  December  4,  1987  wherein  the  Expert Committee opined  that  the  recruitment  qualifications  of draughtsmen in  the Ordnance Factories is neither similar to nor  higher   than  the   recruitment   qualifications   for Draughtsman Grade  II in the C.P.W.D. The said report of the Expert Committee  was assailed  by the applicants before the Tribunal by  filing Miscellaneous  Applications, being  M.A. Nos.94 and  94 A of 1988 in D.A. Nos. 569 of 1986 and 570 of 1986 pending  before the Tribunal. The original applications as well  as the miscellaneous applications were all disposed of by  the Calcutta  Bench of the Tribunal by judgment dated December 31, 1990. Relying upon the judgment dated April 21, 1987 of  the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal in T.A.A.No. 111 of 1986  and O.A.No.  87 of  1986, the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal quashed  the order  dated 9th October, 1986 as well as the report of the Expert Committee dated December 4, 1987 and directed that the applicants in the said applications be given the benefit as prayed for by them on the same lines as the direction  given by  the Jabalpur  Bench in its judgment dated April  21, 1987. Special Leave Petitions Nos. 9840-40A of 1991  filed by  the Union of India and others against the said judgment  of the  Tribunal were  dismissed by  order of this Court dated July 29, 1991. Review Petitions Nos. 857-58 of 1991 filed against the said order were dismissed by order dated October  25, 1991  but by  a  subsequent  order  dated

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

November 28,  1994 the  said order  dated October  25,  1991 dismissing the  Review Petitions was recalled and the Review Petitions have  been directed  to be tagged with the Special Leave Petition Nos. 8593-94 of 1987.      Another application  (O.A.No. 333  of 1993)  was  filed before the  Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal by the applicants who were  working as  draughtsmen under  the control  of the General Manager,  Ordnance  Factory,  Ishapur  wherein  they sought a  direction in  terms of  the  judgment  dated  31st December, 1990  delivered  by  the  Calcutta  Bench  of  the Tribunal in  O.A.Nos. 569-570 of 1986 and for a direction to fix their  pay in  terms of  the Office  Memorandum  of  the Central Government dated March 13, 1984 and order dated July 3, 1984.  The said  petition was  allowed by the Tribunal by judgment dated  August 1,  1984 and  the respondents  in the said application  were directed to extend the benefit of the judgment dated  December 31,  1990 delivered by the Tribunal in O.A.Nos. 569 and 570 of 1986 to the applicants and to fix their pay  in terms  of the orders of the Central Government dated March 13, 1984 and July 3, 1984. Civil Appeal No. 1443 of 1993  has been  filed by  the Union  of India  and Others against the said judgment of the Tribunal.      Special Leave  Petition (Civil)  No. 22016  of 1993 has been filed  against the  judgment and  order dated  June 23, 1993 of  the Hyderabad  Bench of the Tribunal in O.A.No. 140 of 1992 filed by applicants who were employed as draughtsman in the  Ordnance Factory  at Edumelaram in Medak District of Andhra Pradesh.  Following the decisions of the Jabalpur and Calcutta Benches  aforementioned, the Hyderabad Bench of the has directed  that the  pay of  the applicants,  other  than applicants Nos.  7, 11  and 17,  be fixed in the revised pay scale of  Draughtsman Grade  II  from  the  dates  of  their respective appointment  promotion as draughtsmen in the said Ordnance Factory  in accordance  with the  office memorandum dated March 13, 1984.      In accordance  with order  of the  Ministry of  Defence dated July 3, 1984 orders were passed on August 14, 1984 and February 15, 1985 revising the pay scales in accordance with the  Office  Memorandum  dated  March  13,  1984  but  by  a subsequent order of E.M.E. Records dated October 30, 1986 on the  basis   of  which  other  orders  were  passed  by  the respective Commandants of the Base Workshops the said orders were rescinded  and the  benefit of  the revised  pay scales which  had   been  extended   was  withdrawn.  A  number  of applications  were   filed  before   the  Tribunal   by  the draughtsmen  in  Army  Base  Workships,  E.M.E.  which  were disposed of  by the  Principal  Bench  of  the  Tribunal  by judgment dated  May 15,  1992 whereby  the orders  of E.M.E. Records dated  30th  October,  1986  and  subsequent  orders issued by  the respective Commandants of the respective Base Workshops in  pursuance of  the said  order  of  the  E.M.E. Records, Secunderabad  have been quashed and it has directed that the  applicants in the applications before the Tribunal be placed  in their  revised scale  of  pay  as  per  Office Memorandum dated  March 13, 1984 notionally with effect from May 13,  1982 and  that the  actual benefit  be allowed with effect from November 1, 1983. C.A. Nos. 2125-33 of 1993 have been filed  by the  Union of India against the said judgment of the Tribunal.      Though by order dated April 7, 1994 S.L.P. Nos. 8593-94 of 1987  were directed  to be  listed after  the decision in C.A. Nos.  2125-33 of  1993 but  since  the  said  SLPs  are directed against  the judgment  of the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal dated  April 21, 1987 which forms the basis for the judgments  of  other  Benches  of  the  Tribunals  in  other

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

connected matters,  we have  taken up  SLPs Nos.  8593-94 of 1987 along  with these  matters and have heard the said SLPs also and the same are being disposed of by this judgment.      The narration of the facts referred to above would show that  all  these  matters  relate  to  revision  of  pay  of draughtsmen employed  in the  Ministry  of  Defence  of  the Government of  India and except the respondents in C.A. Nos. 2125-33 of  1993, the  respondents in  the other matters are all  employed   as  draughtsmen   in  the  various  Ordnance Factories  under   the  Ordnance  Factories  Board  and  the respondents in  C.A. Nos.  2125-33 of  1993 are  draughtsmen employed in  the Army Base Workshops under the E.M.E. In the impugned judgments  the various Benches of the Tribunal have taken the  view that  the qualifications which were required for appointment  of draughtsman in the Ordnance Factories as well as  in the  Army Base  Workshops  in  the  E.M.E.  were equivalent to  the qualifications  which were prescribed for appointment on  the post  of  Daughtsman  Grade  II  in  the C.P.W.D. and  therefore, the  respondents who were placed in the pay  scale of  Rs. 335-560 on the basis of the report of the Third  Pay Commission  were entitled to be placed in the revised pay  scale of  Rs. 425-700  in accordance  with  the Office Memorandum of the Ministry of Finance dated March 13, 1984. On  behalf of  the Union of India and other appellants in  the   appeals  and  petitioners  in  the  Special  Leave Petitions and  the Review  Petitions, the  said view  of the Tribunal has  been assailed  and it  has been urged that the qualifications for appointment on the post of draughtsman in the Ordnance  Factorries and  the Army Base Workshops of the E.M.E. cannot be treated as equivalent to the qualifications for appointment  on the  post of  Draughtsman  Grade  II  in C.P.W.D.  and   therefore,  the  said  respondents  are  not entitled to  the benefit  of revision of pay on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated March 13, 1984.      During the  pendency of  these cases  in this Court the Government of  India, Ministry  of  Finance  has  issued  an Office Memorandum dated October 19, 1994 which is reproduced as under :                     OFFICE MEMORANDUM      Subject : Revision of pay scales of Draughtsmen GradeI,                II and III in all Government of India offices                on the basis of the Award of the Board of                Arbitration in the case of Central Public                Works Department.      The  undersigned   is  directed   to  refer   to   this Department’s O.M.No.F.5(59)-E.III/82  dated 13.3.84  on  the subject mentioned  above and  to say that a Committee of the National Council (JCM) was set up to consider the request of the staff  side that the following scales of pay, allowed to the Draughtsman  Grade I,  II &  III working  in CPWD on the basis of  the Award of Board of Arbitration, may be extended to Draughtsman  Grade I,  II &  III  irrespective  of  their recruitment  qualification,   in  all  Government  of  India offices :                          Original Scale     Revised Scale on                                             the basis of the                             (Rs.)              Award (Rs.)                         ----------------    ---------------- Draughtsman               425 - 700             550 - 750 Grade I Draughtsman               330 - 560             425 - 700 Grade II Draughtsman               260 - 430             330 - 560 Grade III 2.   The  President  is  now  pleased  to  decide  that  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

Draughtsman Grade  I, II & III in offices/departments of the Government of India other than in CPWD may also be placed in the scale of pay mentioned above subject to the following :      (a) Minimum period of service for          7 Years          Placement from the post          1540 to Rs. 1200-2040 (pre -          revised Rs. 260-430 to Rs.330-560)      (b) Minimum period of service for          5 Years          placement from the post carrying          scale of Rs. 1200-2040 to Rs.1400          -2300(prerevised Rs. 330-560 to          Rs. 425-700)      (c) Minimum period of service for          placement from the post carrying          scale of Rs. 1400-2300 to Rs.1600          -2600(prerevised Rs.425-700 to Rs.          550-750) 3.   Once the  Draughtsman are placed in the regular scales, further promotions would be made against available vacancies in  higher   grade  and   in  accordance   with  the  normal eligibility criteria laid down in the recruitment rules. 4.   The benefit  of this revision of scales of pay would be given with  effect from 13.5.82 notionally and actually from 1.11.83.                                         Sd/-                                    (Shyam Sunder)           Under Secretary to the Government of India"      By the said office memorandum, the Government of India, after considering  the request  of the  staff side  that the scales of  pay, allowed to the Draughtsmen Grade I, II & III working in C.P.W.D. on the basis of the above Award of Board of Arbitration  may be extended to Draughtsmen Grade I, II & III irrespective  of their recruitment qualifications in all Government of  India offices,  has decided  that Draughtsmen Grade I,  II &  III in offices/departments of the Government of India  other than  in C.P.W.D.  may also be placed in the revised scales  of pay  on the basis of the award subject to certain minimum  period  of  service  as  mentioned  in  the clauses (a), (b) and (c) in para 2 of the Office Memorandum. The benefit  of this  revision of  scales of  pay under  the office memorandum  dated 19th  October, 1994  has been given retrospectively with effect from the same dates as was given by the  Office Memorandum  dated March  13, 1984, i.e., from May 13,  1982 notionally  and actually  from  1st  November, 1983.  In   respect  of   draughtsmen  who   fulfilled   the requirement relating  to the  period of service mentioned in the said  Office Memorandum  dated 19th October, 1994 on the relevant  date   the  question   whether  their  recruitment qualifications  were   similar  to  those  in  the  case  of draughtsman in  C.P.W.D. would  not arise  and they would be entitled to  the  revised  pay  scales  as  granted  to  the draughtsmen in  C.P.W.D. irrespective  of their  recruitment qualifications. But  in respect of those draughtsmen who did not fulfil the requirement relating to the period of service prescribed in  para 2  of the  office memorandum  dated 19th October,  1994   the  question   whether  their  recruitment qualifications  are   similar  to   those   prescribed   for draughtsmen in C.P.W.D. is required to be considered for the purpose of deciding whether they are entitled to the benefit of the  revision of  pay scales as per the office memorandum dated March 13, 1984.      We will  first take  up the  case of draughtsmen in the Ordnance  Factories.  In  C.P.W.D.  the  qualifications  for direct appointment  on the  post of  Draughtsman Grade II is Certificate or  Diploma in  Civil, Mechanical  or Electrical

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

Engineering from  a recognised  Institution with  6  months’ practical  training  plus  additional  one  year  employment experience in  an organisation  or firm  of repute  and  the posts not  filled by direct recruitment are filled primarily by appointment  of Draughtsmen  Trainees. The Jabalpur Bench of the  Tribunal, in  its judgment dated April 21, 1987, has stated that  it has  been admitted by the Ordnance Factories Board that  the relevant recruitment rules, namely SRO, 4 of 1956, is  silent on the mode of filling posts of draughtsman and that the practice followed by the Ordnance Factory Board is as follows :      "By  gradation   of  D’men  trainees  on      successful completion of training as per      scheme for  the  training  of  D’men  at      ATS/OFTI Ambarnath  introduced vide M of      D letter  referred to  above.  Posts  of      D’men in  O.F.’s are filled primarily by      appointment of  D’man Trainees. However,      a few  posts are also filled bypromotion      of  tracers   with   minimum   3   years      experience in that trade".           The Tribunal  has  observed  that  the  scheme  of training of  draughtsmen at  ATS Ambarnath  was laid down in the Ministry  of Defence’s letter of November 14, 1969 which prescribes  the  various  entrance  qualifications  and  the curriculum and  the period of training and that the entrance qualification is  matriculation  with  two  years  practical experience in Tools Room or 1-1/2 years Draughtsman’s course of I.T.I.  and that  after selection 2-1/2 years training is given which  includes six  months working  in factories  and that according  to clause  10 of  the Scheme  a  draughtsmen trainee will  be  graded  either  for  the  post  of  Senior Draughtsman or  Draughtsman and that the scheme nowhere lays down that those trainees can be posted as Tracers. According to  the   Tribunal,  the   qualifications   prescribed   for draughtsmen in  Ordnance Factories are similar or equivalent to those prescribed for recruitment in C.P.W.D. The Tribunal has held  that the  decision of  the Ordnance  Factory Board based  on  the  Sub-Committee  report  that  the  applicants (respondents herein)  should be  equated  with  Tracers  and Draughtsman Grade  III of  C.P.W.D. was  fallacious. In this context, it would be relevant to mention that as per the pay scales fixed  on the  basis  of  report  of  the  First  Pay Commission of 1947 there was no difference in the pay scales of Draughtsmen and Tracers in the Ordnance Factories and the pay scales  of Draughtsmen  and Tracers  in C.P.W.D.  Senior Draughtsman in the Ordnance Factories and Draughtsman in the C.P.W.D. were  placed in  the  pay  scale  of  Rs.  150-225, Draughtsman  in   the  Ordnance   Factories  and   Assistant Draughtsman in C.P.W.D. were placed in the scale of Rs. 100- 185 and Tracers in Ordnance Factories as well as in C.P.W.D. were placed  in the scale of Rs. 60-150. On the basis of the report of  the Second  Pay Commission  in 1959  there was  a slight modification  in the  pay scale of Senior Draughtsman in Ordnance Factories. Tracers in the Ordnance Factories and C.P.W.D. were  placed in  the same  pay scale of Rs. 110-200 and  Draughtsmen   in  Ordnance   Factories  and   Assistant Draughtsmen C.P.W.D.  were placed  in the  same pay scale of Rs. 150-240.  Senior Draughtsmen  in Ordnance Factories were placed in  the pay scale of Rs. 205-280 while Draughtsmen in C.P.W.D. were  placed in  the pay  scale of  Rs. 180-380. By Notification dated  September 1,  1965, there  was change in the designation of posts of drawing office staff in C.P.W.D. and Draughtsman  was  designated  as  Draughtsman  Grade  I, Assistant Draughtsman was designated as Draughtsman Grade II

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

and  Tracer   was  designated   as  Draughtsman  Grade  III. Thereafter on  the basis  of the  report of  the  Third  Pay Commission in  1973, Tracer  in the  Ordnance Factories  and Draughtsmen Grade  III in  C.P.W.D. were  placed in the same pay scale  of Rs. 260-430, Draughtsmen in Ordnance Factories and Draughtsmen Grade II in C.P.W.D. were placed in the same pay scale  of Rs.330-560  and Senior Draughtsmen in Ordnance Factories and  the Draughtsmen  Grade  I  in  C.P.W.D.  were placed in  the same pay scale of Rs.425-700. This would show that Tracer in Ordnance Factories has all along been treated as equivalent  to Tracer/Draughtsman  Grade III  in C.P.W.D. and Draughtsman  in Ordnance  Factories has  all along  been treated as  equivalent to  Assistant Draughtsman/Draughtsman Grade II  in C.P.W.D.  As a  result of  the revision  of pay scales in C.P.W.D. on the basis of the Award of the Board of Arbitration, the  pay scale  of Draughtsman  Grade  III  was revised to  Rs. 330-560,  while that of Draughtsman Grade II was revised  to Rs.  425-700 and  of Draughtsman Grade I was revised to  Rs. 550-750.  The denial  of similar revision of pay scale  to Draughtsmen in Ordnance Factories would result in   their    being   down-graded    to   the    level    of Tracer/Draughtsman Grade  III in  C.P.W.D. Office Memorandum dated March 13, 1984 cannot, in our opinion, be construed as having such an effect.      Shri N.N. Goswami, the learned senior counsel appearing in support  of the  appeals as  well as  the  Special  Leave Petitions and  the Review  Petitions,  has  urged  that  the channel of promotion in Ordnance Factories is different from the channel of promotion in C.P.W.D. inasmuch as in C.P.W.D. there is  no further  promotion after  a person  reches  the scale of  Draughtsman Grade  I while in Ordnance Factories a draughtsman is entitled to be promoted as Chargeman Grade II and thereafter  as Chargeman Grade I and as Foreman and that the post of Chargeman Grade II which is the promotional post for draughtsman was in the pay scale of Rs. 425-700 and that placement of Draughtsman in the said pay scale of Rs.425-700 would result  in Draughtsman  being placed at the same level as  the   promotional  post   of  Chargeman  Grade  II  and, therefore, the  benefit of  the revision of pay scales under Office Memorandum dated March 13, 1984 cannot be extended to the Draughtsmen  in Ordnance  Factories. On  behalf  of  the respondents it  is disputed  that there  are no  promotional chances for  Draughtsman Grade  I in C.P.W.D.. This question was not  agitated in  any of the matters before the Tribunal and we  are, therefore,  unable to entertain this plea urged by Shri  Goswami on behalf of the appellants/petitioners. As regards the  post of  Chargeman Grade II being a promotional post for  Draughtsman in  Ordnance Factories and it being in the scale of Rs. 425-700 at the relevant time, we are of the view that merely because of promotional post for Draughtsmen in Ordinance  Factories was  in the  scale  of  Rs.  425-700 cannot be  a justification  for denying  the revision of pay scales to Draughtsmen and their being placed in the scale of Rs. 425-700  on the  basis of  the Office  Memorandum  dated March 13, 1984 if such Draughtsmen are otherwise entitled to such revision  in the  pay scale  on the  basis of  the said Memorandum. Moreover,  the provision  regarding promotion of Draughtsman as Chargeman Grade II in Ordinance Factories was introduced  by   the  Indian   Ordnance  Factories  Group  C Supervisory  and   Non-Gazetted   Cadre   (Recruitment   and Conditions of  Service) Rules, 1989 issued vide Notification dated May  4, 1989.  The said Rules are not retrospective in operation. Here  we are  concerned with  the revision of pay scales with  effect from  May 13,  1982 on  the basis of the Office Memorandum  dated March  13, 1984  and, at that time,

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

the said  Rules were  not operative. Therefore, on the basis of the  aforesaid Rules  Draughtsmen in  Ordinance Factories cannot be  denied the  benefit of  revision of pay scales on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated March 13, 1984. The appeals and the SLPs as well as Review Petitions relating to draughtsmen in  Ordnance Factories are, therefore, liable to be dismissed.      Dealing with  draughtsmen in the Army Base Workshops in the E.M.E., the Principal Bench of the Tribunal has observed that  in  the  E.M.E.  for  the  post  of  draughtsman,  the qualifications that are prescribed are "Matriculation or its equivalent  with   two  years   Diploma  in  draughtsmanship Mechanical or  its equivalent". The Tribunal has referred to the Report  of  the  Third  Pay  Commission  wherein,  while dealing with  draughtsmen who  were in  the pay scale of Rs. 150-240 (as  per report  of Second  Pay Commission),  it  is stated :      "(ii) for  the next  higher grade of Rs.      150-240 the  requirement is  generally a      Diploma   in   Draughtsmanship   or   an      equivalent qualification in Architecture      (both  of   2  years’   duration   after      Matriculation)."      The Tribunal  has observed  that Tracer  in the  E.M.E. could not  be treated  in any  other manner  but at par with Grade III  Draughtsman of  C.P.W.D. keeping  in  view  their recruitment  qualifications.  The  Tribunal  held  that  the benefit of  Office Memorandum  dated march 13, 1984 had been rightly extended  to Draughtsmen  in  E.M.E.  and  that  its withdrawal was illogical and irrational. The learned counsel for the  appellants has been unable to show that is the said view of  the Tribunal  suffers from an infirmity which would justify interference by this Court.      Civil Appeal Nos. 1433 of 1986, 2125-33 of 1993 as well as S.L.Ps.  (Civil) Nos.  8593-94 of 1987, 22016 of 1993 and Review Petitions (Civil) Nos. 857-58 of 1991 are accordingly dismissed but  in the  facts and  circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.