ANJALI ARORA vs. UNION OF INDIA

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(s).333 OF 2018 ANJALI ARORA AND OTHERS ….PETITIONER(S) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ….RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT NAVIN SINHA, J. The   Petitioners   seek   mandamus   under   Article   32   of   the Constitution, for grant of pay scale on the basis of parity as granted by this Court on 21.10.2010 to the appellants in  Yogeshwar Prasad & Ors.   vs.   National   Institute   of   Educational   Planning   and Administration & Ors.  (in short, “National Institute”), (2010) 14 SCC 323. 2. It   is   the   contention   of   the   petitioners   that   they   are   similarly situated as the appellants in Yogeshwar Prasad (supra), working in the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by JAYANT KUMAR ARORA Date: 2019.02.11 17:38:37 IST Reason: National   Institute   and   are   therefore   also   entitled   to   the   benefit   of 1 Regulation 4(2) of the National Institute Regulations for grant of pay scale at par with that being given to persons holding similar posts in the  Central  Government.     The   petitioners   have   been  pursuing  the matter with the respondents by filing representations since 2015 and were assured that their claims were under consideration till it was finally rejected on 05.02.2018.   Even while the respondents contend that this Court had confined the relief to the appellants only in the aforesaid appeal, nonetheless they have themselves granted similar relief to four other persons who were not parties to the appeal, by order   dated   02.11.2012.     The   petitioners   have   therefore   been subjected to arbitrary and hostile discrimination.   3. The respondents have denied entitlement to relief on the basis of parity.   It is their contention that the petitioners are not similarly situated   as   the   appellants   in   Yogeshwar   Prasad(supra)   or   those granted relief on the basis of the same. 4. We have considered the submission on behalf of the parties.  The controversy relates to the grant of pay scale of Rs.1640­2900 with th effect from 01.01.1986 pursuant to the 4   Central Pay Commission recommendation, and the consequent revisions of that scale.   It is not in   dispute   that   the   petitioners   are   also   working   in   the   National 2 Institute   alike   the   appellants   in   Yogeshwar   Prasad   (supra).     The petitioners will therefore be equally entitled to the benefit of Regulation 4(2) of the National Institute which reads as follows: “4(2) Group ‘A’ officers, other than faculty members and those on UGC grades of pay groups ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees shall draw salary and allowances in such   scales   of   pay   as   may   be   applicable   to   the corresponding   categories   of   Central   Government employees   and   be   subject   to   such   conditions   of service   as   are   or   may   be   applicable   to   Central Government employees from time to time.” 5. But parity of pay scale can be granted to the petitioners provided they were similarly situated as the appellants in the Yogeshwar Prasad (supra).     If   that   be   so,   they   would   undoubtedly   be   entitled   to   be considered for grant of similar relief notwithstanding the observations in Yogeshwar Prasad (supra) confining grant of relief to the appellants therein, in view of the respondents having granted similar relief to others situated alike on 02.11.2012. 6. The   respondents   in   their   counter   affidavits   have   specifically contended   that   the   petitioners   are   not   similarly   situated   as   the appellants   in   Yogeshwar   Prasad   (supra).     The   petitioners   were appointed as Junior Stenographer/Stenographer Grade­II which is a post lower than  that of  Senior  Stenographer/Stenographer Grade­I held by the appellants in Yogeshwar Prasad (supra).  The posts carry 3 different pay scales and merely acquiring ACP/MACP to the pay scales th of Rs.1400­2600/5000­8000 under the 4   Central Pay Commission th and the 5  Central Pay Commission does not entitle the petitioners to grant   of   similar   relief   as   granted   to   those   holding   higher   posts. Therefore,   UDCs/Junior   Stenographer   (Stenographer   Grade   II) who acquired   identical   pay   scales   as   those   of   Assistants/Senior Stenographers/Stenographer Grade­I by virtue of ACP/MACP cannot be considered at par so as to be entitled to parity of pay scales. 7. The pay scale of Rs.1640­2900 for the post of Stenographer ‘C’ (Senior   Stenographer/Stenographer/Stenographer   Grade­I)   was operationalized   in   terms   of   Government   of   India’s   order   dated th 31.07.1990, during the regime of 5   Central Pay Commission which was   during   the   period   w.e.f   01.01.1996   till   31.12.2005.     Both Petitioner   Nos.   1   and   2   were   not   holding   the   post   of   Senior Stenographer   Grade­I.     Petitioner   Nos.1   and   2   were   promoted   as Stenographer   Grade­I   only   w.e.f.   02.11.2017   and   12.07.2018 respectively.     Thus,   both   Petitioner   Nos.     1   and   2   became th th Stenographer Grade­I, only when the 6  and 7  Pay Commission were operational and they were already drawing their pay in the pay scale of Rs.9300­34800 with grade pay of Rs.4200.      Petitioner No.3 never 4 got regular promotion during her entire period of service and retired on 28.02.2016 as Junior Stenographer (Stenographer Grade­II) only and thus is not eligible to claim the pay scale of Senior Stenographer (Stenographer ‘C’/Stenographer Grade­I) at all.   8.  The petitioners not being similarly situated as the appellants in Yogeshwar   Prasad   (supra),   we   find   no   merit   in   the   present   Writ Petition.  The Writ Petition is dismissed. …………...................J. [R.F. NARIMAN] …………...................J. [NAVIN SINHA] NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 11, 2019 5