UNION OF INDIA versus ARUN JYOTI KUNDU AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 463 · Decided: 27-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA 
A 
v. 
ARUN JYOTI KUNDU AND ORS. 
AUGUST 27, 2007 
!H.K. SEMA AND P.K. BALASUBRAMANY AN, ~J.) 
B 
Service Law: 
Pay parity-Recommendations of Fifth Pay Commission-Execution 
of-Typists working in Railways claiming pay parity with clerical cadre- C 
Claim upheld by Tribunal-Affirmed by High Court-On appeal, Held: Claim 
of the typists earlier referred to Anomalies Committee-On recommendations 
of the Committee, relief granted to the typists in English and Hindi languages-
General recommendations of the Commission regarding pay scales in respect 
of certain cadre could not directly be made applicable to other cadres-Even D 
if there was any recommendation for merger of two cadres, so long as the 
same has not been accepted by the Government, it may not be appropriate 
for the Tribunal/Court to issue a direction in connection thereof-Specific 
directions in terms of Para 55.152 of the Commission's Report applies only 
to typists working in specified pay scale/confined to that category only and 
cannot be extended to rope in 01hers not fitting in that category-When a E 
concession already extended to respondent-typists by the Government in 
terms of the recommendations of the Anomalies Committee, it is open to the 
Government to provide such benefit from the notified date-Neither the 
Tribunal nor the High Court can direct merger of any cadre as it is the policy 
decision that the Government could take-Tribunal has exceeded its F 
jurisdiction in accepting the claim of the incumbents and High Court erred 
in not setting aside the order of the Tribunal. 
Respondent, employees of Railways in typist cadre, filed an application 
before the Central Administrative Tribunal for issuance of a direction to the 
appellant-Union of India to sanction the same scales of pay to them as are G 
applicable to senior clerks, head clerks and Office Superintendents Grade II 
with effect from 1.1.1996 in terms of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay 
Commission, and for directions for payment of the arrears on that basis. The 
Central Administrative Tribun.al upheld that claim. Aggrieved, the Union of 
463 
H 
464 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 9 S.C.R. 
A India challenged the order of CAT in the High Court, which was dismissed by 
the High Court. Hence the present appeals. 
Appellant-Union of India contended that the Pay Commission had taken 
a conscious decision to deal differently with the cadre of typists and the cadre 
of clerks and hence the typists cannot claim the benefits which were not given 
B to them by the Fifth Pay Commission; that if parity as claimed is to be given, 
it would amount to re-writing the report of the Pay Commission; that the 
Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court had done this by granting 
the reliefs claimed and consequently they have acted outside their jurisdiction 
while exercising the power of judicial review; that a mandamus has been 
C issued to merge the cadre is not permissible; that the peculiar facts of the 
services in the Railways had been specifically taken note of by the Fifth Pay · 
Commission and a conscious decision was taken with a view to grant higher 
pay scale because one third of the strength of senior clerks was that of directly 
recruited graduates and a higher pay scale has been given to them on the 
basis of educational qualifications; and that the recommendation in paragraph 
D 83.296 of the Pay Commission's Report was made by the Commission after 
appreciation of all the relevant circumstances relating the service in Railways. 
Respondent-employees submitted that in respect of language typists the 
Pay Commission had recommended that language typists can be divided into 
four categories; that typists in English and Hindi language form part of the 
E general cadre of an organisation. They are treated at par in the matter of pay 
scales, promotional avenues etc. as per paragraph 55.152 of the Report; that 
the recommendations in respect of pay scales for clerical cadre is contained 
in paragraph 83.225 of the Report; that in terms of the Report the language 
typists are entitled to the same pay scales as have been recommended by the 
p 
Fifth Pay Commission in respect of the cleriCal cadre; that no separate 
recommendation was made in view of the fact that the matter was specifically 
covered under the common categories; and that paragraph 83.296 of the 
Report does not have application because that dealt only with the categories 
of employees whose cases h
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.