IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.18501 of 1998 Between: 1. Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Labour, DGE & T, Shram Shakti Bhavan, New Delhi. 2. The Director General/Joint Secretary to Govt. of India, DGE & T, Ministry of Labour, Shram Shakti Bhavan, New Delhi. 3. The Deputy Secretary to Govt. of India, DGE & T, Ministry of Labour, Shram Shakti Bhavan,New Delhi. 4. The Director, Advanced Training Institute, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad. 5. The Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Govt. of India, New Delhi. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1. G. Rangaiah, S/o Sri G. Anjaneyulu, 42 years, Stenographer Gr.II, Advanced Training Institute, Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad. 2. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to call for the record in O.A.No.737 of 1997 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Benchy, dated 23-7-1997 and quash the same. Counsel for the Petitioners: MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) Counsel for the Respondents: MRS.NANDA R. RAO The Court made the following: ORDER: (Per. Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) By virtue of the order of the Supreme Court dated 8-5-2007, whereby the Civil Appeal No.2340 of 2001 remanding the present matter to this Court for fresh adjudication, this writ petition is taken up for fresh consideration. The writ petition has been filed by the Union of India seeking to set aside the order dated 23-7-1997 in O.A.No.737 of 1997 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’), Hyderabad Bench. The sum and substance of the case is that the first respondent herein was initially appointed as Stenographer Gr.D on 29-10-1976 in the office of the Director, Advanced Training Institute for Electronics and Process Instrumentation, Ramanthapur, Hyderabad, and subsequently promoted as Stenographer Gr.II on 16-10-1984 in the scale of Rs.425-700 and posted as such in the office of the Director, Advanced Training Institute, Vidyanagar, Hyderabad. On the recommendations of Fourth Pay Commission, the pay scale of Stenographers Gr.II was revised to Rs.1400-2300 and the pay scale of Stenographer Gr.C of Central Secretariat was revised to 1400-2600. In order to remove the disparity in the pay scales of Stenographers Gr.II of Subordinate Services and Stenographers of Gr.C of Central Secretariat, the Government by proceedings dated 4-5-1990 brought the pay scale of Stenographers Gr.II of Subordinate Services on par with the Stenographers Gr.C of Central Secretariat with effect from 1.1.1986. The main grievance of the first respondent is that the pay scale of Stenographers Gr.C of Central Secretariat was again revised to Rs.1640-2900 creating disparity and that on the representations of the Stenographers Gr.II of certain departments, the enhanced pay scale was given to them and that the representation of the first respondent seeking to extend the same benefit to him, was rejected by the proceedings No.32014/1/96-TA-I, dated 29-2-1996. Challenging the said proceedings, the first respondent filed O.A. before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, while disposing the said O.A., directed the writ petitioners herein to compare the case of the applicant with that of the applicant in the reported case of V.R. Panchal’s case {(1996) 34 A.T.C. 544} and if he fulfils all the conditions as adverted to in that case, he should also be given the relief as was given in that reported case. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. The Division Bench of this court, after considering the material on record, dismissed the writ petition holding that there was no error or infirmity in the order of the Tribunal for the reason that the case of the first respondent herein was squarely covered by the case in V.R. Panchal and others v. Union of India and others (1996) 34 ATC 544) wherein the similar issue has been resolved. Questioning the said order, the Union of India filed Civil Appeal No.2340 of 2001. The Apex Court allowed the appeal by the order dated 8-5-2007 remanding the matter for fresh consideration to the High Court on the ground that the facts which were placed before the Apex Court, were not placed either before the High Court or the Tribunal. Heard the learned Assistant Solicitor General and the learned counsel for the first respondent. We have perused the order of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.2340 of 2001 dated 8-5-2007 wherein it was held that the learned counsel for the Union of India brought to the notice the communication of the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and Training, New Delhi, dated 3-1-1991, in which the matter was examined at length and a distinction was made in the pay-scale of the Stenographers on the ground that Stenographers are recruited in the Central Secretariat by open competition examination, i.e. Indian Foreign Service (B), Railway Board Secretariat Service, Armed Forces Head Quarters Civil Services, Election Commission, Central Vigilance Commission, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs etc., by the Staff Selection Commission (earlier conducted by the Union Public Service Commission). But, as observed by the Apex Court, the said facts were not placed either before the Tribunal or this Court. In the fact and circumstances of the case and in view of the observations made by the Apex Court while remanding the matter to this Court and in view of the material placed by the authorities, we feel that it is a fit case wherein the matter can be remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration with reference to the material, if any, adduced by the parties after affording an opportunity to both the parties. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed setting aside the order impugned herein and remanding the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication on its own merits after considering all the material to be placed by both the parties. It is also made clear that both parties shall place all the relevant material in support of their claim before the Tribunal, so as to adjudicate the issue involved on its own merits. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 14-10-2008 Ksn ..... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{ }