Rakesh Yadav And ANR v. Central Administrative Tribunal And ORS

-1HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: January 11, 2017 Rakesh Yadav and another .....Petitioners

Versus

Central Administrative Tribunal and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA 1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

Yes/No 2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No.

3.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No .......

Present:

Mr.Barjesh Mittal, Advocate for the petitioners.

........

SURYA KANT, J.

CM-10629-2016 For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions. Annexure P-7 is taken on record. CM stands disposed of.

CWP-17920-2016 The petitioners were working as Assistant and Accountant respectively in the National Oil Seeds and Vegetable Oil Development Board (NOVOD) (for brevity, `the NOVOD Board'). The Board was set up under the National Oilseeds and Vegetable Oils Development Board Act, 1983. The said Act has since been repealed in entirety and consequently the Board has been abolished by Government of India, Ministry of Law and Justice Notification dated 09.05.2016 (P-7), thereby rendering the petitioners

-2surplus.

[2] While the NOVORD Board was still in existence, the petitioners approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, `the Tribunal') seeking a direction to the NOVORD Board to grant them the higher revised pay scales as were granted to their counter-parts in the Central Government on the recommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission.

[3] The Tribunal has turned down the petitioners' claim holding that the NOVORD Board is an autonomous body and unless it adopts the pay scales formulated by Central Government for its employees, the petitioners cannot claim parity.

[4] We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record.

[5] It is undeniable that in the NOVORD Board, service conditions of the petitioners were governed under the Statutory Regulations formulated by the Board. The petitioners were recruited after those Regulations came into force. Their posts alongwith pay scales were duly created under those Regulations. The petitioners were admittedly granted the same pay scale as was prescribed under the Regulations.

[6] The relief which petitioners sought from the Tribunal, in a way, amounts to seeking a direction for the amendment of statutory Regulations, namely, relief which ordinarily the Courts are not clothed with such powers. Secondly, no conscious decision was ever taken by the NOVORD Board to equate the petitioners' posts at par with their counter-parts in the Central Government. If there is such a decision, then only the parity can be sought.

-3In the absence thereof, the petitioners cannot claim similar pay scales to those in the Central Government on the premise that nature of duties or nomenclature of their posts are identical. No case to interfere with the order under challenge is made out.

[7] Dismissed.

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE January 11, 2017 ( SUDIP AHLUWALIA ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No