Mahroon Nisa v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] ...

WP.CT/3/2024 Mahroon Nisa Vs.

The Union of India and others Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar ... for the petitioner Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty Mr. D. Dwivedi ... for the Administration January 29, 2024 [SR] Item No.2 The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 24th May, 2023 is under challenge before us. The impugned order was passed on an application made by the petitioner/applicant who sought for pay parity between the post of Librarian Grade -III in the Fisheries Department with the Education Department of the Andaman Administration. The Tribunal rejected the petitioner's prayer and the original application on the ground that the petitioner does not have a vested right to be treated at par with Librarian GradeIII in the Education Department as the scope of duties in the Education and the Fisheries Department are different.

We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as for the Administration/respondents. Admittedly, a supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal was not taken into consideration in the impugned order. Counsel have clarified that the respondents did not get a chance to rebut the statements/contents made by the petitioner in the supplementary affidavit.

We find that the supplementary affidavit contains an Office Memorandum dated 24th July 1990 of the Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India which introduced the pay structure of

Library staff and Information Assistant and also recommended the pay band with regard to the said post.

We find this is to be an important document and certainly one which should have been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. This document was a part of the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner. Hence, we find it equally necessary that the respondents should have a chance to reply to the said supplementary affidavit including to the office memorandum which recommended a uniform pay scale for library staff across the country.

We accordingly deem it fit to send the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration. The respondents shall be given an opportunity to file their reply to the petitioner's supplementary affidavit, if the respondents' reply is not already on record. The respondents' reply should be filed within three weeks from the date of communication of this order.

The Tribunal shall hear the matter afresh and pass an order thereon preferably within six weeks from the date of filing of the reply to the supplementary affidavit. The impugned order dated 24th July, 2023 is set aside. WP.CT/3/2024 is accordingly disposed of on the above terms.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertakings. ( Moushumi Bhattacharya, J. ) ( Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J. )