Case for parity - Stating Direct Recruitment cannot be crieteria for discrimination

Pl. also see this link: indiankanoon.org/doc/1914621/ Only OA Number is not figuring in this. I tried by visiting CAT's website also. But it does not show. Anyhow, I request fellow boarders to follow up for getting the same either thro their connections (If anyone in ESI or CAT, OR through RTI, etc. for getting the OA Number). With getting the number, it will be complete in all respects.

Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Bench: T Bhat, B A S.P.

All India Esi Corporation Employees Federation Through Its Secretary General And Anr. vs Director General, Esi Corporation And Anr. on 17/3/1999

JUDGMENT

S.P. Biswas, Member (A)

1. The first applicant-All India Employees State Insurance Corporation (ESIC for short) Employees Federation represents Group 'C and D employees and the second applicant-an Assistant (Group C), is an employee of the ESIC. They are aggrieved by A-l and A-3 (colly) communications dated 1.11.93. 13.1.91 and 7.5.91 respectively by which they have been denied the scale of pay (Rs. 1640-2900) given to Assistants and Stenographers Grade C in the Central Secretariat Service (CSS for short) despite admission by both the respondents that the nature of duties and responsibilities performed by the applicants are the same as of Assistants in CSS. The dispute, therefore, basically relates to the parity in the pay scale sought for by the Assistants working in the ESIC vis-a-vis Assistants/Steno Gr. C in the CSS.

2. Arguing strenuously for applicants, Mrs. Shyamala Pappu, learned senior Counsel, has assailed the denial of aforesaid pay scale to applicants on several grounds. We, however bring out the most important ones which are as follows:-

(a) That the Assistants/PAs in CSS had filed an OA 1538/87 before this Tribunal claiming the scale of Rs. 1640-2900 with effect from 1.1.86 which was finally given to them. While deciding their pleas on 23.5.89, this Tribunal referred the case to the Anamolies Committee to arbitrate the matter and the Committee gave its report recommending the scale of Rs. 1640-2900 in place of Rs. 1400-2600 for the Assistants/PAs of CSS Government of India accepted the report of the Anamolies Committee and provided the relief to those Assistants in the CSS. The above mentioned revision was carried out on the basis of this Tribunal's directions in the aforesaid OA (i.e. 1538/87) indicating that internal relativities had been disturbed in so far as further betterments were made for some posts which had been in the same pay scale of Rs. 425-800 prior to 4th Pay Commission. However, while recommending higher pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 to the Assistants of CSS and other Ministries, an artificial and unreasonable embargo has been imposed in that it has not been made applicable to the Assistants who have been appointed on promotion and not through open competitive examination as envisaged in A-4 orders of DoPT dated 31.7.90. Applicants, therefore, allege hostile discrimination, perpetuated through the aforesaid order, since it intends to create two avoidable groups between promotees and direct recruits after they have become members of one class namely - "Assistants".

(b) It is also the submission of the applicants that the employees of B. C & D. categories of ESIC have been enjoying parity with the employees working in Central Government in corresponding pay scale in accordance with the mandatory provisions of ESI Act namely 17(2)(a). The age old parity has since been disturbed by the three orders now under challenge.

(c) In support of their contentions, applicants have cited the decision of the Tribunal in OA 199/92 decided on 21.12.93, wherein Assistants working in the Ordinance Factory Board were given the relief of revised pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 applicable to the Assistants in CSS. The following passage from the said order has been extracted to buttress their contentions:

"There only disqualification, if any, is that they have not been appointed through direct recruitment and it is an indisputed fact that 50% of the Assistants in CSS have been promoted and have been paid in the revised scale i.e. Rs. 1640-2900 and the same is the case with the Assistants of Integrated Finance Department who have been merged with the applicants organisation drew higher scale of pay namely Rs. 1640-2900 though they have common seniority, identical responsibilities and interchangeable functions, whereas the applicants have been denied the revised scale which is nothing but discriminatory."

(d) Applicants have also cited the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Das v. State of Haryana 1987 (2) ATJ 479, as well as Roshan Lal Tandon v. UOI, AIR 1967 SC 1889 to say that once certain group forms a class, no discrimination can be made on the basis of source of recruitment. It has been submitted that no distinction can be made in regard to pay scale of Rs. 425-800 or Rs. 425-700 if the nature of duties and responsibilities are the same. Controverting respondents claim that Section 17(2)(b) of ESI Act enforces a bar on grant of parity in the pay scale with that of Central Government employees, applicants would argue that Section 17(2)(b) deals with fixation of pay scale under Clause (a) and merely states that Corporation shall have regard to the educational qualification, method of recruitment, duties and responsibilities etc. of such officer while considering appropriate pay scale. This can by no stretch of imagination be read as a bar to grant of parity in pay scale. On the contrary, Section 17(2)(a) is mandatory in so far as it uses the word "shall" and has specified that the method of recruitment, salary and allowances and other conditions shall be such as may be specified in accordance with the rules and orders applicable to the officers and employees of the Central Government drawing corresponding scale of pay. In fact, the Corporation has recommended grant of scale of pay of Rs. 1640-2900 for the applicants herein. Applicants would assert that as per the approval given by the Central Government (R-1), Assistants of the ESIC have been equated with the Assistants of the attached and subordinate offices of the Central Government from 1948.

3. Having granted pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 to the Assistants of CSS, the same cannot be denied to the Assistants of ESIC who belong to the same category and who had pay scale parity with Assistants of CSS during 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Pay Commissions. This disturbs the "internal relatively". Thus, identical grounds which prompted the Assistants of CSS to agitate their claims of anomaly in pay through OA 1538/87 prevail herein as well, the applicants would contend.

4. Respondents have sought to justify their stand in denying the reliefs to the applicants on the following grounds. Objections raised by Mr. G.R. Nayyar, learned Counsel for R-l relate to (a) that the Assistants in CSS belong to category B whereas those in ESIC are in Group C: (b) Section 17(2)(b) under ESI Act is a bar to grant similar scale to the Assistants in ESIC: and (c) that promotee-Assistants are not graduates where 50% Assistants in CSS are graduates.

Where Ministry of Labour - (R-2) have vehemently opposed the claims as communicated vide their OM dated 7.5.91 saying, firstly, that the "revised pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 has been prescribed for the Assistants/Stenos in CSS who were previously in the scale of Rs. 425-800". Secondly, "revised scale of Rs. 1640-2900 is applicable in case where direct recruitment is made through open competitive examination conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC for short). These two are very vital objections. All these conditions are not fulfilled in the case of Assistants in the ESIC. In fact, these two objections, as submitted by respondents Counsel, appear to have been raised by Ministry of Finance and have been conveyed to applicants by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension (DoPT) vide their communication dated 31.7.90, reconfirmed by their subsequent communication dated 3.1.91. The communication dated 7.5.91, addressed to R-l by R-2, is based on other two OMs dated 31.7.90 and 3.1.91, respectively. The original communication dated 31.7.90 stipulates that "President is now pleased to prescribe revised pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 for the pre-revised scale of Rs. 425-800 for Duty Post included in the Assistant Grade of CSS and Grade "C" Stenographers of CSSS with effect from 1.1.1986. The revised pay scale will be applicable to the Assistants/Stenographers in other organisations like Ministry of External Affairs who are not participating in the CSS and CSSS but where the posts are in comparable grade with same classification and pay scale and the method of recruitment through open competitive examination is also the same" In other words, R-2, while conveying their denial dated 7.5.95, have simply adopted the two objections raised by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions (DoPT).

5. Before we examine the rival contentions, it would be appropriate to bring into sharp focus the position of law/principles, emerging out of important case laws through judicial pronouncements by the Apex Court, that would govern determination of such claims. Crucial parameters/factors to be considered while evolving appropriate pay scale for a group of class of employees are as under:

(a) (i) Method of recruitment.

(ii) Educational qualifications - minimum educational qualification including technical one required :

(iii) Nature of duties - both qualitatively and quantitatively, (iv) Discrimination:

(v) Hierarchy of service in a given cadre providing chances for promotion -both horizontal and vertical prospects of advancements; and

(vi) Public dealings, arduous nature of job, experience and fatigue involved and training required and the degree of skill required.

(b) In the case of Randhir Singh v. UOI and Ors. AIR 1982 SC. 877, the Apex Court has held as below :

"It is well known that there can be and there are different grades in a service, with varying qualifications for entry into a particular grade, the higher grade often being a promotional avenue for officers of the lower grade. The higher qualification of the grade, which may be either academic qualification or experience based on length of service, reasonably sustain the classification of the officers into two grades with different scales of pay.

(c) The principle laid down in Randhir Singh 's (supra) case has been reiterated in the case of Mewa Ram Kanojia v. AIIMS and Ors., ATJ 1989 (I) 654 in the following words :

"The doctrine of equal pay for equal work is not abstract one, it is open to the State to prescribed different scales of pay for different posts having regard to educational qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the post. The principle of equal pay for equal work is applicable when employees holding the same rank perform similar functions and dischargesimilar duties and responsibilities are treated differently. The application of the doctrine would arise where employees are equal in every respect but they are denied equality in matters relating to the scale of pay".

(d) In view of the above, the principle of "Equal pay for Equal work" is applicable when employees holding the same rank perform similar functions and discharge similar duties and responsibilities but are treated differently in the matter relating to the scale of pay.

(e) While dealing with the parity of pay scale in the case of State of UP and Ors. v. J.P. Chaurasia and Ors. 1989 SC (L&S) 71, the Apex Court relying on its earlier decisions including Randhir Singh observed as under :

"The quantity of work may be the same, but quality may be different that cannot be determined by relying upon in different averments in affidavits of interested parties. The equation of posts or equation of pay must be left to the executive government. It must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission. They would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts. If there is any such determination by aCommission or Committee, the Court should normally accept it. The Court should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration."

(f) In a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in UO1 and Anr. v. P. V. Hariharan and Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 7127 of 1993) decided on 12.3.97, their Lordships a even expressed anguish after having noticed that quite often Tribunals are interfering with pay scales without proper reasons, without being conscious of the fact that pay fixation is not their function and without realising that change of pay scale has a cascading effect. Tribunals have been warned to exercise due restraint in the matter and "unless a clear case of hostile discrimination is made out, there would be no justification for interfering with fixation of pay scale."

(g) In view of the above, the Courts should normally accept the decisions taken on the basis of recommendations of the Pay Commission which is an expert body to determine the pay scales. However, in case it is found that for extraneous consideration, by a subsequent state action or inaction favourable treatment has been given to some resulting in unfair treatment to others, the Court may sometime feel it necessary, for the purpose of providing justice, to interfere with the orders issued by the executive. Some such situations are given below:

(i) Pay Commission fails to consider pay scale of some posts of particular service; or

(ii) Pay Commission recommends certain pay scale based on no classification or irrational classification ; or

(iii) after recommendation of the Pay Commission is accepted by the Government there is unjust treatment by subsequent arbitrary State action or inaction. In other words subsequent state action/inter action resulting in unfavourable treatment to some and favourable treatment to others.

6. Keeping in mind the law/principles, as set out in paras 5(A) to (G), on the subject of "Equal pay for Equal work", we now proceed to examine, in seriatim, the objections raised by the respondents. In February, 1991, the Corporation gave its specific recommendation seeking upward revision of pay scale for its Assistants to that of Rs. 1640-2900 with effect from 1,1.86. Thus, correspondence as at SI, No. 47(1) of the paper book, addressed to Secretary/ Minister of Labour, mentions "posts of Assistants in the Corporation carry duties and functions similar to those Assistants in the Central Government. They are, therefore, entitled for the same scale of pay as applicable to their counter parts in the Central Government Offices". Since the problem did not get sorted out soon thereafter, the Corporation again wrote back to the Ministry on 19.4.91 reiterating that "function and responsibilities of Assistants in the Corporation only justify revision of their pay scale from 1400-2300 to that of 1640-2900 w.e.f. 1.1.86 there would not be any financial burden on the Central Government, Corporation would meet the additional liability from its own funds. We find that the Labour Minister & Secretary have on three successive occasions recommended the claims/demands of the Assistants in ESIC in regard to pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 being admissible to them but have rejected the same acting on the advice of the Ministry of Finance, despite a favourable recommendation for pay parity given by Staff College, Hyderabad. It is, therefore, not a case of rejection by answering respondents nor by an expert body like the Pay Commission.

As regards classification, we are not in a position to accept respondents denial of the scale to the applicants just because the latter belong to Category "C" whereas those in the CSS belong to category "B". We find that while filing their counter on 23.3.88 in OA 1538/87, the Union of India (DoPT - R-l) therein have admitted that "It is denied that Group "C" employees cannot get higher salary than the Group B employees. Classification of post is not relevant in determining the scale of pay". The fact that 4th Pay Commission was aware of this is borne out of the details in para 26.50 of Part I of its report. In the saidreply, respondent's have also admitted that "classification of Assistants as Group B has been done not due to duties and responsibilities of the post but only for (i) historical reasons and (ii) due to the fact that recruitment to Assistant grade is being done through UPSC which undertakes recruitment to Group A and Group B services/posts only. Classification of posts as has been submitted earlier is done under CCS(CCA) Rules on the basis of scale of pay attached to and not on the basis of duties and responsibilities attached to such posts". It has also been contended that there is no violation of principles of classification simply because certain group "C" posts have been given a higher pay than that of Assistants which has been classified as Group "B". In fact, the classification given to the post of Assistants as Group B was by itself as a measure of exception/indulgence. This very aspect was considered by the Apex Court in the case of Randhir Singh (supra) wherein Chinnappa Reddy J. while speaking for the Bench observed as hereunder :

"Of course, if officers of the same rank perform dissimilar functions and the powers, duties and responsibilities of the posts held by them vary, such officers may not be heard to complain of dissimilar pay merely because the posts are of the same rank and the nomenclature is the same."

"Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Article 39(d), we are of the view that the principle of equal pay for equal work is deducible from those Articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer."

In the light of aforesaid details, respondents attempt to deny applicants claim on the basis of classification cannot be supported in law.

7. Reliance was placed on Section 17(2)(b) of the ESI Act, which according to respondents, is a bar to grant parity in the pay scale with the Central Government. The argument is fallacious, since there is no bar in Section 17(2)(b). This section deals with fixation of pay under Class (a) and merely mentions that Corporation shall have due regard to the educational qualification, method of recruitment and duties and responsibilities of such officials and employees while proposing any fresh pay scale. By no stretch of imagination this case be read as a bar to grant of parity in the pay scale. What is relevant to note is that Section 17(2)(b) is mandatory in so far as it uses the word "shall" and specifies that method of recruitment, salary and allowances of the members of the Corporation shall be as such as may be specified in accordance with the rules and orders as applicable to officers and employees of the Central Government drawing corresponding pay scale.

8. We now come to the third objection in respect of qualification. In service matters, merits or experience could be proper basis for qualification to promote efficiency in administration. An employee learns by experience as also by other means. It may not be denied that quality of work performed by persons of longer experience is superior than the work of newcomers, who may be even graduates. In any case, it is not the case of respondents that non-graduate Assistants, either in CSS or in the ESIC, are less efficient than graduate-Assistants.

9. Next two objections need to be specially mentioned and examined since those were apparently raised by Ministry of Finance and communicated by DoPT as in OM dated 31.7.90. We, however, take these two as objections by R-2 since the latter has adopted and conveyed them vide their letter dated 7.5.91.

In respect of parity, no discrimination can be made in regard to pay scale of Rs. 425-800 or 425-700, if the nature of duties is the same as decided by the Tribunal in a series of cases. It is not disputed that scale of Rs. 425-700 was revised to 1400-2300. We find that Stenographers Gr. II of the Directorate of Field Publicity (DFP for short), in the Ministry of I&B were drawing earlier Rs. 425-700 vis-a-vis Assistants/PAs of CSS who were drawing Rs, 425-800. The scale of Steno Gr. II of DFP was subsequently revised to 1400-2600 by OM dated 4.5.90 w.e.f. 1.1.86. Similar upward revision also took place for Assistants in ESIC. Thus, the benefit of scale of 1400-2600 was made available to Steno Gr. II of DFP w.e.f. 1.1.86. The reasons for doing so have not been brought on record. Whatever may be the reasons, Government in its own wisdom thought it proper to bring Steno Gr. II of DFP at part with Assistants in CSS. However, by impugned order dated 31.7.90, further revised scale of pay of Rs. 1640-2900 was given to those in the CSS and to some other Central Government departments without extending to similarly placed other departments. This Tribunal, however, found this stand of the respondents untenable in view of various Apex Court judgments on the subject. Thus, for reasons recorded in paras 31 to 36 in OA 548/94, Assistants and Stenographers Gr. II of the DFP (subordinate office in the Ministry of I&B) were given higher scale of Rs. 1640-2900 though they did not have element of direct recruitment and were earlier in the scale of Rs. 425-700. Orders dated 19.1.96 in OA 548/ 94 have attained finality by rejection of appeal (in common with two other OAs) at the highest legal forum. Applicants claims, therefore, are identical, on all fours, with those of employees in DFP. As per R-2's own submissions dated 1.5.95, Assistants of the ESIC are at par with those in the subordinate/attached offices under the Central Government. We are of the view that the case of the applicants who are working as Assistants in the ESIC cannot, therefore, be discriminated.

That apart, the question of partly in the pay scale of Steno Gr. C. of CSS and Steno Gr. II in subordinate offices of the Government of India was referred to Board of Arbitration headed by Mr. Justice K. Bhaskaran which held that Steno Gr. II in the subordinate offices were entitled to the same pay scale as was given to Assistants/Gr. C Stenos in CSS. This was accepted by the Government of India by its order dated 4.5.90. It has, therefore, been rightly contended that again to distinguish and discriminate the Assistants in Corporation from CSS is highly discriminatory, particularly, when the Board of Arbitration had also examined the duties and responsibilities of Steno Gr. C and that of Gr. II of the subordinate offices and came to a conclusion that there has to be parity in the pay scale.

10. We now come to the last issue regarding method of recruitment. The arguments of learned Counsel for respondents that there is rational basis for discrimination in the pay scale because Assistants/Steno Gr. C is a class apart because of element of direct recruitment through SCC has no legal basis in our view because of the law having been settled on the subject in the case of Bhagwan Das and Ors. v. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 2049. In that case the contention on behalf of the State was that the party-respondents were selected by Subordinate Service Board after competing with candidates from any part of the country and that normally the applicants selection at best is limited to the candidates from the cluster of a few villagers only. Repelling the arguments of State's Counsel, the Apex Court has held as below :

"We need not enter into the merits of the respective modes of selection. Assuming that the selection of the petitioners has been limited to the cluster of a few villages whereas Respondents 2 to 6 were selected by another mode wherein they had faced competition from candidates from all over the country. We need not examine the merits of these modes for the very good reason that once the nature and functions and the work are not shown to be dissimilar the fact that the recruitment was made in one way or the other would hardly be relevant from the point of view of equal pay for equal work doctrine. It was open to the State to resort to a selection process where the candidates from all the country might have competed if they so desired. If however they deliberately chose to limit the selection of the candidates from a cluster of a few villages it will not absolve the State from treating such candidates disadvantage of the selectress in a discriminatory manner to the once they are appointed provided the work done by the candidates so selected is similar in nature".

That apart, this aspect of method of recruitment through open competitive examination in the case of CSS Stenographers has been examined by various Benches of the Tribunal when the applicants belonging to Central Administrative Tribunal, BSF, Indo-Tibetan Border Security Force and Bureau of Police Research and Development wanted parity with CSSS. This is so when there is no provision for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant in BSF and CAT. The Tribunal found no substance as regards respondents overriding emphasis on method of recruitment. In the case of Bhagwan Das (supra) their Lordships held that when the nature, function and work are not shown to be dissimilar, the fact that the recruitment was made one way or the other would hardly be relevant from the point of view of equal pay for equal work doctrine.

Thus, in view of the above discussions, the applicants cannot be discriminated on the ground of method of recruitment.

11. We also find that the revised pay scale of 1640-2900 has been granted to similarly placed persons in attached and subordinate offices like CBI. Central Administrative Tribunal, Border Security Ordnance Factory Board employees, Crime-Assistants in CBI and Assistants in the subordinate offices of Directorate General of Income Tax (INV): offices of the CBTD, Ministry of Finance.

12. Before we part with the case, we would also like to mention that after amendment in Section 17(2)(b) of the ESI Act in 1989, the pay, allowances and other service conditions of the ESI employees are required to be determined in accordance with the rules and orders of the Central Government. Based on this, the 5th Pay Commission was requested to hear the grievances of the employees of the Corporation. Specific memoranda of the officers/ employees of the Federation were also enclosed to the 5th Pay Commission. This request was again reiterated at a very high level by R-2 vide its communication dated 26.12.94 based on the accepted position that matters like "method of recruitment, pay, allowances and other service conditions of the employees of ESIC have been all along treated at par with the Central Government employees. The request of the respondent department was turned down by the 5th Pay Commission vide their communication dated NIL saying that ESIC is not covered by terms of reference to the 5th Central Pay Commission. Based on the stand of R-2 that employees of the ESIC are at par with those in Central Government, the request of the Corporation for engagement of an expert Committee to study and review the wage structures of Corporation's employees was turned down as is evident in a communication to Member Secretary/5th Pay Commission dated 31.8.94. In the background of the details as aforesaid, we are of the view that claims of the applicants herein continue getting ignored till now, though a large number of employees, similarly placed in other Central Government departments as in para 11 above, got relief of grant meanwhile.

13. We also find that the Assistants in Delhi Development Authority, an autonomous body under the Ministry of Urban Development like the Corporation herein and who were drawing the previous scale of Rs. 425-700 were given revised pay scale of 1640-2900 by order dated 7.10.96. It is also seen that ICMR where Assistants are appointed on the basis of 100% by promotion has also been given the same scale very recently. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has also allowed revised pay scale of 1640-2900 to the Assistants and Stenos of National Book Trust. (NET for short) in CWP No. 4842/96 on the principle of equal pay for equal work. ESIC, though an autonomous body under the control of Ministry of Labour, can have a scale only after a proposal has been referred and approved by Central Government.

14. In the background of details aforementioned, non-application of the scale to the applicants herein would amount to hostile discrimination. It is well settled in law that equals are to be treated equally. We, however, find that ESIC Assistants, though equal like those in DDA/ICMR/NBT and in attached Central Government Offices, are being treated unequally only in respect of pay. Simply because the applicants are promotees, they cannot be denied revised pay scale. Even in the case of Assistants in CSS. revised scale of Rs. 1640-2900 are being given to 50% of promotee-Assistants. In these circumstances, discrimination on the pleas of source of recruitment and parity of pay will not be legally valid. This principle has been laid down by this Tribunal in OAs 144A/93,985/93 and 548/94 decided on 19.1.96. In an SLP, the UOI challenged the orders of this Tribunal in OA 985/93 and (common order) but the decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon' ble Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP on merits vide its order dated 11.7.96.

15. When orders of this Tribunal in OA 199/92 decided on 21.12.93 and group of other OAs decided on 19.1.96 as aforementioned, dealing with claims of Assistants in some of the attached and subordinate offices had attained finality, there is no justification to distinguish and discriminate a subordinate or autonomous office like ESIC which is part and parcel of the Ministry of Labour. The learned Counsel for the applicants cited a decision of the Hon' ble Supreme Court in the case of Prema Devi v. Delhi Admn. 1989 Supp. (2) SCC 330, wherein their Lordships directed that other employees identically placed should be given the same benefit which would avoid unnecessary litigation. The same situation prevails herein.

16. In the light of the details discussions hereinabove, this OA succeeds on merits and is accordingly allowed with the wallowing directions:

(i) Communications dated 13.3.91, 7.5.91 and 1.11.93 issued by Ministry of Labour shall remain inoperative only to the extent they deny grant of revised pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 to the applicants in ESIC, for the reasons as mentioned in OM dated 7.5.91 in particular :

(ii) The benefit of OM dated 31.7.90 issued by DoPT revising the pay scale from Rs. 425-800 to Rs. 1640-2900 in respect of the Assistants/Stenos Grade C of the CSSS shall be extended to the applicants herein, i.e. applicants shall be eligible for the revised pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 with effect from 1.1.86 subject to the condition that they were in position as Assistants on their promotion to that post on or after 1.1.86 :

(iii) Payment of arrears pursuant to our orders in (ii) above shall be limited to one year prior to the date of filing of this OA, i.e. 26.4.94. However, notional fixation of pay in the revised scale will have effect from the dates applicants are holding the post of Assistants after 1.1.86.

(iv) Our orders at (ii) and (iii) above shall be complied with within a period of three months from the date of recent of a certified copy of this order.

(v) Parties shall bear their own costs.