GOPIKA RANJAN CHOUDHARYversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                GOPIKA RANJAN CHOUDHARY                                    A
                                   v.
                   UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                        OCTOBER 25, 1989

          [RANGANATH MISRA, P.B. SAWANT AND                                B
                 K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]

      Assam Rifles Act, 1920: Assam Rifles Force-Ministerial Staff-
Higher pay scale for staff at headquarters against their counterparts in
Units/ Battalions-Whether discriminatory.

      Consequent to the re-structuring of the Assam Rifles Force in
                                                                           c
1962 a separate Unit known as Central Record and Pay Accounts Office
(C.R. and P.A.O.) was created at the Headquarters of the force.
Pursuant to the recommendation of the Third Central Pay Commission
the staff at the Headquarters were given higher pay scales than those
attached to the Battalions/Units.                                     D

       The Petition_ers sought parity in emoluments with their counter-
parts working at the Headquarters by filing a petition before the Cent-
ral Administative Tribunal contending that; (i) the C.R. and P.A.O.
U11it situated at the Headquarters was not a part of the Headquarters
establishment but was a separate Unit; and (ii) there is no difference E
either in the nature of work and duties of the two or in their qualifica-
tions and that the services of the staff at the Units/Battalions are trans-
ferrable to the Headquarters. The Tribunal rejected the claim of the
petitioner holding that the C.R. and'P.A.0. is a different unit and not a
part of the establishment of the Headquarters and its staff are enjoying
the scale of pay allowed to the staff of the Headquarters since its incep- F
lion. Hence this appeal.

      Allowing the appeal, this Court,

      HELD: I. There is a contradiction between the finding recorded
by the Tribunal that the C.R. and P.A.O. at the Headquarters is quite a G
"distinct" establishment from the range Headquarters/Battalions, and'
the justification made by it of the higher emoluments of the staff at the
Headquarters on the ground that they are enjoying the same as allowed
to the other staff of the Headquarters since its inception. l73IC-D J

      1.1. If the C.R .. and P.A.0. at the Headquarters is a different     ff

                                  727
    728            SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [1989) Supp. 1 S.C.R.

    unit and not a part of the Headquarters, then the staff attached to the
A   office at the Headquarters is not entitled to emoluments higher than
    those drawn by the staff of the Units/Battalions. [73ID]

          2. The payment of higher emoluments to the said staff merely on
    the ground that the establishment is at the place where the Head-
B   quarters is situated, is discriminatory as against the staff at the Units/
    Battalions since it is no way different from the other Units. [731E]

           [Matter remanded to the Tribunal for recording a finding on
    (i) whether the qualifications for appointment at the two establishments
    viz. C.R. and P.A.O. at the Headquarters and the Units are different,
    (ii) whether the nature of the duties and responsibilities of the Ministe-
c   rial staff at the Hedquarters is of a higher order than that of those at the
    Units/Battalions, and (iii) whether transfer of the staff from the Units/
    Battalions to the Headquarters was done arbitrarily and without apply·
    ing any test.] [7328-CJ

D         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. Civil Appeal No. 3288
    of 1988.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 11.8.1986 of the Central
    Administrative Tribunal at Gauhati in G .C. No. 102/86 (C.R. No. 905
    of 1983).
E
        Mr. Soli J. Sorabjee, K. Madhav Reddy, Mrs. Kitty Kumara·
    mangalam, Kailash Yasdev and Ms. Yijayalaxmi for the Appellant.

          B. Dutta, Additional Solicitor General (N.P.), V.C. Mahajan,
    P.P. Singh and Ms. Sushma Suri, for the Respondents.
F
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          SAWANT, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated
    August 11, 1986, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
    Gauhati Bench rejecting the claim for parity in emoluments between
G   the Upper Division Assistants and Lower Division Assistants
    (hereinafter referred to as UDAs and LDAs) in the branch establish·
    ments on Jhe one hand and their counterparts working at the Head·
    quarters on the other.

          2. The admitted facts are that the Assam Rifles, a para-military
H   force was created by the then Assam Govt. under the Assam Rifles
               G.R. CHOUDHARY v. U.0.1. (SAWANT, J.]               729

Act, 1920, for its protection. It was taken over by the Government of     A
India, Ministry of External Affairs under its direct control in October
1947. It appears further that the Government of India appointed< an
Inspector General as the Head for conducting mainly the administra-
tive work of the Force. The Force which was controlled by the North
Eastern Frontier Agency (NEFA) had 25 Battalions/Units and each
Battalion consisting of about 1400 personnel which also included some     B
civilians. In 1962, on account of the then exigencies, the Force under-
went re-structuring of its organisation as a result of which a separate
Un.it known as Central Record and Pay Accounts Office (C.R. and
P.A.0.) was created at the Headquarters. Each Battalion/Unit had to
send its detailed note on the pay and service record to this off;.;e.

      3. The Third Central Pay Commission ( 1973) recommended             c
unified pay scales to the combatant staff of the Force on parity with the
Army staff. However, as _regards the ministerial staff of the Force
(such as _the UD~s and LDAs with whom we are concerned in the
preseht case), the Commission recommended two different scales of
pay, orte for those attached to the Head Quarters and the other to the D
Battalions/Units, and the same came into force by an order of "the
Ministry of Home Affairs issued in March 1975. The pay scales of the
staff at the Headquarters were higher than those of the staff attached
to the Battalions/Units. · - -

      4. The appellant _in·his capacity as the General Secretary of the   E
Union of Assam Rifles, Non-Gazetted Employees, -North East
Regipn made representation against this on the allegation of discrimi-
nation. The only response of the Headquarters to this representation
was a reply that a unified cadre for all ministerial employees had been
proposed to the Ministry of Home Affairs for better pay and promo-
tions. The appellant, therfore, filed a writ petition before the Assam    F
High Court which was later transferred to the Central Administrative
Tribunal.

      5. The case of the appellant before the Tribunal was that there
was no difference in the nature of the work, the duties and res-
ponsibilities of the UDAs and LDAs working in the Battalions/Units G
and of those working at the Headquarters. There was also no diffe-
rence-,_in the qualifications required for appointment in the two
establishments. The service of the staff from the Battalions/Units were
transferrable to the Headquarters, and in fact some UDAs and LDAs
were transferred from Battalions/Units to the Headquarters. What
was more noteworthy was that many who were transferred from the ff
                                 .•.
    730           SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R.        _.._,,

A   Units/Battalions to the Headquarters were so transferred without
    either applying the criterion of seniority or subjecting the staff to any
    selection process. The result was that those who were juniors and less
    experienced and/or less qualified were transferred to the· Head-
    quarters arbitrarily and had been receiving higher emoluments than
    the more deserving ones either on account of their seniority, qualifica-
B
    tions or merit. It was also the contention of the appellant that the
    Central Record and Pay Accounts Office situated at the Headquarters
    was not a part of the Headquarters-establishment but was a separate
    Unit having merely its office at the place where the Headquarters were
    situated. Hence even the practice of paying higher emoluments to the
    staff of the Headquarters could not be invoked in the present case.
c
          6. The contention of the respondent namely, the Union of India,
    was that the Central Record and Pay Accounts Office was a part of the
    Headquarters establishment and hence the higher emoluments paid to
    the staff at the Headquarters compared to their counter-part in the
    Units/Battalions were justified. It was also their contention that for
D   appointment to the post ofUDAs and LDAs at the C.R. and P.A.0.,
    a higher qualification was required, and their duties and the res-
    ponsibilities were different and of a higher order than those of their
    counter-part at the Units/Battalions. It was further submitted on their
    behalf that there was no arbitrary transfer of the UDAs and LDAs
    from the Units/Battalions to the Headquarters, and they were trans-
E   ferred on the basis of merits.

          7. It appears from the Judgment of the Tribunal, however, that
    the Tribunal considered only the question as to whether the Central
    Record and Pay Accounts Office was a part of the establishment of the
    Headquarters or was independent of it, and contrary to the contention
F   of the respondent-Union of India, came to the conclusion that is was
    independent of the establishment of the Force at the Headquarters.             •
    Having thus come to the conclusion, the Tribunal proceeded to hold
    that the Central Records Officer and Unit Pay & Accounts Officer
    (hereinafter refered to as CRO and UPAO) at the Headquarters
    "being entrusted with the duties of higher responsibility and of cotrol-
G   ling nature" the grant of the higher scale of pay to the ministerial staff
    thereof was justified. The Tribunal further observed that "as a matter
    of fact these staff are enjoying the scale of pay allowed to staff of the
    Headquarters since its inception in 1962". The Tribunal gave this addi-
    tional reason to justify higher emoluments paid to the UDAs and
    LDAs at the Headquarters.
H                                                                                  '
                G.R. CHOUDHARY v. U.0.1. [SAWANT, J.]                 731

      8. It is obvious from the decision of the Tribunal that in the first   A
instance the Tribunal did not go into the question as td whether the
staff appointed at the Headquarters required higher qualifications.
Secondly, it did not consider the grievance of the appellant whether
the staff was transferred from the Units/Battalions to the Head-
quarters arbitrarily and without either considering their senority or
subjecting them to a selection process. Thirdly, the Tribunal has            B
n<;>where discussed as to in what respect the duties and responsibilities
of the staff at the Headquarters are dffierent and higher in nature than
those of the staff at the Units/Battalions. There is only a statement
made in that behalf in paragraph 17 of the judgment without assigning
any reason for it. What is further, there is a contradiction between the
finding recorded by the Tribunal that the CRO and UPAO at the
Headquarters is quite "distinct" establishment from the range Head-
                                                                             c
quarters/Battalions, and the justification made by it of the higher
emoluments of the staff at the Headquarters on the ground that they
are enjoying the same as allowed to the other staff of the Headquarters
since its inception in 1962. The Tribunal has thus obviously missed the
substance of the grievance of the appellant namely, that if as is alleged    D
by the appellant and contrary to the contention of the Union of India,
the CRO and UPAO at the Headquarters is a different unit and not a
part of the Headquarters, then the staff attached to the office at the
Headquarters is not entitled to emoluments higher than those drawn
by the staff of the Units/Battalions. The payment of higher emolu-
ments to the said staff merely on the ground that the establishment is       E
at the place where the Headquarters is situate, is discriminatory as
against the staff at the Units/Battalions since it is in no way different
from the other Units. This is apart from the grievance of the appellant
that there is no difference either in the nature of work and duties of the
two or in their qualifications and that the services of the staff at the
Units/Battalions are transferrable to the Headquarters.                      F

       9. There is, however, some substance in the submission
advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that before the
Tribunal no sufficient material was placed by the appellant to show,
firstly; that the nature of work, and the duties and the responsibilities
of the two were the same and the qualifications for appointment at the       G
two establishments were also similar. It was also not shown to the
Tribunal that those who were transferred from the Units/Battalions to
the Headquarters were transferred arbitrarily without dther taking into
consideration their seniority or subjecting them to the process of selec-
tion. The Tribunalwill have therefore, to apply its mind to these
aspects and record Its finding as to whether although the CRO and            H
    732            SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [1989) Supp. 1 S.C.R.

A   ~PAO is not a part of the establishment of the Headquarters, the
    higher emoluments would be justified on account of the said other
    factors.

           10. While therefore, the finding given by the Tribunal that CR
    and PAO at the Headquarters is a different unit and not a part of the
B
    establishment of the Headquarters is not disturbed by us, we remand
    the matter to the Tribunal for recording a finding on {i) whether the
    qualifications for appointment at the two establishments viz; CRO and
    UPAO at the Headquarters and at the Units are different, (ii) whether        ,,
    the nature of the duties and responsibilities of the UDAs and LDAs at
    the Headquarters is of a higher order than that of those at the Units/
G   Battalions and (iii) whether the transfer of the staff from the Units/
    Battalions to the Headquarters was done arbitrarily and without
    applying any test. The Tribunal will give a proper opportunity to both
    the sides to place the relevant material on the aforesaid points before it
    and give its findings on the aforesaid aspects and wiII also decide
    whether on that account the difference ini the emoluments of the two is
D   justified.

          11. The appeal is allowed accordingly. The Tribunal is directed
    to dispose of the matter according to law in the light of what is stated
    hereinabove.

E         The parties_to bear their own costs.

    T.N.A                                                    Appeal allowed.