Shridhar Sutar 1 WP-9455.03.

doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 9455 OF 2003

R. E. Mulay, aged 67 years,
Occupation Pensioner,
Son of Eknath Mulay,
Residing at 8, Nivedita Apartments,
Near Dandekar Bridge,
Behind Petrol Pump,
PUNE – 411 030. … Petitioner

Versus

1. The Union of India
Through the Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
South Block, DHQ, PO,
New Delhi – 110 011.

2. The Director General of
Quality Assurance,
Department of Defence Production,
Ministry of Defence, DHQ, PO,
New Delhi – 110 011.

3. The Controller,
Controllerate of Quality Assurance
(Ammunition), Nehru Road,
Kirkee, Pune­411 003. … Respondents

…..
Mr. S. P. Saxena for Petitioner.
Mr. N.R. Prajapati for Respondent­Union of Inaia
…..

1 of 9
Shridhar Sutar 2 WP-9455.03.doc

CORAM : A. S. OKA AND M. S. SONAK, JJ.
RESERVED ON        :  30th AUGUST, 2018
PRONOUNCED ON :  27th SEPTEMBER, 2018

JUDGMENT [ PER M. S. SONAK, J.]:

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Challenge in this writ petition is to the judgments and orders

dated   7th  November,   2000   and   14th  March,   2002   made   by   the

Central   Administrative   Tribunal   (CAT)   disposing   the   Original

Application No.1307 of 1994 and Review Petition No. 8 of 2001

instituted by the petitioner seeking for re­fixation of his pay on

parity with his junior, one Sahasrabudhe. The petitioner on such

basis had prayed for consequential reliefs like payment of arrears

of difference in pay etc.

3. The   petitioner   was   appointed   as   Technical   Supervisor   on

13th June, 1960 with the respondents. Thereafter, he was directly

recruited as Assistant Foreman with effect from 17 th January, 1966

with basic pay of Rs. 370/­ per month. The petitioner was then

promoted   as   Foreman   in   the   basic   pay   of   Rs.   525/­   w.e.f.   1 st

November,   1971.   On   9th  August,   1986,   the   petitioner   was

2 of 9
Shridhar Sutar 3 WP-9455.03.doc

promoted as Junior Scientific Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 2000­

3500.   However,   the   basic   pay   of   the   petitioner   was   fixed   at

Rs.3200/­. The petitioner ultimately superannuated from the post

of Junior Scientific Officer w.e.f. 31st March, 1993.

4. Sahasrabudhe with whom the petitioner claims parity, was

directly recruited as Assistant Foreman w.e.f. 9 th  February, 1966

i.e. about a month later than the petitioner's direct recruitment as

Assistant  Foreman w.e.f. 17th  January, 1966. Sahasrabudhe was

promoted as Foreman on 6th December, 1973 i.e. almost two years

after the promotion of petitioner as Foreman w.e.f. 1 st November,

1971.   However,   since   Sahasrabudhe's   promotion   to   the   post   of

Foreman   was   after   the   third   pay   commission   the   scales   which

became effective from 1st January, 1973, Sahasrabudhe's basic pay

was   fixed   at   Rs.   920   per   month   in   the   revised   pay   scale.   On

revision, however, the petitioner's pay scale was fixed at only Rs.

880/­.

5. From 1st January, 1986, in pursuance of the acceptance the

recommendations   of   the   fourth   pay   commission,   the   post   of

Principal Foreman came to be abolished and the same was merged

3 of 9
Shridhar Sutar 4 WP-9455.03.doc

with the post of Foreman with the common pay scale of Rs.2300­

3500.   Accordingly,   the   pay   of   the   petitioner   as   on   1 st  January,

1986   was   fixed   at   Rs.3050/­   per   month,   whereas,   the   pay   of

Sahasrabudhe   was   fixed   at   Rs.3300/­   per   month.   Shri

Sahasrabudhe   was   promoted   as   Junior   Scientific   Officer   dated

22nd  March,   1988   i.e.   almost   two   years   after   the   promotion   of

petitioner   to   the   same   post   w.e.f.   9th  August,   1986.   Again,   the

basic pay of the petitioner was fixed at Rs.3200/­ in the pay scale

of Rs.2000­3500/­ and the basic pay of Sahasrabudhe was fixed at

Rs.3500/­   in   the   pay   scale   of   Rs.2000­3500.   The   petitioner

superannuated   on   31st  March,   1993   and   Sahasrabudhe

superannuated on 30th November, 1993.

6. In   the   year   1994,   one   Shri   N.   V.   Nadgauda   instituted

Original Application No. 1309 of 1994 before the CAT seeking for

stepping up his pay/parity with the pay of Sahasrabudhe who was

junior   to   Nadgauda   in   the   cadre   of   Foreman   as   well   as   Junior

Scientific Officer. In the same year, i.e. 1994, even the petitioner

instituted Original Application No. 1307 of 1994 seeking for the

same   relief   of   stepping   up   of   his   pay/parity   with   Shri

Sahasrabudhe.

4 of 9
Shridhar Sutar 5 WP-9455.03.doc

7. By judgment and order dated 7th December, 1995, the CAT

allowed   Original   Application   No.   1309   of   1994   instituted   by

Nadgauda and directed the respondents to re­fix his pay of par

with   Sahasrabudhe.   The   CAT   also   allowed   by   consequential

benefits   including   arrears   and   differential   pay   and   as   well   as

pension to Nadgauda. However, by judgment and order dated 7 th

November,   2000,   the   CAT   dismissed   the   petitioner's   Original

Application No. 1307 of 1994. Even the Review Petition No. 8 of

2001 instituted by the petitioner was dismissed by the Cat by its

order dated 14th March, 2002. Hence, the present petition.

8. It is quite clear that the petitioner was in fact senior to both

Nadgauda as well as Sahasrabudhe in the cadre of Foreman. This

is   because   the   petitioner   was   promoted   as   Foreman   on   16 th

October,   1971,   whereas   Nadgauda   and   Sahasrabudhe   were

promoted as Foreman on 16th  October, 1971 and 6th  December,

1973 respectively. There is also no dispute that the petitioner was

senior to both Nadgauda as well as Sahasrabudhe in the cadre of

Junior   Scientific   Officer.   Therefore,   there   was   absolutely   no

distinction   between   the   case   of   Nadgauda   and   the   case   of   the

petitioner.   The   reasoning   adopted   by   the   CAT   in   its   judgment

5 of 9
Shridhar Sutar 6 WP-9455.03.doc

dated   7th  December,   1995   in   Original   Application   No.   1309   of

1994   instituted   by   Mr.   Nadgauda   squarely   applied   to   the

reasoning in petitioner's Original Application No. 1307 of 1994.

Admittedly, the respondents did not challenge the CAT's judgment

dated   7th  December,   1995   in   Original   Application   No.   1309   of

1994 instituted by Nadgauda. In such circumstances, the CAT was

not at all justified in taking some contrary view in the case of the

petitioner   and   dismissing   petitioner's   Original   Application   No.

1307 of 1994 vide judgment and order dated 7 th November, 2000.

9. The   CAT   in   its   impugned   judgment   dated   7 th  November,

2000 has quoted a circular of D.O.P.T. dated 4 th November, 2000,

which makes reference to FR 22­C and on such basis refused to

follow judgment and order dated 7th December, 1995 in Original

Application   No.   1309   of   1994   (Nadgauda's   case),   by   observing

that the said judgment makes no reference to the circular or FR

22­C.

10. The CAT, in paragraph 8 of the impugned order has quoted

sub para (C) of the D.O.P.T. circular dated 4 th  November, 2000,

which reads as follows:­

6 of 9
Shridhar Sutar 7 WP-9455.03.doc

“(C)  the   anomaly   should   be   directly   as   a   result   of   the

11. There is absolutely no material on record, to establish the

applicability of the D.O.P.T. circular dated 4th November, 2000 to

the issue involved in the case of either the petitioner or Nadgauda.

Secondly, this is also not a case where the obvious anomaly had

arisen   directly   as   a   result   of   application   FR   22­C.   In   such

circumstances,   the   CAT   was   not   at   all   justified   in   refusing   to

follow its earlier judgment and order dated 7 th December, 1995 in

Original Application No. 1309 of 1994.

12. Since, as noted earlier, there was absolutely no distinction

between the case of Nadgauda and the petitioner the respondents

were   not   at   all   justified   in   opposing   the   grant   of   relief   to   the

petitioner, when admittedly, the respondents accepted and even

implemented the judgment and order dated 7th December, 1995 in

7 of 9
Shridhar Sutar 8 WP-9455.03.doc

Nadgauda's   Original   Application   No.   1309   of   1994.   As   noted

earlier,   the   petitioner   was   senior   to   both   Nadgauda   as   well   as

Sahasrabudhe   in   the   cadre   of   Foreman   and   Junior   Scientific

Officers.   In   the   absence   of   any   valid   reasons,   therefore,   the

respondents   were   not   at   all   justified   in   denying   the   petitioner

parity   with   Nadgauda   and   Sahasrabudhe.   Such   denial   would

amounts to hostile discrimination against  the petitioner thereby

violating his right guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of

India.

13. For  the  aforesaid reasons, we allow this writ petition and

make rule absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d)

which read as follows:­

(a) The Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of
certiorari   or   any   other   appropriate   writ   or   order   or
direction in the nature of writ, calling for the records and
proceedings   of   Original   Application   No.   1307   of   1994
from the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench
and after perusal of the same to quash and set aside the
order of the Tribunal dt. 07.11.2000 and 14.03.2002,

(b) to direct the Respondents to step up the pay of the
Petitioner at par with the pay of Shri. M. P. Sahasrabudhe

8 of 9
Shridhar Sutar 9 WP-9455.03.doc

from   06.12.1973   in   Foreman   grade   and   re­fix   the

(c)  to direct the Respondents to step up the pay of the
Petitioner   in   Junior   Scientific   Officer   grade   at   par   with
that of Shri. M. P. Sahasrabudhe, as was done in the case
of Shri N. V. Nadgauda,

(d) to direct the Respondents to recalculate the pension
and other retirement benefits of the Petitioner on the basis
of his pay as stepped up vide para (b) and (c) above, and
to pay arrears of amounts arising out of the same.”

14. We further direct that payment of arrears and other benefits

under this judgment and order be made to the petitioner within a

period of three months from today, failing which the respondents

to pay to the petitioner interest on such arrears @ 6% p.a. on the

date such amount became due and payable to the petitioner till

the date of actual payment.

15. In   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   present   case,   there

shall be no order as to costs.

     (M. S. SONAK, J.)   (A. S. OKA, J.)

9 of 9