UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus MANOJ KUMAR & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 8 S.C.R. 1161 · Decided: 31-08-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1161
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
v.
MANOJ KUMAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 913 – 914 of 2021)
AUGUST 31, 2021
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Service Law – Pay Scales – Parity in – Private Secretaries
(Grade-II) (“PS-II”) employed in the Eastern Central Railways
(Field Office/Zonal Railways) made claim for parity in pay with
their counterparts working in the Central Secretariat Stenographers
Service (“CSSS”)/Railway Board Secretariat Stenographers Service
(“RBSSS”)/Central Administrative Tribunal (“CAT”) – Held: There
is no continued history of parity insofar as present case is
concerned, i.e., sometimes parity was given and sometimes not – It
is not as if the 6th  Pay Commission was unaware of the plea of
disparity between the Secretariat and field offices, but despite having
taking note of the same some difference was sought to be made
between Secretariat and non-Secretariat offices – Yet to some extent,
a separate recommendation was made qua Secretariat Organizations
and non-Secretariat Organizations – Once these recommendations
are separately made, to direct absolute parity would be to make the
separate recommendations qua non-Secretariat Organizations otiose
– Further, the Courts ought not to interfere if the Commission itself
had considered all aspects and after due consideration opined that
absolute equality ought not to be given.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The correct perspective has been taken in V.N.
Narayanappa & Ors. insofar as which clause of the 6th CPC
recommendations would be applicable. This Court finds that once
it comes to the conclusion that the regional offices of the Railways
are to be treated as non-Secretariat Organizations, then the
specific recommendations in para 3.1.14 of the report of the
6th CPC relating to such non-Secretariat Organizations will apply.
The observations made in para 3.1.9 which are qua Secretariat
offices giving parity between the Private Secretary/equivalent to
a Section Officer cannot be said to be mutatis mutandis applicable
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 1161
1161
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1162
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 8 S.C.R.
even to non-Secretariat Organizations. If this Court were to opine
otherwise and equate everybody there would have been no
purpose in the 6th CPC making separate recommendations for
non-Secretariat Organizations in their wisdom. It is not as if the
Commission was unaware of the plea of disparity between the
Secretariat and field offices as that was dealt with in paras 3.1.2
and 3.1.3 but despite having taken note of the same some
difference was sought to be made between Secretariat and non-
Secretariat offices. [Para 14][1173-E-H]
2. The Pay Commission is a specialized body set up with
the objective of resolving anomalies. It is relevant to note that
the anomaly in question was referred to the Pay Commission at
the request of candidates similarly situated to the respondents
and thus, the 6th CPC was aware of the claim for parity and the
requirement of making a recommendation in that regard. In its
wisdom while giving better scales it has still sought to maintain a
separate recommendation for non-Secretariat Organizations. [Para
15][1174-A-B]
3. There is also a plea by the respondents that the
recruitment process for the two cadres was common and persons
used to be transferred from one to the other. Some illustrations
have been given of this. In fact, the plea of the respondents is
that there have been times when a common competitive exam
was conducted and sometimes the exams were conducted
separately.  In this regard, it has been explained by the  Additional
Solicitor General on behalf of the appellants that the cadres are
separate and the rules governing them are also separate. The
Stenographers under the Railway Board are governed by the
RBSS Rules, 1971, the Central Secretariat Stenographers are
governed by the CSS Rules, 1969 and the CSSS Rules, 2010 and
the Stenographers in the Central Administrative Tribunal are
governed by the CATSS Rules, 2013. These are the posts with
which the respondents sought parity. On the other hand, the
respondents working in the Zonal Railways were governed by
Rule 107 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. The avenue
and channel of promotion of stenographers in the Railway Board
and the Zonal Railways, it has been stated, are entirely different.
[Para 16][1174-C-F]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1163
4. The appellants did accept that there were some cases of
transfer, but those were persons who were brough

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.