IARI STENOGRAPHERS ASSOCIATION vs SANJAY GARG, THE SECRETARY, ICAR
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on : 04 November 2024 Judgment pronounced on : 07 November 2024 + CONT.CAS(C) 903/2022 & CM APPL. 38103/2022 IARI STENOGRAPHERS ASSOCIATION …..Petitioner Through: Mr. Nalin Kohli, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Padma Kumar, Ms. Nimisha Menon, Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advs. versus SANJAY GARG, THE SECRETARY, ICAR & ANR. …..Respondents Through: Devesh Maurya, Advs. for R-1. Mr. S.S. Lingwal, Adv. for R-2. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA J U D G M E N T
1. Having heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/Secretary, Indian Council of Agricultural Research [ICAR] as well as the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Secretary, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance [DoE] and on perusal of the record, this Court finds that the respondents are clearly in contempt of the direction of this Court dated 19.09.2019 passed in W.P.(C) 4178/2015, which upheld the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi [CAT] dated 01.07.2014 in OA No. 3763/2012.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the ICAR is an autonomous organization wholly funded by the Government of India, which is stated to be running several Research Institutions, Directorates, National Bureaus and as many as four Universities located all over the country, for which purposes it employs large number of manpower. The issue concerns about 662 Personal Assistants [PAs] and Private Secretaries [PSs] working in different institutions and the present matter concerns the claim of parity of pay of PAs (Stenographers Grade-II) working in the Indian Agriculture Research Institute [IARI] under the overall administrative control of the ICAR. It appears that there was pay parity for almost ten years consequent to the recommendations of 1st Pay Commission and 2nd Pay Commission but anomalies surfaced after the recommendations of 3rd Pay Commission effective from 01.01.2006. The aggrieved PAs filed OA No. 3763/2012 before the CAT wherein inter alia the following reliefs were claimed:
8.1 to call for the records of the case; 8.2 to quash and set aside the impugned order and directed the Respondents to extend the benefits of O.M. dated 7.11.2008 and 26.11.2008 to the applicants herein; 8.3 to grant the benefit of grade pay of Rs.4600/- in PB-2 of Rs. 9300-34800 corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 7450-11500 w.e.f. 1.1.2006 to the Applicants/Personal Assistants with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as is being enjoyed by the Personal Assistants of the Respondent No.1/ICAR along with interest on delayed payment.
8.4 to grant the benefit of Grade Pay of Rs.4800/- in the pay band PB-2 of Rs. 9300-34800 corresponding to the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 and on completion of four years in PB-2 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4800/-, the grade pay of Rs. 5400/- in PB-3 of Rs. 15600-39100 to the Applicants/Private Secretaries with all consequential benefits w.e.f. 1.1.2006 as is being enjoyed by the Private Secretaries of the Respondent No.1/ICAR along with
interest on delayed payment; 8.5 to award cost of the present petition; 8.6 to pass any further and other such order(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Learned Judge, CAT in the course of Judgment dated 01.07.2014 found that the pay anomalies were patently visible on the implementation of the recommendations of the IVth Pay Commission. The Learned Judge, CAT alluded to the note initiated on 07.04.1997, which was approved by the Cabinet thereby, resolving that the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 should be extended to the Assistants/Stenographers (Grade-II) working in ICAR w.e.f. the date of approval of the Cabinet, to settle long pending grievances of the incumbents of the posts and a decision was taken by the Union Cabinet held on 29.04.1997 whereby, the Competent Authority approved the unification of the cadres of Assistants/Stenographers (Grade-II) of the ICAR Headquarters and its research institute with immediate effect. The office order No. 15(8)/96-Estt.1 dated 16.06.1997 also provided that consequent to the extension of the benefit of the aforementioned pay scale to the Assistants/Stenographers (Grade-II) at the ICAR, the existing RRs1 for the post would cease to exist and recruitment would be made after the amendment of the Rules.
4. Learned Judge, CAT based on the aforesaid Cabinet decision had the occasion to observe as under:-
1 Recruitment Rules
Despite a clear direction in terms of the order passed in OA No. 2083/2011, the respondents have not paid any heed to the Cabinet
Note (ibid) and have not given any explanation either in the impugned order or in the reply filed by them for not doing SO. Once the Union Cabinet categorically viewed that Stenographers (Gr.II) posted at ICAR Hqrs Research Institutes cannot be treated differently and in acceptance of the said view, the benefit of Fifth Central Pay Commission was given equally to Private Secretaries /PAs in ICAR Hqrs and Research Institutes, after the recommendations of the VI CPC, they cannot be treated differently. When the ICAR has tried to raise all possible grounds in support of their stand of not giving the grade pay to the employees in ICAR Research Institutes at par with those posted in its headquarters, including one that except for the brief period during which the pay scale was fixed pursuant to the Vth CPC, the Private Secretaries/ PAs posted in Institutes were given lesser pay that those posted in Hqrs., it has not given any reason as to why the grounds articulated in the order dated 7.09.2012 have not been addressed to or dealt with by it. Once pursuant to the Cabinet note, the same set of RRS were made applicable to ICAR hqrs and its Institutes, merely to justify the grant of different grade pay to the incumbents of two posts in Hqrs and Institutes, the respondents cannot change the RRs. May be, the respondents may say that the PAs/PSs in the Institutes were given pay parity with those posted in ICAR Hqrs. only for a short period but it cannot be ignored that the said parity was for 10 years and the pay scale was given pursuant to the Union Cabinet note after detailed deliberation on the issue. In the impugned order, the respondents have also not dealt with rule 2 (k) of the Rules of ICAR, i.e. the Constituent Units of the Society means the Indian Council of Agricultural Research Headquarters its Research Institutions, regional and sub-stations, research laboratories etc: and Co-ordinated projects managed and administered by the Society. They also ignore that the Bye laws of the ICAR are equally applicable to its Hars and Institute. In the impugned order passed by it, when ICAR has taken note of grounds noted by the Tribunal in its previous order, the only reason given by them to not grant the benefit of the recommendations to applicants is that the pre- condition of unification has not been fulfilled. If there was any confusion in this regard, it was for the administrative machinery to do the needful. If the administrative machinery felt that the unification was not required and the pay parity could be ensured without such exercise, the applicants herein cannot be blamed. There is no justification given by the respondents for granting pay parity to applicants after the recommendations of Vth CPC without insisting upon unification. If there was any confusion or doubt regarding ramification of the Union Cabinet note, the matter should have
been placed before the same body to seek clarification and only thereafter follow up action could be taken. Having implemented the Cabinet decision in a particular manner and making the benefit available to a group of employees for 10 years, suddenly the administrative machinery in consultation with the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) may not disturb the parity for further benefits by taking the plea of unification. If the unification is so essential and in the interest of administration, the same could be done even now also. The parity of pay scale given to certain categories of employees after discussion of detailed history and approval of the Cabinet may not be disturbed suddenly to their disadvantage by espousing a reason which ought to have been taken note of a decade ago
5. Finally, the following directions were passed:
In view of the aforementioned, OA is disposed of with direction to respondents to consider the claim of the applicant for the Grade Pay of Rs.4600 and Rs. 4800 in Pay Band-2 and Rs.5400 in Pay Band-3, having due regard to the fact that the Union Cabinet had accepted the pay parity between the employees of the Institutes of ICAR and its Headquarters and the benefit of Fifth Central Pay Commission was equally extended to them. In the event the unification of the Grades/cadres of the two services in Headquarters and Institutes is needed in the interest of administration and unification is considered as pre-condition to prescribe the same pay scale for the incumbents of the posts in the two categories in Headquarters and Institutes, it would be open to respondents to do such exercise. The pay parity in the Institutes as recommended by Cabinet Note may not be disturbed by the administrative machinery and such decision has to be taken at the level of the Union Cabinet only. No costs
6. The aforesaid order dated 01.07.2014 was challenged by the respondents in W.P.(C) 4178/2015, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 19.09.2019, wherein the following final directions were passed:
44. It thus appears to the Court that it is only the DOE2 which is opposed to the grant of parity in pay scales to the PAs/PSs of IARI on par with their counterparts in the ICAR HQ. Each of the
2 Department of Expenditure/Respondent No.2
objections raised by the DOE have in fact been dealt with by the CAT in the impugned judgment. As far as the unification of both cadres is concerned, this has already been accepted. The mere fact that the MOA might have had difficulty in merging of the cadres would not justify the denial of parity of pay scale. 45. It was submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that there is an additional post of PPS created in the ICAR HQ. However, that is an intermediate post and does not affect equating the pay scales of PAs/PSs posted at the Institutes and the ICAR HQ. This, therefore, cannot be a valid justification to deny parity of pay scale. The historical differentiation brought about by the 3rd CPC was what led to the entire litigation and therefore it is futile for the DOE to fall back on that disparity to justify its continuance. 46. To the Court it appears that the real objection of the DOE is only that the earlier benefit of pay scale of Rs. 4,800/- to SO/PS and Rs. 5400/- after four years of service was granted without the approval of the MOF. That by itself cannot be a justification to deny parity of pay scale. Case law cited by the Petitioners 47. Learned counsel for the Petitioners sought to place reliance on the decision in State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj AIR 2003 SC 2658 which is a decision essentially on equal pay for equal work in different organisations and not within two sets of employees in the same organisation as in the present case. For that matter, the reliance on S. C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand AIR 2007 SC 3021 is also misplaced. 48. While as a broad proposition as explained in State of U.P v. J.P. Chaurasia AIR 1989 SC 19 there had to be a detailed study of the job profile in two different posts, in the present case the detailed note prepared by the MOA itself explains in great detail that functionally the task performed in the two posts of PSs/PAs whether at the ICAR Headquarters or at the other institutes are not different. The Court finds that there is no basis for continuing to differentiate in the pay scales of PAs/PSs working in the ICAR Headquarters and institutes. 49. As rightly pointed out in the impugned order of the CAT the earlier decision of this Court in ICAR Stenographers Association v. ICAR (supra) was on the limited aspect of the retrospective nature of the proposal to equate the pay scales with effect from 1 st January, 1997 and did not actually address the issue whether there was justification in differentiating in the pay scales of PAs/PSs of the IARI and their counterparts in the ICAR HQ. 50. For all of the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds no grounds having been made out by the Petitioners for interference with the impugned order of the CAT.
51. The petition is accordingly dismissed. The pending application is also dismissed.
7. It is also a matter of record that the aforesaid decision by the Division Bench of this Court was assailed in the SLP3 (Civil) Diary No. 12245/2021 and the Supreme Court dismissed the same vide order dated 01.07.2021. Review Petition was filed bearing diary No.28662/2021, which was also dismissed vide order dated 11.01.2022.
8. The respondent No.1/ICAR, however, in its counter reply-cum- compliance report filed by Mr. Sanjay Garg, Secretary, ICAR dated 02.05.2023 acknowledging the entire history of the litigation on the subject has made the following submissions/depositions:
3 Special Leave Petition
7. That immediately thereafter, a proposal for implementation of order was sent to MoF for approval. However, only after a series of Inter-Departmental communications on the basis of deliberations carried out by different Committees for ensuring compliance of order of Hon’ble Court as well as the decision of Union Cabinet dated 27th April, 1997, also keeping in view the huge financial implications etc., the DoE, MoF has approved the proposal of DARE w.r.t. grant of pay-parity to Steno Cadre of ICAR Institutes with prospective effect from the date of their unification with Steno Cadre of ICAR Headquarters, i.e., w.e.f. 01.01.2023.
8. That consequently, in compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 11th January, 2022 with reference to the unification of stenographer’s cadres of ICAR Hqrs. & ICAR Institutes and extending pay-scales of Personal Assistants / Private Secretaries of ICAR HQ to their counterparts in ICAR institutes as per the decision of Union Cabinet dated 29th April, 1 997, the Competent Authority of the Council has given his consent to unify the stenographer cadres of ICAR Hqrs. & its Institute w.e.f. 01.01. 2023 and to simultaneously revise the pay structure of Stenographic Cadre with effect from the date of unification of Institute & Headquarter. Accordingly, the Council has issued notification F .No. 33-16/2015-Estt.I(R&P) dated 02.03.2023 for
information, guidance and necessary action to all concerned. It is also informed that the detailed notification related to seniority principles etc. to be followed for posts in unified cadre and RRs thereof will be issued separately.
9. Insofar as the notification dated 02.03.2023 is concerned, apparently it is on the subject of unification of the Stenographers Cadre of ICAR Headquarters and its Institute and revision of pay structure, which has brought about complete parity w.e.f. 01.01.2023.
10. Without further ado, the respondents have no worthwhile defence at all to the instant contempt petition. The directions of the learned Judge, CAT as approved by the Division Bench of this court vide order dated 19.09.2019 are categorical to the effect that the claim of the petitioner for grade pay of Rs.4600-4800 in Pay Band-II and Rs.5400 in Pay Band-III have to be accorded, that would resultantly bring about pay parity with the employees of the ICAR Headquarters, which would be in terms of the decision by the Union Cabinet.
11. Surprisingly, learned counsel for the respondents referred to the operative portion of the directions in the judgment by the learned Judge, CAT to the effect that in the event of unification of the grades/cadres of the two services in Headquarters and Institutes, the department was given liberty to set up any pre-condition to prescribe the pay scales for the incumbents of the post in the two categories in Headquarters and Institutes. However, the said submission fails to take note of the fact that it was categorically provided that the recommendations of the Cabinet shall not be disturbed in any manner. To the same effect was the decision of this Court, which rejected the plea that although unification of the grades/cadres was proposed vide
circular dated 16.06.1997 but not implemented till that time, did not afford any room to the respondents to overlook the recommendations approved by the Cabinet.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the respondent No.1/ Secretary, ICAR as well as the respondent No.2/Secretary, DOE are guilty of committing wilful and deliberate disobedience of the directions of this Court. However, in order to enable them to purge themselves of the contempt committed by them, they are directed to ensure that the pay parity be accorded to the members of the petitioner/Association and the financial benefits are worked out and released to the beneficiaries reckoned for the period of 01.01.2006 to 31.12.2022 as per the directions of this Court.
13. Let the compliance report be filed within six weeks from today.
14. The present contempt petition stands disposed of.
15. In case of non-compliance, the respondents No. 1 and 2 shall appear before this Court through video conferencing at 2.30 p.m. on 10.01.2025 for hearing them on the issue of punishment for committing contempt of the directions of this Court in accordance with law.
DHARMESH SHARMA, J. NOVEMBER 07, 2024 Sadiq