Holding

The qualifications of draughtsmen in Ordinance Factories and Army Base Workshops are equivalent to those for Draughtsmen Grade II in CPWD, making them entitled to the revised pay scales under the 13 March 1984 Office Memorandum, and promotional differences or later rules do not defeat that entitlement.

Summary

The Union of India appealed against several Central Administrative Tribunal orders that had granted draughtsmen employed in Ordinance Factories and Army Base Workshops the benefit of revised pay scales under the Office Memorandum of 13 March 1984, which extended the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) draughtsmen pay revisions to other departments. The Court examined whether the qualifications of these draughtsmen were equivalent to those prescribed for Draughtsmen Grade II in CPWD, and whether differences in promotion pathways (e.g., promotion to Chargeman Grade‑II) could justify denial of the revision. It held that the qualifications were indeed similar or equivalent, and that promotional structures were irrelevant to the entitlement. The Court also noted that the 1989 promotion rules were not retrospective and therefore could not be used to deny the benefit. Consequently, the appeals and related Special Leave and Review Petitions were dismissed, leaving the Tribunal orders granting the revised pay scales in force.

Issues considered

Whether draughtsmen employed in Ordinance Factories and Army Base Workshops are entitled to the revised pay scales prescribed in the Office Memorandum dated 13 March 1984.
Whether the qualifications of these draughtsmen are equivalent to those required for Draughtsmen Grade II in the Central Public Works Department.
Whether differences in the promotion hierarchy (e.g., promotion to Chargeman Grade‑II) affect the applicability of the pay revision.
Whether the 1989 Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, which introduced promotion to Chargeman, are retrospective for the purpose of the 1984 pay revision.
Whether the minimum period of service conditions introduced by the Office Memorandum of 19 October 1994 affect entitlement for those who had not satisfied the service requirement.

Subjects

pay revisiondraughtsmenOrdinance FactoriesCentral Public Works DepartmentOffice Memorandumservice lawpromotion hierarchyqualification equivalence

Judgment

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-
ing the requirement relating to period of service prescribed in office memdran-
D 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-
tories under the Ordinance Factory Board and Army Base Workshops
E
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
revised, the respondents claimed similar revisions of their pay scale.
G 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 B
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. c
Aggrieved, the Union of India, filed appeals before this Court, As-
sailing the said view of the Tribunals, and contending therein :

(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 prescribed for recruit-
B ment in C.P.W.D. and till revision of pay scales of draughtsmen in
C.P.W.D. by order dated Noveinber 10, 1980 on the basis of this award of
this Board of Arbitration, the pay scale of Draughtsmen Grade II (Assis-
tant Draughtsmen) in C.P.W.D. [284-B]

C 2. Denial of similar revision of pay scales to Draughtsmen in Or-
dinance factories would result in their being down graded to the level of
Tracer/Draughtsmen Grade Ill in c.P.W.D. Office memorandum dated
Man:h 13, 1984 cannot be construed as having such an effect. [285-B]

3. Merely because the post of Cbargeman Grade-II, a promotional
D post of draughtsmen in Ordinance Factories was in the scale of Rs. 425-700
cannot be a justification for denying the revision of pay scale to
draughtsmen and their being placed in that scale on basis of O.M. dated
13.3.1984, if such draughtsmen wue otherwise eotided to the said revisions
of pay scales. [285-G)
E
4. The provisions regarding promotion draughtsmen as Charganen
Grade-II in Ordinance Factories was introduced by the India Ordinance
Factories Group-C supervisory and non-ga7.etted cadre (recroitment and
conditions of senice) Rules, 1989, issued vide Notification dated 4.S.1989
and the said rules are not relrospediftly effective. (285-B]
F
S. The said rules wen! not in operation at the time whm the
draughtsmen in the Ordinance Factories became mtided to the revision
of pay scales by O.M dated 13.3..1984. (286-B]

6. Keeping in view their reauiboeot quali&ations !heft is DO infir-
G mity in the view of the Trihunal that draugbtsme.n in the Army Base
Workshops in EME are entitled to the benefit of the said rnisioa of pay
scales. [286-F]

CIVIL APPEUATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1433 of
H 191J5Etc.
U.0.1. v. DEBASIDSKAR(S.C.AGRAWAL,J.) 275

From the Judgment and Order dated 1.8.94 of the Central Ad- A
ministrative Tribunal, Calcutta in OA. No. 333 of 1993.

N.N. Goswami, Ms. K. Amreshwari, Dr. Shankar Ghosh, Tara Chand
Sharma, Anil Katiyar, H.S. Parihar, A.T.M. Sampath (NP), K.B.S. Rajan,
Ms. Pushpa Rajan, P. Narasimhan, Ms. Rani Chhabra, Irshad Ahmad,
Arona Benerji and G.S. Chatterjee for the appearing Parties. B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.C. AGRAWAL, J. The common question that arises for considera-
tion in these cases is whether Draughtsmen employed in the Ordinance
Factories and the Workshops of E.M.E. in the Ministry of Defence are C
entitled to have their pay scale revised on the basis of the Office Memoran-
dum of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, dated March 13,
1984.

On the basis of the report of the Third Pay Commission, the pay D
scales of Draughtsmen employed in the Central Public Worlcs Department
(for short 'C.P.W.D.') of the Government of India were revised in the
following manner :

(i) Draughtsmen Grade - I Rs. 425-700
E
(ii) Draughtsmen Grade - II Rs. 330-560

(iii) Draughtsmen Grade - III Rs. 260-430

The said employees in the C.P.W.D. were not satisfied with the said
revision and were claiming that they should have been placed on higher F
pay scales. This dispute was referred to a Board of Arbitration. The Board
of Arbitration gave the award on June 20, 1980 where by the pay scales of
Draughtsmen were revised as under :

(i) Draughtsmen Grade - I Rs. 550-750
G
(ii) Draughtsmen Grade - II Rs. 425-700
' (iii) Draughtsmen Grade - III Rs. 330-560

By the award it was directed that the above mentioned categories of
draughtsmen shall be fixed notionally in their respective scales of pay of H
276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A pay as aforesaid from January 1, 1973, but for computation of arrears, the
date of reckoning shall be July 28/29, 1978. In accordance with the said
award the pay scales of draughtsmen in C.P.W.D. were revised vide order
dated November 10, 1980. The draughtsmen employed in departments
other than C.P.W.D. claimed the revision of their pay scales in the light of
B the revision of pay scales in the C.P.W.D. and on March 13, 1984 the
Government of India, Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure),
issued an Office Memorandum whereby it was directed that the scale of
pay of Draughtsmen Grade III, II, I in the office/Department of the
Government of India, other than the C.P.W.D., may be revised as per
revised scales for C.P.W.D. provided their recruitment qualifications are
c similar to those prescribed in the case of Draughtsmen in C.P.W.D. and
those who do not fulfil the said qualifications would continue in the pre-
vised scales. Thereupon, the Ministry of Defence on July 3, 1984 issued an
order whereby the user organisations were requested to take necessary
action in terms of para 2 of the Officer Memorandum dated March 13,
D 1984. It appears that in the Ordinance factories under the control of the
Director General of Ordinance· Factories (DGOF) no action was taken to
revise the pay scales of draughtsmen as per the Office Memorandum dated
March 13, 1984. A writ Petition (Civil Order No. 5023(W) of 1985) was
filed in the Calcutta High Court by some of the draughtsmen employed in
E the Ordinance Factories in the State of West Bengal. The said Writ Petition
was disposed of by the High Court by dated October 8, 1985 whereby the
respondents in the said writ petition were directed to forthwith implement
the Office Memorandum dated March 13, 1984 as well as the order of
Ministry of Defence dated July 3, 1984 to revise the pay scales in accord-
ance therewith. The said order was clarified by order dated July 14, 1986
F whereby it was indicated that the order passed on October 8, 1985 was
restricted to the petitioners and the added respondents only. The Or-
dinance Factory Board appointed a Sub-Committee to go into the mater
and on the basis of the report of the Sub-Committee, the Ordinance
Factory Board in its meeting held on September 9, 1986 decided that the
G qualifications of draughtsmen employed in the Ordinance Factories are not
similar to those of draughtsmen in the C.P.W.D. and therefore, they were
not entitled to revision of their pay scales as per the Office Memorandum
dated March 13, 1984. The petitioners in the said writ petition were
informed about the said decision of the Ordinance Factories Board by
..
H letter dated October 9, 1986. While the matter was thus pending considera-
U.0.1. v. DEBASHISKAR[S.C.AGRAWAL,J.] 277

tion before the Ordinance Factory Board, a Writ Petition was filed in the A
Madhya Pradesh High Court by draughtsmen employed in the Ordinance
Factories situated in that State and after the constitution of the Central
Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal'), the said writ petition was
transferred to the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal and it was registered as
TAA 111/86. Another application (OA-87/86) was also filed by some of B
the draughtsmen before the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal. Both these
applications were disposed of by the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal by
judgment dated April 21, 1987 whereby it was held that the applicants were
entitled to be placed at par with Grade II Draughtsmen of the C.P.W.D.,
i.e., in revised scale Rs. 425-700 and that if there are any individual
exceptions amongst the applicants to this general equation, they should be C
identified by a suitable departmental committee of three Assessors of
whom one should be from Management, one a technical person of ap-
propriate level from inside the Ordinance Factory and one technical out-
sider not connected with the Ordinance Factories of the rank of Professor
or Addi. Professor from Engineering College, Jabalpur or Engineering D
Institute at Roorkee, IIT, Kanpur. The Tribunal rejected the contention

- urged on behalf of the respondents in the said applications that the
applicants do not possess the recruitment qualifications and experience
atleast equivalent to those of grade category II of draughtsman of C.P.W.D.
The justifications and reasons for the decision of the Ordinance Factory E
Board at its meeting held on September 9, 1986 based on the report of the
Sub-Committee dated January 24, 1986 and the findings of the Sub-Com-
mittee that the qualifications of draughtsmen in the Ordinance Factories
have to be treated as corresponding to those of Draughtsmen Grade III in
C.P.W.D. were not accepted by the Tribunal. Special Leave Petitions Nos.
8593-94 of 1987 filed by the Union of India and others against the said
F
judgment of the Tribunal were dismissed by the order of this Court dated
November 17, 1987 but the said order was subsequently recalled by another
order dated 20th August, 1993 passed in Review Petitions (Civil) Nos.
847-48 of 1991. The respondents in the said Special Leave Petitions have,
however, stated that the said decision of the Tribunal has already been G
implemented and the applicants in those applications have been allowed
the revised pay scale of Rs. 425-700 with effect from May 30, 1982 as per
Office Memorandum dated March 13, 1984 and that the Assessors Com-
mittee which was constituted in pursuance of the decision of the Tribunal
have found that the applicants have the qualifications which are equivalent H
278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A to the technical qualifications of Draughtsmen Grade II in C.P.W.D.

Two applications {OA No. 569 of 1986 and 570 of 1986) were filed
before the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal by draughtsmen employed in
the Ordinance Factories in the State of West Bengal where by a direction
B was sought for implementation of the Office Memorandum of Ministry of
Finance dated March 13, 1984 and the direction contained in the order
dated July 3, 1984 of the Ministry of Defence after setting aside the order
dated October 9, 1986 passed by the Ordinance Factories Board. On the
said applications the Tribunal, on September 10, 1987, passed an order for
setting up of an expert committee to examine the recruitment qualifications
C of draughtsmen in the Ordinance Factories and to examine as to whether
they can be treated as similar to or higher than the recruitment qualifica-
tions of Draughtsman Grade II in C.P.W.D. An Expert Committee was set
up in pursuance of the said order of the Tn"bunal and it submitted its report
dated December 4, 1987 where in the Expert Committee opined that the
.D recruitment qualifications of draughtsmen in the Ordinance Factories is
neither similar to nor higher than the recruitment qualifications for
Draughtsmen Grade II in the C.P.WD. The said report of the Expert ,,,
Committee was assailed by the applicants before the Tribunal by :filing
miscellaneous Applications, being M.A. Nos. 94 and 94 A of 1988 in OA
Nos. 569 of 1986 and 570 of 1986 pending before the Tribunal. The original
E applications as well as the miscellaneous applications were all disposed of
by the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal by judgment dated December 31,
1990. Relying upon the judgment dated April 21, 1987 of the Jabalpur
Bench of the Tribunal in T .AA No. 111 of 1986 and OA No. 87 of 1986,
the Calcutta Bench of the Tn"bunal quashed the order dated 9th October,
F 1986 as well as the report of the Expert Committee dated December 4,
1987 and directed that the applic3nts in the said applications be given the
benefit as prayed for by them on the same lines as the direction given by
the Jabalpur Bench in its judgment dated April 21, 1987. Special Leave
Petitions Nos. 9840-40A of 1991 filed by the Union of India and others
against the said judgment of the Tribunal were dismissed by order of this
G Court dated July '19, 199L Review Petitions Nos. 857-58 of 1991 filed
against the said order were dismissed by order dated October 25, 1991 but
by a subsequent order dated November 1.8, 1994 the said order dated
October 25, 1991 dismissing the Review Petitions was recalled and the
Review Petitions have been directed to be tagged with the Special Leave
H Petition Nos. 8593-94of1987.
U.0.1. v. D~BASlflSKAR(S.C.AGRAWAL,J.] 279

Another application (OA. No. 333 of 1993) was filed before the A
Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal by the applicants who were working as
draughtsmen under the control of the General Manager, Ordinance Fac-
tory, Ishapur wherein they sought a direction in terms of the judgment
dated 31st December, 1990 delivered by the Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal
in O.A Nos. 569-570 of 1986 and for a direction to fix their pay in terms B
of the Office Memorandum of the Central Government dated March 13,
1984 and order dated July 3, 1984. The said petition was allowed by the
Tribunal by the judgment dated August 1, 1984 and the respondent in the
said application were directed to extend the benefit of the judgment dated
December 31, 1990 delivered by the Tribunal the Tribunal in OA. Nos.
569 and 570 of 1986 to the applicants and to fix their pay in terms of the C
orders of the Central Government dated March 13, 1984 and July 3, 1984.
Civil Appeal No. 1443 of 1993 has been filed by the Union of India and
Others against the said judgment of the Tnbunal

Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 22016 of 1993 has been filed D
against the judgment and order dated June 23, 1993 of the Hyderabad
Bench of the Tribunal in OA. No. 140of1992 filed by applicants who were
employed as draughtsman in the Ordinance factory at Edumelaram in
Medak District of Andhra Pradesh. Following the decisions of he Jabalpur
and Calcutta Benches aforementioned, the Hyderabad Bench of the has E
directed that the pay of the applicants, other than applicants Nos. 7, 11,
and 17, be fixed in the revised pay scale of Draughtsman Grade II from
the dates of their respective appointment promotion as draughtsman in the
said Ordinance Factory in accordance with the office memorandum dated
March 13, 1984.
F
In accordance with order of the Ministry of Defence dated July 3,
1984 orders were passed on August 14, 1984 and February 15, 1985 revising
the pay scales in accordance with the Office Memorandum dated March
13, 1984 but by a subsequent order of E.M.E. Records dated October 30,
1986 on the basis of which other orders were passed by the respective G
Commandants of the Base Workshops the said orders were rescinded and

·- the benefit of the revised pay scales which had been extended was
withdrawn. A nuinber of applications were filed before the Tribunal by the
draughtsmen in Army Base Workships, E.M.E. which were disposed of by
the Principal bench of the Tribunal by Judgment dated May 15, 1992 where
by the orders of E.M.E.. Records dated 30th October, 1986 and sub- H
280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
..
A sequent orders issued by the respective Commandants of the respective
base Workshops in pursuance of the said order of the E.M.E. Records,
Secunderabad have been quashed and it has directed that the applicants
in the applications before the Tribunal be placed in their revised scale of
pay as per Office Memorandum dated March 13, 1984 notionally with
effect from May 13, 1982 and that the actual benefit be allowed with effect
B from November 1, 1983. C.A. Nos. 2125-33 of 1993 have been filed by the
Union of India against the said judgment of the Tribunal.

Though by order dated April 7, 1994 S.L.P. Nos. 8593-94 of 1987
were directed to be listed after the decision in C.A. Nos. 2125-33 of 1993
C but since the said SLPs are directed against the judgment of the Jabalpur
Bench of the Tribunal dated April 21, 1987 which forms the basis for the
judgments of other Benches of the Tribunals in other connected matters,
we have taken up SLPs Nos. 8593-94 of 1987 along with these matters and
have heard the said SLPs also and the same are being disposed of by this
judgment.
D
The narration of the fact referred to above would show that all these
matters rela.te to revision of pay of draughtsman employed in the Ministry
of Defence of the Government of India and except the respondents in C.A.
Nos. 2125-33 of 1993, the respondents in the other matters are all employed
E as draughtsmen in the various Ordinance Factories under the Ordinance
Factories Board and the respondents in C.A. Nos. 2125-33 of 1993 are
draughtsmen employed in the Army Base Workshops under the E.M.E. In
the impugned judgments the various Benches of the Tribunal have taken
the view that the qualifications which were required for appointment of
draughtsman .in the Ordinance Factories as well· as in the Army Base
F Workshops in the E.M.E. were equivalent to the qualifications which were
prescribed for appointment on the post of Draughtsman Grade II in the
C.P.W.D. and therefore, the respondents who were placed in the pay scale
of Rs. 335-560 on the basis of the report of the Third Pay Commission were
entitled to be placed in the revised pay scale of Rs. 425-700 in accordance
G with the Office Memorandum of the Ministry of Finance dated March 13,
1984. On behalf of the Union of India and other appellants in the appeals
and petitioners in the Special Leave Petitions and the Review Petitions, the ... l
said view of the Tribunal has been assailed and it has been urged that the
qualifications for appointment on the post of draughtsman in the Or-
dinance Factories and the Army Base Workshops of the E.M.E. cannot be
H treated as equivalent to the qualifications for appointment on the post of
U.O.I. v. DEBASHISKAR(S.C.AGRAWAL,J.) 281

Draughtsman Grade II in C.P.W.D. and therefore, the said respondents A
are not entitled to the benefit of revision of pay on the basis of the Office
Memorandum dated March 13, 1984.

During the pendency of these cases in this Court the Government of
India, Ministry of Finance has issued an Office Memorandum dated Oc-
tober 19, 1994 which is reproduced as under : B

"OFFICE MEMORANDUM

Subject : Revision of pay scales of Draughtsmen Grade I, II and
III in all Government of India offices on the basis of
the Award of the Board of Arbitration in the case of c
Central Public Works Department.

The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department's O.M.
No. F. 5(59)-E.IIl/82 dated 13.3.84 on the subject mentioned above
and to say that a Committee of the National Council (JCM) was D
set up to consider the request of the staff side that the following
scales of pay, allowed to the Draughtsman Grade I, II & III
working in CPWD on the basis of the Award of Board of Arbitra-
tion, may be extended to Draughtsman Grade I, II & III irrespec-
tive of their recruitment qualification, in all Government of India
~~= E
Original Scale Revised Scale on the
. (Rs.) basis of the Award (Rs.)

Draughtsman
Grade I 425 - 700 550 - 750 F

1.- Draughtsman
Grade II --- 330 - 560 425 - 700

Draughtsman
G
Grade III 260 - 430 330 - 560
.....__
2. The President is now pleased to decide that the Draughtsman
Grade, I II and III in offices/departments of the Government of
India other than in CPWD may also be placed in the scale of pay
mentioned above subject to the following : H
282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1~5] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A (a) Minimum period of service for placement from the post
carrying scale of Rs. 975-1540 to Rs. 1200-2040 (pre-revised
Rs. 260-430 to Rs.330-560)7 years

(b) Minimum period of service for placement from the post
carrying scale of Rs. 1200-2040 to Rs. 1400-2300 (pre- revised
B Rs. 330-560 to Rs. 425-700)5 years

(c) Minimum period of service for placement from the post
carrying scale of Rs. 1400-2300 to Rs. 1600-2600 (pre- revised
Rs. 425-700 to Rs. 550-750) 4 years
c 3. Once the Draughtsman are placed in the regular scales, further
promotions would be made against available vacancies in higher
grade and in accordance with the normal eligibility criteria laid
down the recruitment rules.

D 4. The benefit of his revision of the scales of pay would be given
with effect from 13.5.82 notionally and actually from 1.11.83.

Sci/
(Shyam Sunder)
Under Secretary to the Government of India"
E
By the said office memorandum, the Government of India, after
considering the request of the staff side that the scale of pay, allowed to
the Draughtsmen Grade I, II, & III working in C.P.W.D. on the basis of
the above Award of Board of Arbitration may be extended to Draughtsmen
p Grade I, II & III irrespective of their recruitment qualifications in the
Government of India offices, has decided that Draughtsmen Grade I , II
& III in offices/departments of the Government of India other than in
C.P.W.D. may also be placed in the revised scales of pay on the basis of
the award subject to certain minimum period of service as mentioned in
the clauses (a), (b) and (c) in para 2 of the Office Memorandum. The
G benefit of this revision of scales of pay under the office memorandum dated
19th October, 1994 has been given retrospectively with effect from the same
dates as was given by the Office Memorandum dated March 13, 1984, i.e.,
from. May 13, 1982 notionally and actually from 1st November, 1983. In
respect of draughtsmen who fulfilled the requirement relating to the period
H of service mentioned in the said Office Memorandum dated 19th October,
U.O.I. v. DEBASHISKAR[S.C.AGRAWAL,1.J 283

1994 on the relevant date the question whether their recruitment qualifica- A
tions were similar to those in the case of draughtsman in C.P.W.D. would
not arise and they would be entitled to the revised pay scales as granted
to the draughtsmen in C.P.W.D. irrespective of their recruitment qualifica-
tions. But in respect of those draughtsmen who did not fulfd the require-
ment relating to the period of service prescribed in para 2 of the office B
memorandum dated 19th October, 1994 the question whether their recruit-
ment qualifications are similar to those prescribed for draughtsmen in
C.P.W.D. is required to be considered for the purpose of deciding whether
they are entitled to the benefit of the revision of pay scales as per the office
memorandum dated March 13, 1984.
c
We will first take up the case of draughtsmen in the Ordinance
Factories. In C.P.W.D. the qualifications for direct appointment on the
post of Draughtsman Grade II is Certificate or Diploma in Civil, Mechani-
cal or Electrical Engineering from a recognised Institution with 6 months'
practical training plus additional one year employment experience in an D
organisation or firm of repute and the posts not filled by direct recruitment
are filled primarily by appointment of Draughtsmen Trainees. The Jabal-
pur Bench of the Tribunal, in its judgment dated April 21, 1987, has stated
that it has been admitted by the Ordinance Factories Board that the
relevant recruitment roles, namely SRO, 4 of 1956, is silent on the mode
of filling posts of draughtsmen and that the practice followed by the E
Ordinance Factory Board is as follows :

"By gradation of D'men trainees on successful completion of train-
ing as per scheme for the training of D'men at ATS/OFl1 Ambar-
nath introduced vide M of D letter referred to above. Posts of
D'men in O.F.'s are filled primarily by appointment of D'man F
Trainees. However, a few posts are also filled by promotion of
tracers with minimum 3 years experience in that trade.".

The Tribunal has observed that the scheme of training of
draughtsmen at ATS Ambarnath was laid down in the Ministry of G
Defence's letter of November 14, 1969 which prescribes the various
entrance qualifications and the curriculum and the period of training and
that the entrance qualification is matriculation with two years practical
experience in Tools Room 1-1/l years Draughtsmen's COIUSC of LT.Land
that after selection 2-1/l years training is given which includes six montbi
working in factories and that according to clause 10 of the Scheme a H

''
284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A draughtsman trainee will be graded either for. the post of Senior
draughtsman or Draughtsman and that the scheme no where lays down the
those trainees can be posted as Tracers. According to the Tribunal, the
qualifications prescribed for draughtsmen in Ordinance Factories are
similar or equivalent to those prescribed for recruitment in C.P.W.D. The
Tribunal has held that the decision of the Ordinance Factory Board based
B on the sub-Committee report that the applicants (respondents herein)
should be equated with Tracers and Draughtsman Grade III of C.P.W.D.
was fallacious. In this context, it would be relevant to mentioned that as
per the pay scales fixed on the basis of report of the First Pay Commission
of 1947 there was no difference in the pay scales of Draughtsmen and
c Tracers in the Ordinance Factories and the pay scales of Draughtsmen and
Tracers C.P.W.D. Senior Draughtsman in the Ordinance Factories and
Draughtsman in the CPWD. were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 150-225,
Draughtsman in the Ordinance Factories and Assistant Draughtsman in ....
_

C.P.W.D. were placed in the scale of Rs. 100-185 and Tracers in Ordinance
Factories as well as in C.P.W.D. were placed in the scale of Rs. 60-150. On
D the basis of the report of the Second Pay Commission in 1959 there was a
slight modification in the pay scale of Senior Draughtsman in Ordinance
Factories. Tracers in the Ordinance Factories and C.P.W.D. were placed
in the same pay scale of Rs. 110-200 and draughtsmen in Ordinance
Factories and assistant Draughtsmen C.P.W.D. were placed in the same
E pay scale of Rs. 150-240. Senior Draughtsmen in Ordinance Factories were
placed in the pay scale of Rs. 205-280 while Draughtsmen in C.P.W.D. were
placed in the pay scale of Rs. 180-380. By Notification dated September 1,
1965, there was change in the designation of posts of drawing office staff
in C.P.W.D. and Draughtsman was designated as Draughtsman Grade I,
Assistant Draughtsman was designated as Draughtsman Grade II, and
F Tracer was designated as Draughtsman Grade III. Thereafter on the basis
of the report of the Third Pay Commission in 1973, Tracer in the Or-
dinance Factories and Draughtsmen Grade III in C.P.W.D. were placed in
the same pay scale of Rs. 260-430, Draughtsmen in Ordinance Factories
and Draughtsman Grade II in C.P.W.D. were placed in the same pay scale
G of Rs. 330-560 and Senior Draughtsmen in Ordinance Factories and the
Draughtsmen Grade I in C.P.W.D. were placed in the same pay scale of
Rs. 425-700. This would show that Tracer in Ordinance Factories has all
along been treated as equivalent to Tracer/Draughtsmen Grade III in
C.P.W.D. and Draughtsmen in Ordinance Factories has all along been
treated as equivalent to Assistant Draughtsman/Draughtsman Grade II in
H C.P.W.D. As a result of the revision of pay scales in C.P.W.D. on the basis
U.0.I. v. DEBASHIS KAR [S.C.AGRAWAL,J.) 285

of the Award of the Board of Arbitration, the scale of Draughtsman Grade A
III was revised to Rs. 330-560, while that of Draughtsman Grade II was
revised to Rs. 425-700 and of Draughtsman Grade I was revised to Rs.
550-750. The denial of similar revision of pay scale of Draughtsmen in
Ordinance Factories would result in their being down-graded to the level
of Tracer/Draughtsman Grade III in C.P.W.D. Officer Me~orandum
dated March 13, 1984 cannot, in our opinion, be construed as having such
B
an effect.

Shri N.N. Goswami, the learned senior counsel appearing in support
of the appeals as well as the Special Leave Petitions and the Review
Petitions, has urged that the Channel of promotion in Ordinance Factories C
is different from the channel of promotion in C.P.W.D. inasmuch as in
C.P.W.D. there is no further promotion after a person reaches the scale of
Draughtsman Grade I while in Ordinance Factories a Draughtsman is
entitled to be promoted as Chargeman Grade II and thereafter as Char-
geman Grade I and as Foreman and that the post of Chargeman Grade II
which is the promotional post for draughtsman was in the pay scale of Rs. D
425- 700 and that placement of Draughtsman in the said pay scale of Rs.
425-700 would result in Draughtsman being placed at the same level as the
·• promotional post of Chargeman Grade II and, therefore, the benefit of the
revision of pay scales under Office Memorandum dated March 13, 1984
cannot be extended to the Draughtsmen in Ordinance Factories. On behalf E
of the respondents it is disputed that there are no promotional chances for
Draughtsman Grade I in C.P.W.D. This question was not agitated in any
of the matters before the Tribunal and we are, therefore, unable to enter-
tain this plea urged by Shri Goswami on behalf of the appel-
lants/petitioners. As regards the post of Chargeman Grade II being a F
promotional post for Draughtsman in Ordinance Factories and it being in
the scale of Rs. 425-700 at the relevant time, we are of the view that merely
because of promotional post for Draughtsmen in Ordinance Factories was
in the scale of Rs. 425- 700 cannot be a justification for denying the revision
of pay scales to Draughtsmen and their being placed in the scale of Rs.
425-700 on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated March 13, 1984 if G
such Draughtsmen are otherwise entitled to such revision in the pay scale
on the basis of the said Memorandum. Moreover, the provision regarding
promotion of Draughtsman as Chargeman Grade II in Ordinance Factories
was introduced by the Indian Ordinance Factories Group C Supervisory
and Non-Gazetted Cadre (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, H
286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A 1989 issued vide Notification dated May 4, 1989. The said Rules are not
retrospective in operation. Here were are concerned with the revision of
pay scales with effect from May 13, 1982 on the basis of the Office
Memorandum dated March 13, 1984 and, at that time, the said Rules were
not operative. Therefore, on the basis of the aforesaid Rules Draughtsmen
in Ordinance Factories cannot be denied the benefit of revision of pay
B scales on the basis of the Office Memorandum dated March 13, 1984. The
appeals and the SLPs as well as Review Petitions relating to draughtsmen
in Ordinance Factories are, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

Dealing with draughtsman in the Army Base Workshops in the
C E.M.E., the Principal Bench of the Tribunal has observed that in the
E.M.E. for the post of draughtsman, the qualifications that are prescribed
are "Matriculation or its equivalent with two years Diploma in
draughtsmanship Mechanical or its equivalent". The Tribunal has referred
to the Report of the Third pay Commission wherein, while dealing with
draughtsmen who were in the pay scale of Rs. 150-240 (as per report of ·~

D Second Pay Commission), it is "stated :

"(ii) for the next higher grade of Rs. 150-240 the requirement is
generally a Diploma in Draughtsmanship or an equivalent •·
qualification in Architecture (both of 2 years' duration after
E Matriculation);"

The Tribunal has observed that Tracer in the E.M.E. could not be
treated in any other manner but at par with Grade III Draughtsman of
C.P.W.D. keeping in view their recruitment qualifications. the Tribunal
held that the benefit of Office Memorandum dated March 13, 1984 had
F been rightly extended to Draughtsmen. in E.M.E. and that its withdrawal
was illogical and irrational. The learned counsel for the appellants has been
unable to show that is the said view of the Tribunal suffers from an infirmity
which would justify interference by this Court.

Civil Appeal Nos. 1433 of 1986, 2125-33 of 1993 as well as S.L.P.s
G (Civil) Nos. 8593-94 of 1987, 22016 of 1993 and Review Petitions (Civil)
Nos. 875-58 of 1991 are accordingly dismissed but in the facts and cir-
cumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

T.W. Appeals dismissed.

,'