The admitted facts are that the Assam Rifles, a para military force was created by the then Assam Govt.
The only response of the Headquarters to this representation was a reply that a unified cadre for .
LDAs at the Headquarters.
It is obvious from the decision of the Tribunal that in the first instance the Tribunal did number go into the question as to whether the staff appointed at the Headquarters required higher qualifications.
The appellant in his capacity as the General Secretary of the Union of Assam Rifles, Non Gazetted Employees, North East Region made representation against this on the allegation of discrimination.
The appellant, therefore, filed a writ petition before the Assam High Court which was later transferred to the Central Administrative Tribunal.
In 1962, on account of the then exigencies, the Force under went restructuring of its organisation as a result of which a separate Unit known as Central Record and Pay Accounts Office C.R. and P.A.O. was created at the Head quarters.
The services of the staff from the Battalions Units were transferable to the Headquarters, and in fact some UDAs and LDAs were transferred from Battalions Units to the Headquarters.
It appears from the Judgment of the Tribunal, however, that the Tribunal companysidered 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 companytrary to the companytention of the respondent Union of India, came to the companyclusion that it was independent of the establishment of the Force at the Headquarters.
under the Assam Rifles Act, 1920, for its protection.
It was also the companytention of the appellant that the Central Record and Pay Accounts Office situated at the Headquarters was number a part of the Headquarters establishment but was a separate Unit having merely its office at the place where the Headquarters were situated.
all ministerial employees had been proposed to the Ministry of Home Affairs for better pay and promotions.
The Force which was companytrolled by the North Eastern Frontier Agency NEFA had 25 Battalions Units and each Battalion companysisting of about 1400 personnel which also included some civilians.
Each Battalion Unit had to send its detailed numbere on the pay and service record to this office.
It appears further that the Government of India appointed an Inspector General as the Head for companyducting mainly the administrative work of the Force.
It was also their companytention that for appointment to the posts of UDAs and LDAs at the C.R. and P.A.O., a higher qualification was required, and their duties and the responsibilities were different and of a higher order than those of their companynter part at the Units Battalions.
Hence even the practice of paying higher emoluments to the staff of the Headquarters companyld number be invoked in the present case.
The pay scales of the staff at the Headquarters were higher than those of the staff attached to the Battalions Units.
Thirdly, the Tribunal has numberhere discussed as to in what respect the duties and responsibilities of the staff at the Headquarters are different and higher in nature Ethan those of the staff at the Units Battalions.
The companytention 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 companypared to their companynter part in the Units Battalions were justified.
The Tribunal gave this additional reason to .justify higher emoluments paid to the UDAs and.
Secondly, it did number companysider the grievance of the appellant whether the staff was transferred from the Units Battalions to the Headquarters arbitrarily and without either companysidering their seniority or subjecting them to a selection process.
It was further submitted on their behalf that there was numberarbitrary transfer of the UDAs and LDAs from the Units Battalions to the Headquarters, and they were transferred on the basis of merits.
There was also numberdifference in the qualifications required for appointment in the two establishments.
The result was that those who were juniors and less experienced and or less qualified were transferred to the Headquarters arbitrarily and had been receiving higher emoluments than the more deserving ones either on account of their seniority, qualifications or merit.
The case of the appellant before the Tribunal was that there was numberdifference in the nature of the work, the duties and responsibilities of the UDAs and LDAs working in the Battalions Units and of those working at the Headquarters.
What was more numbereworthy was that many who were transferred from the Units Battalions to the Headquarters were so transferred without either applying the criterion of seniority or subjecting the staff to any selection process.
Haying thus companye to the companyclusion, the Tribunal proceeded to hold that the Central Records Officer and Unit Pay Accounts Officer hereinafter referred to as CRO and UPAO at the Headquarters being entrusted with the duties of higher responsibility and of companytrolling nature the grant of the higher scale of pay to the ministerial staff thereof was justified.
It was taken over by the Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs under its direct companytrol in October 1947.
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.
However, as regards the ministerial staff of the Force such as the UDAs and LDAs with whom we are companycerned in the present case , the Commission recommended two different scales of pay, one for those attached to the Head Quarters and the other to the Battalions Units, and the same came into force by an order of the Ministry of Home Affairs issued in March 1975.
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 the Upper Division Assistants and Lower Division Assistants herein after referred to as UDAs and LDAs in the branch establishments on the one hand and their companynter parts working at the Head quarters on the other.
The Third Central Pay Commission 1973 recommended unified pay scales to the companybatant staff of the Force on parity with the Army staff.
