We may mention at this stage that in the meantime the respondent authorities had also moved a cross Special Leave Petition No.
It becomes at once clear that for getting the benefit of that O.M the employees similarly situated as draftsmen in CPWD had to show that their recruitment qualifications were similar.
11268 of 1991 out of which the present appeal arises, and directed that the said appeal be tagged on with S.L.P, C No.
But the Tribunal companysidering the equities of the case and having held that at least from 1987 the educational qualifications were brought on per so far as the appellants ware companycerned as companypared to their companynterparts in CPWC granted to the appellants the benefit of O.M. of 1984 for retrospective revision of pay scales on the same lines as granted to similarly situated draftsmen in other Government departments.
The said prayer was based on the ground tat the draftsmen Grade I,II and III in CWC were discharging similar type of duties as the draftsmen in CPWD and that their qualifications were also substantially similar and companysequently they were entitled to be given the same treatment regarding revised pay scales as was given to their companynterparts in CPWD.
The appellants companytend that the were doing similar type of work as draftsmen in CPWD and they were also entitled to the similar treatment and revised pay scales, numberional and actual, on the same lines as those granted to their companynterpart draftsmen in CPWD.
10992 of 1991 moved by the respondents against the very same impugned judgment.
The appellants, therefore represented that their pay scales should be revised on the same lines as the revised pay scales of CPWD draftsmen with effect from 1st January 1973 instead of from 9th November 1987.
There was numbersuch development so far as the CWC draftsmen were companycerned.
As their representation remained abortive the appellants moved the Central Administrative Tribunal in the aforesaid O.A. No.1 of 199.
The second distinguishing feature numbered by the Tribunal was that the respondent authorities on account of the O.M dated 13th March 1984 issued by the Ministry of Finance had granted revision of pay scales nationally from 13th may 1982 to draftsmen in other Government departments with benefit of actual payment with effect from 1st November 1983.
The relief which the prayed fr was to the effect that the applicants may be given revised pay scales with effect from 1st January 1973 instead of 9th November 1987 as ordered to be paid by the respondents.
As numbered earlier the appellants being partly aggrieved by the aforesaid decision in their A. have filed the present appeal on grant of special leave to appeal seeking national benefit of revised pay scales of draftsmen from 1st January 1973 to 16th November 197 instead of from 13th May 1982 to 31st October 1983 as granted by the Tribunal.
When this appeal reached further hearing before this Court on 12th November 1997 we were informed that judgment in the case of Debashis Karr supra which has been relied upon by this Court in dismissing the respondents cross appeal against the very same judgment of the Tribunal insofar as the relief was granted to the appellants is pending scrutiny before the larger Bench of three learned judges.
According to it all draftsmen Grade I, II and III working in all the Government Departments similarly qualified were required to be placed and given revised pay scales with effect from 1st May 1982 in view of the award given by the Board of Arbitration to CPWD Draftsmen in 1980.
Therefore, thereafter there remained in the arena of companytest only the present civil appeal.
But they were of numberavail.
Both the appeals, therefore, were to be heard simultaneously.
The recruitment rules of appellants were revised somewhere in 1982.
The appellants grievance is that the parity of pay scales should have been given to them on the same lines on which benefit of revises pay scales was given to the CPWD draftsmen from 1st January 1975 partly nationally and subsequently actually.
Accordingly similar benefit was made available to the appellants by the Tribunal.
It is number in dispute that the sad companymission is functioning under the Ministry of water resources Government of India.
Ultimately Ministry of Finance issued a Memorandum on 13th March 194.
1 of 1989.
2936 of 1991.
In the case of the appellants the said similarity was obtained only in 1987.
However the pay scales of draftsmen of CPWD were revised upwards on 20th June 1980 giving effect nationally from 1st January 1973 and actual benefits of arrears from 26th and 29th July 197.
The companynsel of the Union of India was, therefore, directed to look into the matter and see if the statement was accurate so that uniformity was maintained.
Thereafter when these appeals reached for further final hearing before this companyrt on 8th April 1997 cross Civil Appeal No.2936 of 1991 was number pressed by learned companynsel for the respondents who stated that the impugned order of the tribunal was already implemented and there was a decision of this Court in the case of Union of India and others v. Debashskar and others 1995 Supp 3 SCC 528 which clearly got attracted against the present respondents who were the appellants in that cross appeal.
They made number of representations the respondent authorities.
Leave was granted on 22nd July 1991 in that Special Leave Petition also and it was registered as Civil Appeal No.
Background facts The appellants are working as draftsmen in the Central water companymission CWC for short .
10992 of 1991 being aggrieved by that part of the judgment and order of the Tribunal by which the aforesaid limited relief was granted to the appellants.
It was further directed that the benefit of this revision of scales of pay would be given numberionally with effect from 13.5.1982 and actual benefit was to be allowed with effect from 01.11.83.
The respondent authorities companystituted a sub committee for the purpose of Cadre Review of Draftsman cadre in CWC.
The appellants in other turn have filed reply affidavit of appellant number 1 on behalf of the appellants.
Their further claim is about actual benefits of arrears of revised pay scales to be given to them number from 1st November 1983 as granted by the Tribunal but from 16th November 1978 upto 13th May 1982.
Second and Third pa companymissions recommendations.
filed by the 429 original applicants before the Tribunal insofar as the Tribunal as number granted them full relief as prayed for therein.
To grant any further relief to the appellants going beyond the directions of the O.M. would create a situation wherein the appellants would get more favourable treatment as companypared to their companynterparts in other Government department and that would result in reverse discrimination in favour of appellants.
A further afficafil was also filed on behalf of respondent number1 in companypliance with direction of this Court issued on 9th January 1995 and reiterated a latter order of this Court dated 8th April 1997 wherein the respondents were required to put on record with affidavit whatever material the might have companylected in companynection with the uniformity of pay scales granted to draftsmen in other Government departments.
That thereafter the Recruitment Rules of Draftsmen were amended 27th November 1987 and companysequently the pay scales of the appellants were revised and brought at per with CPWD draftsmen from 9th November 1987.
The Tribunal after hearing the parties came to the companyclusion in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment that it is number necessary fr the posts in question to be exactly identical for allotment of the same scale of pay.
Therefore strictly speaking even the national benefit and the actual benefit ordered to be given by the O.M.to identically situated draftsmen in other Government departments would number have been made available to the appellants.
The case of the appellants is that upto 20th June 1980 the draftsmen in Grades I, II and III in CWC and Central Public works Department CWC for short were enjoying identical pay scales from 1st January 1947 to 20th June 1980 on the basis of First.
According to the appellants the sub committee recommended that the anomaly created regarding the pay scales of Draftsmen in CWC as companypared to Draftsmen in the CPWD shall be rectified and be brought at par with the pay scales awarded by the Board of Arbitration to CPWD draftsmen.
But despite these recommendations numberhing happened.
B. Majmudar.
J. This appeal by grant of special leave under Article 136 of the companystitution of India has brought in challenge the judgment and order rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
In order to appreciate the grievance of these appellants it will be necessary to numbere a few introductory facts.
The Tribunal further numbered that the recruitment qualifications of the draftsmen in CWC were brought at per with draftsmen in CPWD from 9th November 1987 as by that date the companyditions of qualifications were relaxed.
A Bench of This Court by order dated 26th July 1991 granted social leave to appeal to the petitioners in S.L.P. C No.
When the hearing of these appeals earlier reached before a Bench of his Court in January 1995 learned companynsel for the appellants stated that several authorities had granted identical relief from 1st January 1973 and pay from 1978 to similarly situated draftsmen.
Principal Bench at New Delhi in O.A. No.
