BEFORE THE SECREETARY

1.

The petitioners are working in the Technical Supervisory

Cadre of the Naval Ship Repair yard (NSRY), Naval Base, Kochi.
They are highly aggrieved by the discrimination meted out to them
in the grant of scale of pay of the erstwhile Senior Chargeman of
Naval Ship Repair Yard.

It is respectfully submitted that the

technical supervisory staff similar to the petitioners cadre are

available in (1) Naval Dockyards/ Ship Repair Yards, (2) Naval
Ammunition

Workshops

under

the

Naval

Armament

Supply

Organisation (3) Naval workshops under the Naval Armament

Inspectorate Organisation (NAIO) (4) Factories/ workshops (Mech)
under the Naval Armament Inspectorate Organisation (NAIO).
2.

Originally except in NASO the Technical Supervisory Cadre

consisted of a three tier structure as shown below:Designation

Scale of Pay

Senior Foreman

2375-3500

Foreman

1600-2660

Senior Charge man

1400-2300

However a four tier grading system was available in NASO.

3.

It

may

be

noted

that

till

1.1.1986,

the

date

of

implementation of 4th Central Pay Commission the scale of pay as

regards the three tier system and the four tier system was as
follows:
THREE TIER SYSTEMS
1. Senior Foreman

Rs. 840-1040

2. Foreman

Rs. 550-750

3. Senior Chargeman

Rs. 425-700

FOUR TIER SYSTEM

700-900
550-900
425-700
380-560
When 4th Central Pay Commission was implemented the scale of pay
of Rs. 380-560 and Rs.425-700 were given a common replacement
scale of pay of Rs.1400-2300 in the Navy.

So it may be noted that

the post of Chargeman which was available in NASO alone was

carrying a lesser scale of 380-560 till the implementation of 4 th Pay
Commission.

But after 4th Pay Commission the post of Senior

Chargeman and Chargeman were having the same scale of

Rs.1400-2300.

But even then a Charge man had to be promoted

as Senior Chargeman, and only after that he would be eligible to be

considered for promotion as foreman.
4.

The recommendations of the 5th Central Pay Commission

was accepted by the Government of India and it is reflected in

defence service (revised pay) Rules, 1997.

As per the above

recommendations the Senior Chargeman in Naval dockyard/ Ship

Repair Yards are given replacement scale of pay of Rs.5000-1508000. At the same time the Senior Chargeman in Naval Armament
workshop in NASO is given a replacement scale of pay of Rs.5500175-900 with effect from 1.1.1996.

The Senior Charge men in

NAIO were also given only the scale of 5000-8000.

The petitioners

herein are deeply aggrieved by the above recommendations.

5.

It may kindly be seen that the duties and responsibilities of

Technical Supervisory Staff of the Naval Ship Repair Yard/ Naval

Dockyard and also in the Naval Armament Workshop and in the
NAIO are identical.

In fact the petitioners are involved in

maintenance of naval vessels carrying different types of technical

equipments dangerous and explosive ammunitions.
more technical skill.

It requires

6.

It is also worth mentioning that the erstwhile Chargeman of

NASO were considered to be inferior to that of the Senior

Chargeman and that was the reason for granting them a lesser scale
of pay in the earlier days.

Their promotion prospects are also less

attractive as they have to be promoted first as Senior Chargeman

before considering them for promotion as Foreman.
7.

The discrimination in the matter of scales of pay of Senior

Chargeman working in different organisations under the Navy was

no doubt an anomaly and therefore it was referred to the
departmental anomalies committee.

The departmental anomaly

committee considered the matter and found that there were serious
anomalies.

But it recommended that Senior Chargeman in

Ammunition Workshop under NASO can be given the scale of pay

5000-8000 only.
identity.

They found that it was a case of mistaken

In other words, the Departmental Anomaly Committee

had no doubt that the Senior Chargeman in all the organisations are
entitled to the same scale of pay and the persons like the petitioner
are entitled to a scale of pay on par with those in NASO.
Consequently the scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000 granted to the
erstwhile Senior Chargeman of NASO was withdrawn.

This was

challenged before the Honble Central Administrative Tribunal,

Ernakulam Bench by filing O.A. No. 80/2001.

The Honble Tribunal

allowed the OA and the Senior Chargeman of the NASO who were in
the same scale of 1400-2300 continued to enjoy the scale of pay of
Rs.5500-9000.
8.

The

decision

of

the

Central

Administrative

Tribunal,

Ernakulam Bench in O.A. No. 80/2001 was challenged by the

respondents therein in WP(C) No. 30853/2003.
petition was first dismissed on 31.1.2008.

The above writ

Against the above

judgment R.P. No. 725 of 2008 was filed and the judgment was
recalled.

Finally the writ petition was disposed of by judgment

dated 1.6.2011.

The Honble High Court interfered with the

reduction in pay effected on the recommendation of the anomalies

4
committee.

So the issue has achieved a finality and the erstwhile

Senior Chargemen of NASO enjoyed the higher scale of pay.

9.

The

petitioners

approached

the

Honble

Central

Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench by filing O.A. NO. 516 of

2006 pointing out the anomalies and claiming parity on par with the
Senior Chargemen of the NASO.

Before the Honble Tribunal, the

respondents admitted that consequent on implementation of 5 th

Central Pay Commission recommendations there was a disparity in
the revised scale of pay of Senior Chargeman of NASO and other
organisations.

They defended their stand saying that they have

approached the Honble High Court by filing WP(C) 30853 OF 2003

and they were waiting for a decision from the Honble High Court.
O.A. No. 516 OF 2006 was later disposed of by a judgment dated
26.6.2008 rejecting the contentions of the petitioners.

But at the

same time it was observed that it is upto the Government to

examine anomalies, if any, on merit and take a decision.

The

above order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam bench

was challenged by the petitioners herein by filing WP(C) 1206 OF
2009.

In the above writ petition a counter affidavit was filed by the

respondents wherein they asserted that the petitioners are entitled

to equal pay for equal work.

It was their case that Senior

Chargeman of all the three organisations are entitled to the pay

scale of 5000-8000 instead of 5500-9000.

It was not disputed that

the pay was reduced to 5000-8000 by notification dated 11.2.2004

only to grant uniform pay to the Senior Chargeman irrespective of
their area of work since there was no serious dispute regarding the
entitlement of the petitioners for parity in pay.

When the above

writ petition was pending before the Honble High Court the writ
petition 30853 of 2003 was decided against the respondents.

So

the reduction of pay from 5500-9000 to 5000-8000 was set aside by

the Honble High Court.
10.

When WP(C) No. 1206 of 2009 was taken up by the

Honble High Court for final hearing, it was brought to the notice of
the Honble High Court that the department had no serious objection

5
regarding the main contention of the petitioners, their entitlement
to a pay scale on par with the Senior Chargeman of Naval
Ammunition
Organisation.

Workshops

under

the

Naval

Armament

Supply

It was also brought to the notice of the Honble High

Court that the respondents have admitted the position that the
Senior Chargeman working in all the three organisations performed
the same duties and they share the same responsibilities and they
were entitled to equal pay on par with their counter parts in NASO.
The petitioners also relied on a judgment of the Honble Supreme
Court reported in 2008(1) SCC 586. The facts of the above case are
identical. The matter related to the scale of pay of Radio Mechanics
in Assam Rifles.

The Honble Supreme Court held as follows:-

27.
Thus, the short question requiring our
consideration is whether having admitted in their
affidavit referred to hereinabove, the apparent
disparity and anomaly in the pay scales of Radio
Mechanics, the administrative authorities, the
petitioners herein, could be permitted to perpetuate
apparent discriminatory differentiation in the pay
scales because of the disparity in prerevised and
revised scales of the personnel of Assam Rifles prior
to the recommendations of the Fourth Pay
Commission, irrespective of the identity of their
powers, duties and responsibilities with other
paramilitary forces.
In our considered opinion, in
view of the total absence of any plea on the part of
the Union of India that Radio Mechanics in other
paramilitary forces were performing different or more
onerous duties as compared to the Radio Mechanics
in Assam Rifles, the impugned decision of the
Government was clearly irrational and arbitrary and
thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
A true copy of the above judgment is produced herewith and
marked as Annexure A1.

After considering all the contentions of

the petitioners and also after going through the decision reported in
2008(1) SCC 586 the Honble High Court set aside the order of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam bench and further
directed the competent authority in Government to consider the
grievance of the petitioners expeditiously.

It is in the above back

ground that this representation is filed in compliance with the

directions of the Honble High Court in WP(C) No. 1206 of 2009.

6
true copy of the judgment in WP(C) No. 1206/2009 is produced
herewith and marked as Annexure A2.
11.

It is respectfully submitted that the contentions of the

petitioners

in

WP(C)

1206/2009

may

also

be

taken

into

consideration while considering the present representation. A true

copy of the said writ petition (without exhibits) is produced herewith
and marked as Annexure A3.

It is respectfully prayed that the

petitioners may be granted the scale of pay 5500-9000 with effect

from 1.1.1996 or with effect from the date on which they took over
the post of Senior Chargeman whichever is later.

It is also prayed

that all the consequential arrears of pay and allowances may also be
granted as expeditiously as possible.

Dated this the 27th day of July 2013.

1. K. BHASKARAN