Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a claim by a Private Secretary attached to the Vice Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 from 1 January 1986 on grounds of parity with Private Secretaries to Ministers and High Court Judges. The employee filed an original application before the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, which allowed the claim by directing ad hoc upgradation to the higher scale upon completion of eight years in the feeder grade of Rs.2000-3500, including service rendered in Central Secretariat Stenographers Service Grades A and B. The Union of India appealed against this order. The employee had been a Grade B Stenographer on ad hoc basis from 12 August 1981, was selected as Private Secretary on deputation from 1 November 1985, and was absorbed in the Tribunal on 1 November 1989. The Tribunal had rejected the Union's contentions regarding absence of functional parity, observing that duties of Private Secretaries to Vice Chairmen were comparable to those of counterparts in Central Government and Delhi High Court. The Supreme Court framed the core issues as whether the employee had established entitlement to equal pay under Article 14 and whether the Tribunal could rewrite service rules by granting relief contrary to statutory rules. The Union argued that CAT employees are governed by different rules, have limited jurisdiction, and their Private Secretaries do not have as onerous duties as those attached to Secretaries in Ministries; there was no interchangeability. The employee relied on equal pay for equal work, but the Court found no adequate pleadings or evidence in his affidavit. The Court held that the burden of establishing discrimination lies on the employee claiming parity, not on the employer, and cited State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pramod Bhartiya. It further held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing directions that amounted to amendment of rules, when it should have directed the appropriate authority to review recruitment rules. The Court also noted that the employee's ad hoc service and absorption date required consideration regarding eligibility for promotion. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remitted the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Equal Pay for Equal Work - Burden of Proof - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14 - Employee claiming parity with Private Secretaries to Ministers and High Court Judges must establish functional parity; burden lies on claimant, not employer. Supreme Court relied on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pramod Bhartiya (1993) 1 SCC 539 to hold that plea of discrimination under Article 14 requires petitioners to establish right to equal pay. Held that Tribunal erred in shifting burden to employer and granting relief without required pleadings and evidence (Paras 1-6). B) Administrative Law - Tribunal's Jurisdiction and Rule-Making Power - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Section 36(b); Central Administrative Tribunal (Staff Conditions of Service) Rules, 1985, Rules 3 and 4 - Tribunal cannot direct upgradation of pay scale or rewrite recruitment rules when statutory rules prescribe scale of Rs.2000-3500 for Private Secretary. Tribunal's direction to grant ad hoc scale of Rs.3000-4500 on completing eight years service amounted to amendment of rules. Held that Tribunal should have directed appropriate authority to review rules instead of undertaking amendment itself (Paras 1-6). C) Service Law - Functional Parity - Factors for Comparison - Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, Section 2(c); Central Administrative Tribunal (Staff Conditions of Service) Rules, 1985 - For equal pay claim, court must compare mode of recruitment, qualifications, responsibilities, promotional opportunities and conditions of service. CAT employees are governed by different rules and have limited jurisdiction compared to High Courts and Central Secretariat; no interchangeability exists. Held that Tribunal failed to consider all aspects raised in counter affidavit and erroneously assumed parity (Paras 1-6). D) Service Law - Counting of Service for Promotion - Ad hoc Service - Central Secretariat Stenographers Service Rules - Only approved regular service in feeder grade counts for eligibility for promotion; ad hoc service before absorption cannot be counted. Respondent was absorbed in CAT only on 1.11.1989 and claimed benefit from 7.10.1987 without establishing eligibility. Held that this aspect required consideration on remand (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Private Secretary attached to Vice Chairman of Central Administrative Tribunal was entitled to the pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 from 1.1.1986 on the principle of equal pay for equal work, and whether the Tribunal could direct ad hoc upgradation pending amendment of recruitment rules.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; order of Central Administrative Tribunal set aside; matter remitted to Tribunal for fresh consideration in accordance with law; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Equal pay for equal work claims must be examined with reference to Article 14
- burden is on claimants to establish discrimination
- functional parity depends on mode of recruitment
- qualifications
- responsibilities and promotional opportunities
- Tribunal cannot rewrite service rules or grant relief amounting to amendment of rules
- Tribunal must not equate itself with High Court in all respects
