Union of India & ANR Vs. S.K. Sareen
 INSC 774 (15 October 1997)
VENKATASWAMI, V.N. KHARE
appeal is preferred against the order of the Principal Bench of Central
Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal"), New Delhi in O.A. No. 777/92 dated 7.8.192.
respondent preferred the said O.A. praying for a direction to the appellants to
grant him (applicant before the Tribunal) the pay scale of Rs. 3000-4500/- from
1.1.1986 to which he s entitled to in terms of the rules as well as on the
principles of "equal pay for equal work". The claim of the respondent
was that he being attached to the Vice Chairman of the Tribunal as Private
Secretary is entitled to the same scale of Day as drawn by the Private
Secretaries to Ministers and Judges of the High Court. This claim of the
respondent was resisted by the appellants by filing reply to the affidavit
filed by the respondent before the Tribunal.
Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings and arguments advanced by counsel on
both sides granted the relief in the following terms:- "Pending the making
of appropriate provisions in this regard in the rules, particularly those
relating to the selection of Private Secretaries in the higher scale of pay of Rs.
3000-4500, it would be reasonable to grant to such of those Private Secretaries
to the Chairman/Vice Chairmen of the C.A.T. who have rendered eight years of
service in the feeder grade of Rs. 2000-3500, including the service rendered by
them in the C.S.S.S. or their parent departments in a similar grade, the soale
of pay of Rs. 3000-4500 on adhoc basis. Accordingly, we direct that the
respondents shall give the benefit of upgradation on an ad hoc basis to the
applicant from the date he completes the period of eight years' service in the
feeder grade of Rs. 2000-3500, including the service rendered by him in the
C.S.S. Grade 'A' & 'B'.
pay of the applicant shall be refixed accordingly and the arrears paid to
him." It will be seen from the above, the respondent in his individual
capacity prayed for the issue of writ of mandamus, the Tribunal granted the
relief which would amount to re-writing the rules governing the service of the
personnel in the Tribunal. In the view, we propose to take it is unnecessary to
deal with the matter elaborately.
crucial factor in matters of this nature revolves around mainly to mode of
recruitment, qualification, responsibilities attached to the office,
promotional opportunities and like of that. On this aspect, the respondent
(applicant before Tribunal) has not brought forth materials in his affidavit
before the Tribunal. On the other hand, the appellants in their reply have
elaborately stated as follows:- "4. It is submitted that there is no
functional parity between the Private Secretaries in the Central Administrative
Tribunal and those attached to the Secretaries in the Ministries/departments of
of India and judges of High Courts as
briefly explained below:- i) The conditions of service of the employees of
Central Administrative Tribunal are entirely different from those of the
Secretariat employees are formed of organized cadres and the Private
Secretaries come within the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service (CSSS)
the employee of High Courts are governed by different set of rules separate for
each High Court. For instance, the Delhi High Court employees are governed by
the Delhi High Court Establishment Rules, 1972. On the other hand, the
employees of Central Administrative Tribunal are governed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal (Staff Conditions of service) Rules, 1985 notified by
the Central Govt. in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of Section
36 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
Rule 3 thereof, the nature and categories of the officers and other employees
of the Tribunal and the scale of pay attached thereto have to be as specified
in the Schedule thereto. In the Schedule referred to, the post of Private
Secretary has been shown as Rs. 200-3500. Rule 4 of these Rules lays down that
the conditions of service of the officers and other employees of the Tribunal,
in matters of pay, allowances, pension and retirement benefits, medical
benefits and other conditions of service, shall be regulated in accordance with
such rules and regulations as are for the time being applicable to officers and
employee belonging to Group A, Group B, Group C and Group D of the Central
Government as the case may be, of the corresponding scales of the Pay stationed
at those places.
applicants have not challenged the validity of these rules.
there is no question of parity between Central Administrative Tribunal and the
Central Secretariat Service and High Courts.
The employees of Central Administrative Tribunal are within the purview of the
Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, whereas the employees of High Court are
excluded from the purview of Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 2
(c) of the Administrative Tribunals Act 1985.
shows that the employees of High Courts stand on an entirely different footing
from those coming within the purview of the Central administrative Tribunal.
High Courts have wide jurisdiction whereas the jurisdiction of Central
Administrative Tribunal is limited to adjudicating the service conditions and
the matters relating to Central Government employees only. High Courts are
required to follow Civil Procedure Code and Criminal Procedure code whereas
Central administrative Tribunal has to follow its own rules of procedure which
are entirely different and much lesser in magnitude than those followed by the
High Courts. Thus no parity can be sought between Central Administrative
Tribunal and the High Courts. In M.B. Majmudar vs.
1191 (14) ATC (SC) 904), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the assumption
that the Tribunal is equated with High Court in all resects is fallacious.
The Private Secretaries to secretaries in Ministries/Departments of the
Government of India have complex duties as compared to the Private Secretaries
to the Chairman/Vice Chairman in the Central Administrative Tribunal. In the Minsteries/Departments,
the Private Secretaries during office hours and before and after office hours
as also on holidays. On the other hand, the Vice Chairman/Members have to
discharge quasi judicial functions in Court for most parts of the day and,
therefore, their Private Secretaries do not have as hectic a schedule or as
demanding a job as the Private Secretaries to secretaries in the Government of
The eligibility conditions for appointment as Private Secretary in Central
Administrative Tribunal are far too lower than those prescribed for Private
Secretaries (CSS) to Secretary to the Government of India.
The parity in pay scales is being claimed not with one category but both with
High Courts as well as Secretariat offices, who are governed by two different
sets of rules and are not under the same employer. The post of Private
Secretary in Central Administrative Tribunal is also not interchangeable either
with the High Court or Secretariat Private Secretaries." The Tribunal
while dealing with this aspect has observed as follows:- "The respondents
have sought to justify the grant of higher pay scales to the Private
Secretaries attached to the Secretaries to the Government of India and
equivalent posts on the ground that they have more onerous duties and
responsibilities compared, to those working in the C.A.T. According to them,
the Private Secretaries to the Secretaries in the Ministries/Departments of the
Government of India have to remain at the beck and call of Secretaries during
office hours and even before and after office hours as also on holidays. Be
that as it may, there is no material to support their contention that the
Private Secretaries to the Vice Chairman in the C.A.T. have to discharge much
less functions in terms of quality and quantity. In our opinion, the duties and
responsibilities of the posts of Private Secretary to the Vice Chairmen are
comparable to those of his counterparts in the Central Government and in the
Delhi High Court. They have to remain at the beck and call of the vice Chairmen
and to remain in the office beyond office hours and attend to dictation work at
their residence even on holidays. In the Central Secretariat patter of working,
the Secretary is assisted by a large number of subordinate officers from
Section Office to Additional Secretary. The Chairman and Vice Chairmen are also
entrusted with administrative work, in addition to their judicial work.
have to manage with the assistance rendered by the Private Secretary and the
Curt Officer in the proper and efficient discharge of functions which makes the
job of Private Secretaries quite arduous and onerous. Thus, their duties also
involve high integrity, confidentiality and efficiency as in the case of the
Private Secretaries to the Secretaries to the Government of India." We are
unable to accept the view expressed by the Tribunal throwing the burden on the
respondent to substantiate the point. On the other, it is for the petitioner to
substantiate the point by giving materials.
State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. vs. Pramod Bhartiya
& Ors. 91993 (1) SCC 539), this Court held as follows:- "It must be
remembered that since the plea of equal pay for equal work has to be examined
with reference to Article 14, the burden is upon the petitioners to establish
that right to pay, or the plea of discrimination as the case may be."
Further in the absence of any pleading by the respondent in his affidavit, the
Tribunal has given certain facts regarding the duties of Private Secretaries
attached to the Chairman and Vice Chairmen of the Tribunal. We consider that it
would have been appropriate if the respondent has given such materials by
filing affidavit and other documents. In another place, the Tribunal has stated
that "There is no reason or explanation why the respondents did not
undertake a review of the recruitment rules relating to the Private Secretaries
of the C.A.T. as they are also attached to Chairman and Vice Chairman, who are
having pay scales equivalent to that of Cabinet Secretary (or Chief Justice of
High Court) and Secretaries to Central Government (or Judges of High Court) and
make appropriate provisions in the rules with a view to remove the existing
also one way of disposal of the matter would have been to direct the
appropriate authority to take up the review of the recruitment rules and
instead the Tribunal undertook that task and gave directions which would amount
to amendment of rules.
we are of the view that the Tribunal has not considered all the aspects brought
to its notice by the appellants in the counter affidavit. Still further in the
light of the order passed by the Tribunal. The appellants have brought to the
notice of this Court in SLP certain facts about the service of the respondent.
It is stated in paragraph III (v) as follows:- "III (v). At this stage it
is necessary to point out that the Respondent herein was holding the post of
Grade 'B' Stenographer in the Department of Personnel and Training on an ad hoc
basis from 12.8.1981 and was selected for the post of Private Secretary in the
Central Administrative Tribunal on deputation with effect from 1.11.1985. He
was absorbed there on 1.11.1989. In the Central Secretariat rules for promotion
to the grade of Principal Private Secretary were framed on 16.6.1989 and were
given retrospective eject from 1.3.1989. The actual promotions were made with
effect from 11.5.1989. In the Central Secretariat last general category candidate
promoted as Principal Private Secretary belongs to the 19/8 Select List of
Grade 'B' and the Respondent would have been too junior to be considered had he
continued in the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service.
the Respondent was absorbed with effect from 1.11.1989 only, there is no
justification for allowing him the scale of Rs. 3000- 4500 with effect from
only the approved service rendered in the grade would count for purposes of
eligibility for promotion. Therefore, in the case of the Respondent only the
regular service rendered by him in Grade 'B' and Grade 'A' of the Central
Secretariat Service or the Service rendered in the Central Administrative
Tribunal can be counted." Here again there is no denial by the respondent.
aspect also required consideration In view of what is stated above, we set
aside the order of the Tribunal under appeal and remit the matter for fresh in
accordance with law. No costs.