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
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
effect from 01.01.1986 pursuant to the 4th 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
of Rs.14002600/50008000 under the 4th Central Pay Commission
and the 5th 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
31.07.1990, during the regime of 5th 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
Stenographer GradeI, only when the 6th and 7th 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
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
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
effect from 01.01.1986 pursuant to the 4th 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
of Rs.14002600/50008000 under the 4th Central Pay Commission
and the 5th 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
31.07.1990, during the regime of 5th 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
Stenographer GradeI, only when the 6th and 7th 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
