A.CHAKRABARTI, J. - (1.) UNION of India has moved the present writ petition challenging the Judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, whereby the applications filed by the private respondents herein, were allowed directing the authorities to give the benefit of the same pay scales to the private respondents as are applicable to the Senior Clerks, Head Clerks and Office Superintendent - Grade -II with effect from 1.1.1996 with further direction to pay the arrears within three months from the date of communication of the order.
(2.) MORE than 200 employees under the railways holding the posts of Senior Typists, Head Typists, Chief Typists etc. filed applications before the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking direction upon the railways authorities to grant them benefit of pay scales as per recommendation of the 5th Pay Commission in respect of typists in categories (i) and (ii) therein and to grant pay scale at par with the general Clerical cadre i.e. Senior Clerks Rs. 4500 - Rs. 7000, Head Clerk Rs. 5000 - Rs. 8000/ - and Office Superintendent - Grade -II Rs. 5500 - 9000/ - in respect of Senior Typists, Head Typists and Chief Typists as equivalent post holder. Mr. R.N. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner, Union of India, challenges the impugned judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, contending that the same was passed following the findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, without noticing the opposite view taken by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi Bench, following several Supreme Court judgments settling the law. It is contended that parity between two posts can be decided only by any expert body like Pay Commission, Anomaly Committee or any other appropriate statutory forum having such power and not by Central Administrative Tribunal or the writ Court. Apart from placing the relevant portion of the impugned judgment and the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi Bench, deciding identical issue, reliance was placed on the judgments in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. J.P. Chowrasia reported in : (1989)ILLJ309SC and other judgments referred to in the impugned judgment. It is further contended that Anomaly Committee constituted for deciding this particular issue having already refused parity between senior typist and senior clerk on recorded reasons followed by refusal by the authorities to pay the pay scale of the senior clerks to the senior typists, the said benefit cannot be allowed in the present proceeding and the Tribunal in the impugned judgment having not taken into consideration the report of the Anomaly Committee, is required to consider the matter afresh.
(3.) MR . K.K. Moitra, learned senior counsel appearing for the private respondents in the present writ petition referred to the report of the 5th Pay Commission to [sick] before this Court that the 4th Pay Commission also treated the said category of typists at par with the said general categories of clerks and this fact was taken note of by the 5th Pay Commission in its report which has since been accepted by the railways authorities. It has been argued by Mr. Moitra that after so accepting the 5th Pay Commission's report, refusal to give the benefits thereunder to one group of employees without there being overwhelming reasons showing effect on public interest, cannot be permitted. In support of such contention reference was made to judgment in the case of Purushottam Led v. Union of India reported in : (1973)ILLJ407SC , Laljee Dubey v. Union of India reported in : (1974)ILLJ248SC and Barindranath Jha v. Coal India Ltd. reported in 1996(2) CHN 273.;