IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 11892 of 2000 Between: 1 Union Of India, Rep. by its Secretary, and Director General, Dept of Posts , Ministry of Communications, DAK , Bhavan, Samsad Marg , New Delhi. 2 The Chief Postmaster General, A.P.Circle , Dock Bhavan, Abids , Hyderabad. 3 The Post Master General, A.P.Circle , Hyderabad Region, Abids , Hyderabad. ..... PETITIONER(S) AND Raghevendra Rao, O/o. Postmaster General , Hyderabad Region Hyderabad, R/o.Plot No.43 , Ramachandraiah Colony, West New Venkatapuram, Secunderabad-15. .....RESPONDENT 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 to issue an order, direction or writ , more particularly one in the nature of Certiorari calling for records in O.A.No.809/99 on the file of Central Administrative Tribunal , Hyderabad Bench and quash the order Dt: 17-2-2000 made in the said O.A and pass such other orders as may deem fit. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.A.RAJASHEKAR REDDY (ASST SOLICITOR GEN) Counsel for the Respondent No.: PARTY-IN-PERSON The Court made the following : VE & PSR, JJ. W.P.No. 11892 of 2000 O r d e r: (Per P. Swaroop Reddy,J.) This writ petition is filed by the Government against the orders of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 809 of 1999. For the sake of convenience the parties herein would be referred to as referred before the learned Tribunal. 2. The O.A., was filed by the applicant contending that he was directly recruited as Junior Hindi Translator on 26.12.1995 through Staff Selection Commission. The next promotion was to the post of Senior Hindi Translator and Hindi Officer in the scale of Rs.1600- 2660 (pre revised) in Group-B Cadre. According to the applicant the nature of duties and qualification for recruitment to the post of Junior Hindi Translator in the Subordinate Office, as well as in the Directorate are one and the same. But in respect of payment of scales of pay, the Junior Hindi Translator/Senior Hindi Translators working in the Subordinate Offices, are being discriminated. The scale of pay of Senior Hindi Translator in the scale is revised from Rs.1640-2900 to Rs.6500 - 10500 vide Presidential Order dated: 3.2.1999. The post of Inspector in the Postal Department also carries the same scale of pay of Rs.1400 - 2300, which was revised to Rs.4500 - 700 initially with effect from 1.1.1996, which was later upgraded to the scale of Rs.5500 - 9000. According to the applicant he is entitled to the scale of pay of Rs.1400 - 2600 with effect from 26.12.1995 and Rs.5000 - 8000 with effect from 1.1.1996 as Junior Hindi Translator working in the office of the Chief Post Master General, Dak Sadan, Hyderabad and for other consequential benefits. 3. The respondents filed reply before the Tribunal contending that the nature of duties and the work load are also necessary for comparing the scales of pay. The Translators working in the Directorate perform more work than the Translators working in the Subordinate offices etc. 4. The present respondent ( the applicant in the O.A.) filed his counter contending that he was appointed as a Junior Hindi Translator in the office of the Post Master General, Hyderabad Region with effect from 26.12.1995 in the pay scale of Rs.1400/2300 (pre revised) and pursuant to the recommendations of Vth pay commission he was placed in the time scale of Rs.4500/7000 with effect from 1.1.1996. He made representations dated: 4.8.1998 and 24.12.1998 to the Government of India claiming higher pay scale of Rs.5000/8000 on the ground that the Junior Hindi Translators working in Directorates of Head Quarters of the Postal Department are being given higher pay scales. The applicant in his representation also sought to justify his claim on the ground that Inspectors of Posts and the lower selection grade officers of the department are also given higher pay scales. He also relied on the judgment of the Tribunal in O.A.No. 91 of 1998 dated: 10-2-1998 relating to the Hindi translators of Telecom Department. 5. The contention of the government is that the duties of the Junior Hindi Translators in the Directorate and the Junior Translators in the subordinate offices are not one and the same. In the subordinate offices Junior Translators need not attend to any work relating to translation from Hindi to English and vice versa. What all they do is translation of few letters that are received from the Directorate now- and-then. According to the Memorandum of Ministry of Finance and Expenditure the designations are not the sole determinant of pay scales and there are many other factors viz. Eligibility, minimum educational qualification, nature of duties and responsibilities, work load, professional skills and proficiency. The V-Pay Commission has considered the issue of parity of pay scales between the employees of the same cadre out-side the Secretariat and in the Secretariat and not recommended the same pay scales. The Order in O.A.No.827 of 1991 relied on by the Tribunal was prior to the recommendations of the Vth Pay Commission and is on a different matrix. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the pay scales fixed by the expert bodies like the pay commission can be found fault with only if there is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which is not there in the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Debkumar Mukherjee's case1 held that the recommendations of the Pay Commission are not subject to the judicial review and that the pay V- Pay Commission has in fact considered the cleavage of pay scales of Junior Hindi Translators and made appropriate recommendations. 6. The applicant (respondent herein) who is appearing in person did not appear, in spite of the matter being posted for orders, on account of his non-appearance on the earlier occasion. 7. In support of his case, the writ petitioner (the government) relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Shiva Kumar Dutta v. Union of India v. Union of India2 where in it was held that: "Nomenclature and fitment is one of executive policy of the Government. Unless the action is arbitrary or there is invidious discrimination between persons similarly situated,doing some type of work, it would be difficult for the courts to go into the question of equation of posts for fitment into a particular scale of pa. They must be left to be decided by Expert Committees and Government. The courts cannot go into them and evaluate the job criteria and scales of pay prescribed for each category." 8. In view of the above decision, the court cannot go in to the question with regard to the fixation of pay scales, which matter has already been considered by the relevant pay commission. However, persons doing same work, in the same office some times are given different pay scales, in such event it can be said that there is violation of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The pay scales of the officials in Secretariat and the Heads of the Departments etc., are always fixed differently apart from officers working in the subordinate offices and that aspect is for the pay commission to consider and the pay commission had considered such matters before making appropriate recommendations. 9. In the above circumstances, we hold that the order impugned, passed by the learned Tribunal on 17--2--2000 in O.A.No. 809 of 1999 is erroneous. It is to be noted that the order of the learned tribunal has already been suspended by orders of this court passed in W.P.M.P.No. 15131 of 2000 on 09.08.2000. 10. In the result the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the leaned Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad on 17.2.2000 in O.A.No. 809 of 1999 is hereby quashed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. __________________ V. ESWARAIAH, J. July 24, 2009. *BVS ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 11995 (2) SCC Supple 640 21997 (3) SCC 545