UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus ANIL KUMAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [1999] 3 S.C.R. 835 · Decided: 13-07-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
ANIL KUMAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
JULY 13, 1999 
[K. VENKATASWAMI AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Pay Scales -Two pay scales within the same grade created-Creation 
of pay scales on the basis of award of the Arbitrator-Different pay scales C 
created to give incentive-Held, not discriminatory-Constitution of India-
Articles 14 and 16. 
Clubbing of post to reduce number of pay scales-Validity of-Defence 
Research and Development Organisation Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, D 
1995-Rule 6(3)(a)__:(;onstitution of India-Articles 14 and 16. 
Seniori~lubbing of posts-Incumbents of one post having higher 
salary placed en bloc junior to incumbents of other posts-Defence Research 
and Development Organisation Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 1995-
Rule 6(3)(b)-Validity of-Constitution of India-Articles 14 and 16. 
E 
The dispute in the present case relates to the pay scales and inter se 
seniority between the Senior Scientific Assistants, Assistant Foremen and 
Chief Draughtsmen working in various organisations of the Ministry of 
Defence. Initially, the Class-III non-gazetted technical, scientific and non- F 
ministerial posts in the Defence Research and Development Organisation 
were governed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation 
Class III Non-gazetted (Technical, Scientific and Other Non-Ministerial) 
Posts Recruitment Rules, 1968. The then existing Organisation was as 
under:-
Scientific Cadre 
Senior Scientific 
Assistant 
1640-2900 
Technical Cadre 
Foreman 
2375-3500 
835 
Non-Ministerial Cadre 
Chief Draughtsman 
2000-3200 
G 
H 
836 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999] 3 S.C.R. 
A Junior Scientific 
Assistant Foreman 
Draughtsman-I 
Assistant-I 
2000-3200 
1600-2660 
1400-2300 
Junior Scientific 
Chargeman-I 
Draughtsman-II 
Assistant-II 
1600~2660 
1400-2300 
B 1320-2040 
Chargeman-11 
Draughtsman-ill 
1400-2300 
1200-2040 
C 
The Senior Scientific Assistants raised a dispute and claimed a higher 
pay scale than· 1640-2900 on the ground that Assistant Foremen were getting 
a higher pay. scale. The matter was ultimately referred to Arbitration. The 
Board of Arbitration accepted the claim of Senior Scientific Assistants and 
Draughtsmen for higher pay scale and it created two grades in the level of 
Senior scientific Assistant and Draughtsman. The proportion of posts to be 
D allocated to the enhanced pay scale was to be proportionate to that obtaining 
in the Foreman category vis a vis the highest grade of Assistant Foreman. 
On the basis of the Award of the Board of Arbitration, 822 posts out 
of the total posts of 1677 of Senior Scientific Assistants were given benefit 
of the higher pay scale of 2375-3500 by the Government. The rest of the 
E posts continued to be in the pay scale of 1640-2900. 
F 
In 1995, the service rules were amended and the Defence Research and 
Development Organisation Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 1995 came 
into force. By Rule 6(3)(a) the posts of Senior Scientific Assistant in the pay 
scale of 1640-2900, Chief Draughtsman in the pay scale of 2000-3200, 
Assistant Foreman, Draughtsman Grade I and Chargeman Grade I were 
clubbed together. The new grade was designated as Senior Technical Assistant 
and was to act as a feeding cadre for promotion to Technical Officer 'A'. The 
pay scale of the newly created grade was to be 1640-2900. By Rule 6(3)(b), 
the incumbents of posts of Assistant Foreman were made en bloc junior to 
G the incumbents of posts of Senior Scientific Assistants and Chief 
Draughtsman. Under FR 23, the employees were given an option to opt for 
their old pay scales. 
Some Senio.r Scientific.Assistants challenged the bifurcation of their 
grade and creation of two pay scales as arbitrary and discriminatory. On the 
H other hand, the Assistant Foreman challenged the validity of Rule 6(3)(b) of 
-
U.O.l. v. ANIL KUMR 
837 
the Defence Research and Development Organisation Technical Cadre A 
Recruitment Rules, 1995 on the ground that their en bloc placement below 
the incum~ents of Senior Scientific Assistant and Chief Draughtsman was 
illegal and arbitrary. They further claimed that their placement in the newly 
created grade of Senior Technical Assistant in the pay scale of 1640-2900 
by virtue of Rule 6(3)(a) of the Defence Research and Development 
Organisation Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 1995 amounted to their B 
demotion as their pay scale was higher than that of Senior Scientific 
Assistant, Chargeman Gr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.