D.P.WADHWA - (1.) THE appellants are aggrieved by that part of the order dated 26/04/1991 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal did not accept their contention that they being in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200 be also granted the Group B states like their counterparts in the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) and the Controller General of Defence Accounts (CGDA).
(2.) THE appellants had also raised another issue before the Tribunal that they should also be granted revised pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200 w.e.f. 1-1-1986 and not from 1-4-1987 as was granted by the respondents. THE Tribunal directed the respondents to fix the appellants in the revised scales of pay w.e.f. 1-1-1986 on notional basis and make actual payment of the differential amount consequent to re-fixation of pay in the revised scales w.e.f. 1-4-1987. Against this part of the relief granted to the appellants by the Tribunal, Union of India came in appeal in this Court and by judgment dated 15/07/1994 (1995 Supp 3 SCC 600) the Court reversed the decision of the Tribunal and held that the appellants would be entitled to revised pay scales only with effect from 1-4-1987. It is therefore not necessary for us to go into this controversy which stands settled. The first appellant is an Association of Subordinate Account Service (SAS) Staff working in the Railways. Other appellants are serving in the Railways as Section Officers or Travelling Inspectors of Accounts. The appellants contend that in various Ministries and Departments of the Central Government, notably Railways, Defence, Posts and Telegraphs, CAG, CGDA etc., there is an Accounts establishment called SAS. They, therefore, contend that SAS Railways have always been equated and granted parity with SAS (CAG) in the matter selection grades, pay scales, status etc. and that any deviation from the traditional parity with the SAS Railways and SAS (CAG) and SAS (CGDA) etc. would be discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The main grievance of the appellants, therefore, is that while they have been placed in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200, they have not been granted Group 'B' status as has been done in respect of their counterparts in CAG and CGDA in the same pay scale. The genesis of the dispute it would appear relates back to the report of the Fourth Central Pay Commission ('Commission' for short). The Commission noted that there were about 65,000 posts of accounts staff in Groups B and C working in different departments/ offices of the Government of India and that the posts were in different pay scales and designations. It noted that there were organised accounts cadres under CGDA, CAG, Railways and Departments of Posts and Telecomm-unications. The Commission considered the existing pay-scale of the accounts posts in the organised cadres and it then looked into the representations of the associations of the accounts staff. The report of the Commission relating to accounts staff, in relevant part, is as under : "11.36. The main demand of the associations of accounts staff under CGDA, CAG, Railways and Departments of Posts and Telecom-munications is that their is scales should be the same as for the staff in the Indian Audit and Accounts Department (IAandAD). They have pointed out that there was parity all along, which was disturbed in March, 1984 when there was a restructuring of IAandAD into two separate cadres, i.e. audit cadre and accounts and establishment cadre. As a result, higher pay scales were given to 80 per cent of the staff on the audit side. They have also claimed that the duties and responsibilities performed by them and the staff on the audit side of IAandAD are comparable. The All India Defence Accounts Association had also filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court requesting the Hon'ble Court to direct the government for bringing the pay scales of auditors and Section officers working in the Defence Accounts Department at par with those in the IAandAD. The writ petition was however allowed to be withdrawn by the Supreme Court as both the parties agreed that the questions raised in the petition would be better decided by this Commission. The association subsequently made their submission before us both in writing and orally. 11.37. Some of the official witnesses have also emphasised the need for parity in pay scales between IAandAD and other departments. The Controller General of Defence Accounts has stated that the nature of duties and responsibilities assigned to the auditors and section officers of the defence accounts department is an integrated one combining audit, payment, accounting, financial advice and allied functions. He has therefore suggested that, having regard to the complexity and arduous nature of the jobs, they should be given the highest scale of pay given to the corresponding staff in IAandAD. The Controller General of Accounts has stated that the statutory audit functions performed by the staff of IAandAD are in no way unique as the internal audit functions of the civil accounts staff under his organisation include most of the audit functions performed by the statutory audit staff. Railway have pointed out that their accounts cadre had a traditional parity with audit which should be maintained considering the diversity, nature and quality of their work. The Departments of P and T have suggested that whatever pay scales are given to the accounts staff in other departments, should be given to the accounts staff in these departments also. 11.38. We have considered the matter. There has all along been parity between the staff in the IAandAD and accounts staff of other departments, which has been disturbed by restructuring IAandAD into two separate cadres viz., audit cadre and accounts and establishment cadre and giving higher pay scales to a major portion of staff on the audit side. The audit and accounts functions are complementary to each other and are generally performed in many government offices in an integrated manner which is necessary for their effective functioning. The staff in these offices perform functions of internal check and audit suited to the requirements of each organisation which are equally important. There is direct recruitment in the scale of Rs. 330-560 in all the audit and accounts cadre through Staff Selection Commission/ Railway Recruitment Boards from amongst university graduates. We are therefore of the view that there should be broad parity in the pay scales of the staff in IAandAD and other accounts organisations. Accordingly, we recommend that the posts in the pay scale of Rs. 425-700 in the organised accounts cadres may be given the scale of Rs. 1400-2600. In the Railways, this will apply to the posts of sub-head in both the ordinary and selection grades. We also recommend that this should be treated in future as a functional grade requiring promotion as per normal procedure. The proposed scale of Rs. 2000-3200 of section officer may also be treated as a functional grade. With the proposed scales, there will be no selection grades for any of the posts. As regards the number of posts in the functional scales of Rs. 1400-2600 and Rs. 2000-3200, we note that about 53 per cent of the total posts of junior/senior auditor and 66 per cent of the total posts of ordinary and selection grade of section officer in IAandAD are in the respective higher scales. Government may decide the number of posts to be placed in the scales of (i) Rs. 1400-2600 and (ii) Rs. 2000-3200 in the other organised accounts cadres taking this factor into consideration. All other accounts posts may be given the scales recommended in chapter 8."
(3.) ON the basis of the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission aforesaid, Central Government, in the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) issued an order dated 18/06/1987 relating to restructuring of accounts staff, which is as under : "The General Managers, All Indian Railways, Production Units, etc. (As per mailing list) Subject :- Restructuring of Accounts staff. The Fourth Central Pay Commission vide para 11.38 of Part-I of its Report have recommended that there should be broad parity in the pay scales of the staff in IAandAD and other Accounts Organisations. It has further recommended that the proposed scales of pay of Rs. 1400-2600 and Rs. 2000-3200 may be treated as functional grades in future and that there will be no selection grade for any of these posts. As regards the number of posts in the higher functional scales, the Commission left this matter for the Government to decide. 2. The revised scales of pay for the Accounts Staff have already been notified vide this Ministry's letter No. PCIV86/Imp/Schedule/1 dated 24-9-1986. In accordance with the orders therein, certain persons have already been allowed the higher revised scales of pay subject to the conditions laid down therein. 3. The question regarding number of posts to be placed in the higher scales of pay has been under the consideration of this ministry. It has now been decided that the ratio of number of posts in higher and lower scales in the accounts cadres may be as follows :- JUDGEMENT_651_2_1998Html1.htm As regards designation, orders will follow. 4. These orders take effect from 1-4-1987. As regards criteria for appointment to the higher functional grades requiring promotion to the grades of Rs. 1400-40-1600-50-2300-EB-60-2600 and Rs. 2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200, Orders will follow. Hindi version will follow. Sd/- (G. Chatterjee) Executive Director, Pay Commission, Railway Board." As seen above the validity of this order has been upheld by this Court fixing the revised scale of pay with effect from 1-4-1987.;