# Sri Omkar Nath Kushwaha & others v. Central Administrative Tribunal & others

- **Citation:** (2003) 2 ILRA 500
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-07-08
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48309 of 2000
- **Bench:** A.K. Yog, Umeshwar Pandey
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-omkar-nath-kushwaha-others-v-central-administrative-tribunal-others-40151
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India Service Law parity
in pay scales-Markers claiming salary
that of Painters and decorators-by pay
commission
and
Departmental
SubCommittee-court
not
required
to
evaluate job, nature of duty-only to
ensured that employees doing similar
and identical duty-principle of equal pay
for equal work-to be followed.

Held- Para 8

In view of this, the Court is not required
to
evaluate
job,
nature
of
duty
performed by Markers vis-à-vis Painters
and Decorators. The Court anxious only
to ensure that an employer, (covered
under Article 12 of the Constitution of
India) is treating its employees, who are
discharging similar and identical duty,
without discrimination on the principle
of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work.'

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
500
remedy available to it is to file an
application of Review before the Tribunal
as those issues cannot be dealt with by the
writ Court.

As we are not inclined to entertain
the new questions of facts, petition stands
dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to
approach the learned Tribunal, on the said
grounds if so advised, by filing a Review
Application.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 8.7.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.K. YOG, J.
THE HON'BLE UMESHWAR PANDEY, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48309 of 2000

Sri Omkar Nath Kushwaha and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Central
Administrative
Tribunal
Allahabad and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sekhar Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S.N. Srivastava, S.S.C.
Sri S.C. Srivastava
Sri Subodh Kumar

Constitution of India Service Law parity
in pay scales-Markers claiming salary
that of Painters and decorators-by pay
commission
and
Departmental
SubCommittee-court
not
required
to
evaluate job, nature of duty-only to
ensured that employees doing similar
and identical duty-principle of equal pay
for equal work-to be followed.

Held- Para 8

In view of this, the Court is not required
to
evaluate
job,
nature
of
duty
performed by Markers vis-à-vis Painters
and Decorators. The Court anxious only
to ensure that an employer, (covered
under Article 12 of the Constitution of
India) is treating its employees, who are
discharging similar and identical duty,
without discrimination on the principle
of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work.'

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.K. Yog, J.)

1. Heard learned counsels appearing
on both sides and perused the record.

Petitioners, namely, Sarvshri Omkar
Nath Kushwaha, D.C. Banerjee, Mahabir,
Prithwi Pal, Lallan Prasad, Talib Raza,
Baram Din, G.R. Singh, S.N. Nishad,
Mewa Lal, Ram Gopal, Nankoo Ram,
Moti Lal and K.N. Gupta, working as
'Markers' and being aggrieved by the
disparity in the pay-scale available to
them vis-à-vis the pay-scale which was
made
applicable
to
'Painters'
and
Decorators' trade have approached this
Court by means of the present writ
petition under Article 226, Constitution of
India seeking to challenge the judgment
and order dated 25-7-2000/Annexure-1 to
the
petition
passed
by
Central
Administrative Tribunal rejecting O.A.
No. 1275 of 1999.

2. It is not in dispute that three
Tradesmen-
'Markers',
'Painters'
and
'Decorators' were getting one and the
same pay-scale till 1981. After 1981,
'Painters' and 'Decorators' were treated in
the skilled category and given pay-scale
of Rs. 260-400, while 'Markers' remained
in the pay-scale of Rs.210-290.

Later 'Markers' were made entitled to
pay-scale of Rs. 800-1150, Painters and
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] Sri Omkar Nath Kushwaha & others V. Central Administrative Tribunal & others
501
Decorators were placed in pay-scale of
Rs. 950-1500.

3. Petitioners, apart from other
contentions, place reliance upon the report
of Sub-Committee formed at the instance
of the staff side members of the J.C.M. of
Army Head Quarters which urged that
Markers be treated as skilled trade and
should be give skilled grade.

4. The Sub-Committee under the
Chairmanship of Brig. S.A. Zamir along
with other members of the Committee
undertook an exercise to find out the
details of the nature of job performed by
Markers, Painters and Decorators and
came to the conclusion that identical
duties and job was performed by all the
three and all the three placed in one and
same
pay-scale.
Apart
from
the
recommendation of the aforesaid SubCommittee at departmental level, Fifth
Pay-Commission specifically considered
the above subject of demand of parity in
pay-scale
and
merger
of
'Markers',
'Painters' and 'Decorators' in one Grade.

5. Recommendation made by Fifth
Pay-Commission has been quoted in the
impugned judgment by the Tribunal and
the same reads:

"It has been intimated that there is a
long standing demand for parity of pay
scales and merger of Markers with that of
Painters and Decorators in A.O.C. We
have considered the issue and find that in
terms of essential qualifications for direct
recruitment, the exist markers are at Par
with semi skilled painters and Decorators
(Mate). Keeping in view the similarity in
job content, we recommend merger of
Marker with the semi skilled Painters and
Decorators (Mate) in the pay scale of Rs.
800-1150."

6. The Tribunal, however, we fail to
appreciate,
dismissed
the
Original
Application with observation that job
evaluation and fitment in a particular payscale on the basis of nature of work has to
be performed by an Expert Committee as
it requires certain amount of expertise.

7. We are at loss to make out the
logic on the basis of which the Tribunal
has rejected the application by making
aforesaid observation. Pay-Commission
and Departmental Sub-Committee have
already considered the issue and made
recommendations. In fact, the conclusion
drawn by the Tribunal in para-4 of its
impugned judgment runs contrary to the
contents of judgment contained in para-3
of the said judgment itself.

8. In view of this, the Court is not
required to evaluate job, nature of duty
performed by Markers vis-à-vis Painters
and Decorators. The Court anxious only
to ensure that an employer, (covered
under Article 12 of the Constitution of
India) is treating its employees, who are
discharging similar and identical duty,
without discrimination on the principle of
'Equal Pay for Equal Work.'

9. In view of the above, we quash
the impugned judgment and order dated
25.7.2000
passed
by
the
Tribunal/Annexure-1 to the petition and
hereby issue a writ of mandamus
commanding the respondents to fix
'Markers' in the pay-scale which is being
made
admissible
to
'Painters'
and
'Decorators' with effect from the date of
filing of the writ petition and pay their
salary accordingly. If the petitioners have
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
502
already retired, they will be paid their
arrears with 10% simple interest.

10. The petition stands allowed. No
order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.7.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29212 of 2003

Hina Siksha Niketan Shri Syed Asghar
Hussain Uchtar Madhyamic Vidyalaya,
Kura Muridan, Sirathu, Kaushambi

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri V.A. Ansari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri V.K. Singh
S.C.

U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reform
Act, 1955, Sec. 198 (1)- allotment of
land for housing site- petitioner an
educational institution-not covered by
any of the categories mentioned in
Section 198 (1)- whether entitled for
allotment-'no'
cancellation
of
lease-
held- proper.

Case law discussed:
1996 RD 190
2002 (93) RD 30
Held - Para 6

Section 198 (1) enumerates various
categories of persons who are entitled to
be admitted to land. The categories of
persons who are entitled to be admitted
to land. The categories which have been
mention are with specific objects. The
allotment of land is not open to any
person. The scheme of allotment as
provided under Section 195, 197, 198
read
together
makes
it
clear
that
admission to land is restricted to the
categories mentioned in Section 198 (1).
A person who is not covered in any of the
categories cannot claim allotment. The
submission
of
the
counsel
for
the
petitioner
that
he
is
entitled
for
allotment thus cannot be accepted.

Constitution
of
India,
Article
226discretionary jurisdiction- interference-
with an order the effect of which is to
restore an illegal order-though passed by
an authority lacking jurisdiction-court
will not exercise its discretion in writ
jurisdiction.

Held- Para 7

The Additional Collector has observed
that allotment of land in favour of the
petitioner was contrary to the provisions
of U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land
Reforms Act. Interfering with the order
of Additional Collector will be restoration
of an illegal order and this Court even if
the order of Additional Collector was not
within his jurisdiction will not exercise
its discretion for restoring an illegal
order.
Case law relied upon:
AIR 1966 SC 828

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.)

1. Heard counsel for the petitioner
and the learned standing counsel.

By this writ petition, the petitioner
has prayed for quashing of the orders
dated 12.6.2003 and 24.6.2003 passed by
Additional
Commissioner,
Allahabad
Division, Allahabad and order passed by
Additional District Magistrate (Finance &
Revenue). The petitioner claims to be
Educational
Institution
who
claims
allotment of plot no. 1011 Kha. An
application was filed for cancellation of
http:\\allahabadhighcourt.nic.in