LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus INDU LAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A UNION OF INDIA AND' ORS. v. INDU LAL AND ORS. APRIL 29, 2002 B [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] Service Law: Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987-Section 19(2)-Presenting Officer C of Junior Administrative Grade and Law Assistant-Parity in pay scale claimed by Law Assistant-Tribunal equated the posts and drew parity in their pay scales-On appeal-Held, order of Tribunal not justified Respondents, the Law Assistants who claimed to have been designated as Presenting Officer in terms of Section 19(2) of Railway Claims Tribunal D Act, 1987 filed application before Central Administrative Tribunal .claiming. parity in pay scale on par with presenting officers of Junior Administrative Gra~ ~ Their case was that the post of Presenting Officer was an Ex-cadre post E and appointment on such post was made from Junior Administrative Grade Officers and from Law Assistants and Chief Law Assistants; and that the disparity in the pay scale of the Presenting Officers from Junior Administrative Grade and those from Law Assistants and Chief Law Assistants resulted in hostile discrimination. F Appellants' case was that respondents 5,'12, 13 and 14 had never been G H appointed as Presenting Officers; that the post of Presenting Officer was not an Ex-cadre post; and that only one Gazetted Officer of Junior Administrative Grade was appointed as Presenting Officer and other respondents were working under their supervision and nature of their duties were not the same. Tribunal held that all Law Assistants and Chief Law Assistants including the respondents were authorised to work as Presenting Officers, hence the respondents were entitled to parity in pay scale and directed the respondents to be placed in the pay scale of Group 'B'. Hence the present appeal Allowing the appeal, the Court 584 ' • • U.0.1. v. INDU LAL [S. RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 585 HELD: 1. Tribunal was not justified in giving the directions to place A the respondents in the pay scale of Group 'B', particularly in the light of Section 19(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act in relation to equation of posts or drawing a parity in the pay scales. (590-B] 2. The case that there is an ex-cadre of Presenting Officer is misconceived. When a matter is to be represented before the Tribunal the B railway administration may authorise a legal practitioner to appear on their behalf or in appropriate cases any of its officers to act as Presenting Officers on their behalf. Thus the authorisation of an officer to present a case before the Tribunal will not convert them as a separate cadre of officers. (589-F] Union of India v. P. V. Hariharan, [1997] 3 SCC 568; Union of India v. C Makhan Chandra Roy, (1997] l 1 SCC 182; State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni, (1981] 4 SCC 130 and State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, (1989] 1 sec 121, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2668 of D 1998 . From the Judgment and Order dated 1.1.97/2.1.97 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow in O.A. No. 53 of 1993. N.N. Goswami, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Anil Katiyar and Arvind Kumar E Sharma for the Appellants. M.N. Rao, Annam D.N. Rao and K.M.M. Khan for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAJENDRA BABU, J. Applications were filed under the Administrative F Tribunal Act, 1985 by the respondents claiming parity between the Presenting Officer of the Junior Administrative Grade and the Law Assistants. The respondents clab1ed that they were designated as Presenting Officers in terms of Section 19(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. G The Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench [hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'] enquired into the matter and in spite of resistance from the appellants' side held that all Law Assistants and Chief Law Assistants including the respondents were authorised to work as Presenting Officer; that a reading of Section 19(2) of the Act indicates that the Presenting Officer H 586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) 3 S.C.R. A was equated with the legal practitioner; that the Junior Administrative Grade Officers also had the power to compound cases out of court and give direction about the conduct of the cases before the court; that they were performing duties entrusted to them and the applicants who were law graduates or having degree of Master of Law were not allowed to claim even the ordinar
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.