it2025_00535 — Same pay scale was adopted for those working as Senior Tax Assistants in the Income Tax Department, whether graduate or non-graduate. However, the Income Tax Department in consultation with Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, the pay scale of that post is made into two grades, one for graduates and another for non-graduates by Notification, dated 11-9-1989 through O.M. No. F-7(1)/IC/86(44). That was challenged. The Tribunal held that the distinction made by OM, dated 11-9-1989 is app

IT Rules

Same pay scale was adopted for those working as Senior Tax Assistants in the Income Tax Department, whether graduate or non-graduate. However, the Income Tax Department in consultation with Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, the pay scale of that post is made into two grades, one for graduates and another for non-graduates by Notification, dated 11-9-1989 through O.M. No. F-7(1)/IC/86(44). That was challenged. The Tribunal held that the distinction made by OM, dated 11-9-1989 is applicable only prospectively and should not affect those who had already been recruited through a common recruitment process against the post of DEO (without gradation of 'A' or 'B') sharing the same duties, responsibilities and work. Hence the Applicant who was a non-graduate at the time of joining as DEO but obtained graduation was directed to be given higher scale as she was posted as Senior Tax Assistant before 11-9-1989 — The Applicant, who was initially hired as a Data Entry Operator in 1989 without a graduate degree, later obtained graduation and was given a lower pay scale due to a difference in scales for DEOs int... — Facts: The Applicant herein, joined as Data Entry Operator in the pay scale of ₹ 1,200 -2,040 on 25-3-1989 when she possessed qualification of 12th Standard, a non-graduate. By the Memo No. F-7(1)/IC/86(44), the Finance Ministry of Government of India created two scales for Data Entry Operator viz. ₹ 1,350-2,200 for graduates and ₹ 1,150-1,500 for non-graduates. Just before the two scales were brought into force, the Applicant joined the Department as DEO in the pay scale of ₹ 1,200-2,040 on 25-3-1989. Hence the pay scale of the Applicant was fixed being a non-graduate in the scale of pay of ₹ 1,150-1,500 for two months, but subsequently raised to ₹ 1,200-2,040 as non-graduate Data Entry Operator. Against fixing her in the lower scale compared to graduates posted as DEO, she filed an OA in Madras Bench of CAT which OA was disposed of directing the Respondents for grant of relief by submitting a representation. Further, the CAT Benches of Madras, Hyderabad and Bombay held that there should be no discrimination in the pay scale of posts which are meant to bear similar responsibilities and similar duties. This OA is filed when she was working as Senior Tax Assistant in the office of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax at Nashik at the time of filing this OA praying for a direction to the Respondents to fix her pay in the pay scale of ₹ 1,350-2,200 with effect from 11-9-1989. In the year 2004, she acquired graduation degree and she made entitlement to pay scale of ₹ 1,350-2,200. The Tribunal after hearing both sides noted that "the principal issue involved in this OA is, whether the Applicant is entitled to pay scale of ₹ 1,350-2,200 with effect from 11-9-1989 which is the date the Respondents issued OM introducing two new pay scales for DEOs, Grade 'A' and DEOs, Grade 'B'. The Applicant was recruited as she filed her application for DEO in response to Advertisement, dated 23-7-1988 with Matriculation / nongraduation. So she states that, she is entitled for pay scale of ₹ 1,350- 2,200 granted to graduates who were appointed against that advertisement. It is to be noted that, the Applicant got higher pay scale after she acquired graduation after joining the service. The pay scale distinction of DEO, Grade 'A' and Grade 'B' came only after issue of notification, dated 11-9-1989. Delhi Bench of CAT held the view that the minimum qualification prescribed of Matriculation in the Advertisement, dated 23-7-1988 is not valid since the revised Recruitment Rule prescribing Matriculation has not been published in the Official Gazette. But those appointed with that qualification cannot be thrown out after a long time. In the present advertisement, the Recruitment Rules mentioned show no difference in status or duties and responsibilities of the DEOs who were matriculates / non-graduates vis-a-vis who were graduates. The distinction in the qualification possessed by recruited candidates in that selection came through only by Notification, dated 11-9-1989 creating two different cadres of DEOs, Grade 'A' and DEOs Grade 'B'. "In the considered opinion of the Tribunal when a distinction was made between graduates and non-graduates and two new grades were created by OM, dated 11-9-1999, such distinction and its consequences should have been made applicable only prospectively and should not have affected those who had already been recruited through a common recruitment process against the same advertisement and entrusted with the job of DEO (without distinction of Grade 'A' or Grade 'B') sharing the same duties, responsibilities and work. There is nothing to show that DEOs of non-graduates or graduates was deficient or short of expectations. The Tribunal held that giving retrospective effect to the OM, dated 11-9-1989 by giving a lesser pay scale to the non-matriculates is illegal and arbitrary in the particular instance where the recruitment was made against a common advertisement, dated 23-7-1988 requiring a minimum qualification of Matriculation". In the case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India [ 1982 (1) SCC 618 ], the Apex Court held that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" can be read as a doctrine of equality. This principle later applied in number of cases noted in the judgment. In the case of Randhir Singh (supra), the relevant portion is reproduced. In that it is said that "Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the State not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws and Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment of appointment to any office under the State". Similar views are reciprocated in other judgments of Apex Court which are noted in the judgment. In this case, creation of DEOs of Grade 'A' and Grade 'B' is not challenged. Creation of different qualification even though cannot be questioned, the differentiation made herein, should be applied to future recruitment as in the present advertisement there is no such differentiation mentioned. The fact that the Applicant performs same duties and responsibilities as others who are graduates recruited through the same selection and no reason is given for two different pay scales for non-graduates and graduates, the principle of "equal pay for equal work' will apply. Any differentiation in pay scale between DEOs, Grade 'A' and Grade 'B' should be made applicable after the Notification in OM, dated 11-9-1989.

IT Rules

Same pay scale was adopted for those working as Senior Tax Assistants in the Income Tax Department, whether graduate or non-graduate. However, the Income Tax Department in consultation with Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, the pay scale of that post is made into two grades, one for graduates and another for non-graduates by Notification, dated 11-9-1989 through O.M. No. F-7(1)/IC/86(44). That was challenged. The Tribunal held that the distinction made by OM, dated 11-9-1989 is applicable only prospectively and should not affect those who had already been recruited through a common recruitment process against the post of DEO (without gradation of 'A' or 'B') sharing the same duties, responsibilities and work. Hence the Applicant who was a non-graduate at the time of joining as DEO but obtained graduation was directed to be given higher scale as she was posted as Senior Tax Assistant before 11-9-1989 — The Applicant, who was initially hired as a Data Entry Operator in 1989 without a graduate degree, later obtained graduation and was given a lower pay scale due to a difference in scales for DEOs int... — Facts: The Applicant herein, joined as Data Entry Operator in the pay scale of ₹ 1,200 -2,040 on 25-3-1989 when she possessed qualification of 12th Standard, a non-graduate. By the Memo No. F-7(1)/IC/86(44), the Finance Ministry of Government of India created two scales for Data Entry Operator viz. ₹ 1,350-2,200 for graduates and ₹ 1,150-1,500 for non-graduates. Just before the two scales were brought into force, the Applicant joined the Department as DEO in the pay scale of ₹ 1,200-2,040 on 25-3-1989. Hence the pay scale of the Applicant was fixed being a non-graduate in the scale of pay of ₹ 1,150-1,500 for two months, but subsequently raised to ₹ 1,200-2,040 as non-graduate Data Entry Operator. Against fixing her in the lower scale compared to graduates posted as DEO, she filed an OA in Madras Bench of CAT which OA was disposed of directing the Respondents for grant of relief by submitting a representation. Further, the CAT Benches of Madras, Hyderabad and Bombay held that there should be no discrimination in the pay scale of posts which are meant to bear similar responsibilities and similar duties. This OA is filed when she was working as Senior Tax Assistant in the office of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax at Nashik at the time of filing this OA praying for a direction to the Respondents to fix her pay in the pay scale of ₹ 1,350-2,200 with effect from 11-9-1989. In the year 2004, she acquired graduation degree and she made entitlement to pay scale of ₹ 1,350-2,200. The Tribunal after hearing both sides noted that "the principal issue involved in this OA is, whether the Applicant is entitled to pay scale of ₹ 1,350-2,200 with effect from 11-9-1989 which is the date the Respondents issued OM introducing two new pay scales for DEOs, Grade 'A' and DEOs, Grade 'B'. The Applicant was recruited as she filed her application for DEO in response to Advertisement, dated 23-7-1988 with Matriculation / nongraduation. So she states that, she is entitled for pay scale of ₹ 1,350- 2,200 granted to graduates who were appointed against that advertisement. It is to be noted that, the Applicant got higher pay scale after she acquired graduation after joining the service. The pay scale distinction of DEO, Grade 'A' and Grade 'B' came only after issue of notification, dated 11-9-1989. Delhi Bench of CAT held the view that the minimum qualification prescribed of Matriculation in the Advertisement, dated 23-7-1988 is not valid since the revised Recruitment Rule prescribing Matriculation has not been published in the Official Gazette. But those appointed with that qualification cannot be thrown out after a long time. In the present advertisement, the Recruitment Rules mentioned show no difference in status or duties and responsibilities of the DEOs who were matriculates / non-graduates vis-a-vis who were graduates. The distinction in the qualification possessed by recruited candidates in that selection came through only by Notification, dated 11-9-1989 creating two different cadres of DEOs, Grade 'A' and DEOs Grade 'B'. "In the considered opinion of the Tribunal when a distinction was made between graduates and non-graduates and two new grades were created by OM, dated 11-9-1999, such distinction and its consequences should have been made applicable only prospectively and should not have affected those who had already been recruited through a common recruitment process against the same advertisement and entrusted with the job of DEO (without distinction of Grade 'A' or Grade 'B') sharing the same duties, responsibilities and work. There is nothing to show that DEOs of non-graduates or graduates was deficient or short of expectations. The Tribunal held that giving retrospective effect to the OM, dated 11-9-1989 by giving a lesser pay scale to the non-matriculates is illegal and arbitrary in the particular instance where the recruitment was made against a common advertisement, dated 23-7-1988 requiring a minimum qualification of Matriculation". In the case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India [ 1982 (1) SCC 618 ], the Apex Court held that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" can be read as a doctrine of equality. This principle later applied in number of cases noted in the judgment. In the case of Randhir Singh (supra), the relevant portion is reproduced. In that it is said that "Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the State not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of laws and Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment of appointment to any office under the State". Similar views are reciprocated in other judgments of Apex Court which are noted in the judgment. In this case, creation of DEOs of Grade 'A' and Grade 'B' is not challenged. Creation of different qualification even though cannot be questioned, the differentiation made herein, should be applied to future recruitment as in the present advertisement there is no such differentiation mentioned. The fact that the Applicant performs same duties and responsibilities as others who are graduates recruited through the same selection and no reason is given for two different pay scales for non-graduates and graduates, the principle of "equal pay for equal work' will apply. Any differentiation in pay scale between DEOs, Grade 'A' and Grade 'B' should be made applicable after the Notification in OM, dated 11-9-1989.

Original Rule Text

Original Rule Text