LexUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS. versus SHRI DEBASHIS KAR AND OTHERS ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS.
v.
SHRI DEBASHIS KAR AND OTHERS ETC.
JULY 20, 1995
~
B
[S.C. AGRAWAL ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.)
Service Law :
Revision pay scales-Whether draughtsmen employed in the ordinance
c fact01ies and Anny base workshops of E.M.E. in the defence ministry are
entitled to a revision of pay scales, on the basis of O.M. dated 13.3.1984, in
th light of the revised scales of pay of the draughtsmen in the CPWD.
Recrnitment quafifications-Whether similar-Draughtsmen not fulfill-
D
ing the requirement relating to period of service prescribed in office memdran-
dum dated 19.10.1994-Question whether the recruitment qualifications are
similar to those prescribed for draughtsmen in CPWD must be considered, in
order to extend benefit of revision of pay scales.
Respondents are draughtsmen employed in various Ordinance Fae-
E
tories under the Ordinance Factory Board and Army Base Workshops
under the EME.
The Appellant, Union of India, on the basis of the Hird Pay Com-
mission report, revised the pay scales of the draughtsmen employed in the
CPWD. The said revision having been disputed by the employees of the
F
CPWD, the dispute was referred to Arbitration and according to the award
dated 20.6.1980, the pay scales of draughtsmen in CPWD were revised, vide
order dated 10.11.1980.
The pay scales of the draughtsmen employed in CPWD having been
G
revised, the respondents claimed similar revisions of their pay scale.
Accordingly the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Vide O.M. No
13.3.1984 directed that the scales of pay of draughtsmen grade, I,11 and III
in all its offices and departments othPT than CPWD, may be revised as per
the revised pay scales of CPWD with retrospective effect from 13.5.1982,
provided their recruitment qualifications are similar to those prescribed
H for the draughtsmen in the CPWD.
'
272
-
U.0.1. v. DEBASHIS KAR
273
No action having been taken, to revise the pay scales in the Or-
A
dinance Factories, and the Army base workshops, applications were filed
before the various Benches of ~he Central Administrative Tribunal in
Calcutta Jabalpur and Hyderabad, by the respondents seeking the im-
plementation of the O.M. dated 13.3.1984.
By their judgments the various Benches of the Tribunal t9ok the view
that the qualifications required for the appointment of draughtsmen in the
Ordinance Factories as well as in the Army base Workshop in EME were
equivalent to the qualifications prescribed for the appointment for the post
of draughtsmen Grade- II in CPWD and, therefore, the respondents were
entitled to the revised pay scales.
Aggrieved, the Union of India, filed appeals before this Court, As-
sailing the said view of the Tribunals, and contending therein :
B
c
(a) The Channel of promotion in Ordinance Factories is different
from the Channel of promotion in CPWD. (b) while there are no promo-
D
tional chances for a draughtsmen in CPWD once he reaches the post of
Grade-I draughtsmen, a draughtsmen in the Ordinance Factory is entitled
to be promoted thereafter as Chargeman Grade-II, and then as Foreman,
(c) Since the pay scale of Chargeman Grade-II in the Ordinance Factories
is Rs. 425-700, to place a draughtsmen in that pay scale would result in E
placing him at the same level as the promotion post of Chargeman Grade-
n. Hence, the benefit of the revised pay scales under O.M. dated 13.3.1984
cannot be extended to the draughtsmen in the Ordinance Factories.
The respondents contested the said appeals on several grounds
disputing the contention that there are no promotional opportunities for F
draughtsmen Grade in CPWD'.
During the pendency of the appeals, the appellant vide O.M. dated
19.10.1994 directed that draughtsmen grade I, II and III in all its offices
and departments other than CPWD may also be placed in the. revised G
scales of pay on the basis of the Award dated 20.6.1984, subject to certain
minimum period of service as mentioned in the said O.M.
In respect of draughtsmen who did not fulfill the requirement relat-
ing to period of service prescribed in the O.M. dated 19.10.1994, the
question, whether their recruitment qualifications were similar to those H
274
SUPREMECOURTREPORTS {19'J5]SUPP.2S.C.R.
A
prescribed for draughtsmen in CPWD was thus required to be considered.
Dismissing the appeals, this Court
HELD : 1. The qualifications p~cribed for draughtsman in or-
dinance factories are similar or equivalent to those pExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.