GOPIKA RANJAN CHOUDHARY v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 727

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: RANGANATH MISRA, P.B. SAWANT, K. RAMASWAMY

Case summary

The Tribunal further observed that "as a matter of fact these staff are enjoying the scale of pay allowed to staff of the Headquarters since its inception in 1962".

Judgment text

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SAWANT, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated August 11, 1986, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Gauhati Bench rejecting the claim for parity in emoluments between the Upper Division Assistants and Lower Division Assistants (hereinafter referred to as UDAs and LDAs) in the branch establish· ments on Jhe one hand and their counterparts working at the Head· quarters on the other. 2. The admitted facts are that the Assam Rifles, a para-military force was created by the then Assam Govt. under the Assam Rifles Act, 1920, for its protection. It was taken over by the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs under its direct control in October 1947. It appears further that the Government of India appointed where discussed as to in what respect the duties and responsibilities of the staff at the Headquarters are dffierent and higher in nature than those of the staff at the Units/Battalions.

There is only a statement made in that behalf in paragraph 17 of the judgment without assigning any reason for it. What is further, there is a contradiction between the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the CRO and UPAO at the Headquarters is quite "distinct" establishment from the range Headquarters/Battalions, and the justification made by it of the higher emoluments of the staff at the Headquarters on the ground that they are enjoying the same as allowed to the other staff of the Headquarters since its inception in 1962. The Tribunal has thus obviously missed the substance of the grievance of the appellant namely, that if as is alleged by the appellant and contrary to the contention of the Union of India, the CRO and UPAO at the Headquarters is a different unit and not a part of the Headquarters, then the staff attached to the office at the Headquarters is not entitled to emoluments higher than those drawn by the staff of the Units/Battalions.

The payment of higher emoluments to the said staff merely on the ground that the establishment is at the place where the Headquarters is situate, is discriminatory as against the staff at the Units/Battalions since it is in no way different from the other Units. This is apart from the grievance of the appellant that there is no difference either in the nature of work and duties of the two or in their qualifications and that the services of the staff at the Units/Battalions are transferrable to the Headquarters. 9. There is, however, some substance in the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that before the Tribunal no sufficient material was placed by the appellant to show, firstly; that the nature of work, and the duties and the responsibilities of the two were the same and the qualifications for appointment at the two establishments were also similar.

It was also not shown to the Tribunal that those who were transferred from the Units/Battalions to the Headquarters were transferred arbitrarily without dther taking into consideration their seniority or subjecting them to the process of selection. The Tribunalwill have therefore, to apply its mind to these aspects and record Its finding as to whether although the CRO and [1989) Supp. 1 S. C. R. ~PAO is not a part of the establishment of the Headquarters, the higher emoluments would be justified on account of the said other factors. 10.

While therefore, the finding given by the Tribunal that CR and PAO at the Headquarters is a different unit and not a part of the establishment of the Headquarters is not disturbed by us, we remand the matter to the Tribunal for recording a finding on {i) whether the qualifications for appointment at the two establishments viz; CRO and ,, UPAO at the Headquarters and at the Units are different, (ii) whether the nature of the duties and responsibilities of the UDAs and LDAs at the Headquarters is of a higher order than that of those at the Units/ Battalions and (iii) whether the transfer of the staff from the Units/ Battalions to the Headquarters was done arbitrarily and without applying any test. The Tribunal will give a proper opportunity to both the sides to place the relevant material on the aforesaid points before it and give its findings on the aforesaid aspects and wiII also decide whether on that account the difference ini the emoluments of the two is justified. 11.

The appeal is allowed accordingly. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter according to law in the light of what is stated hereinabove. The parties_to bear their own costs. T. N. A Appeal allowed.