TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 999
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he post of "member" of the Appellate Tribunal Forfeited Property (ATFP) held by the Petitioner. 2. The Petitioner was appointed as a member of the ATFP in exercise of powers under Section 12 of SAFEMA, 1976 read with sub Rule (2) of Rule 11of the ATFP Rules, 1978 vide order dated 13.04.1999 in the pay scale of Rs. 22,400-525-24,500. His term ended on 31.12.2002, after he attained the age of 62 years. 3. The ATFP is a common Appellate Tribunal under SAFEMA, 1976 and NDPSA, 1985. It was originally constituted under Section 12(1) to deal with appeals under Sections 7, 9 (1) or 10 of the SAFEMA, 1976, and later when NDPSA, 1985 came into force, ATFP was constituted as the appellate body under Section 68 N of NDPSA as well, to deal with appeals under Sections 68F, 68-I and 68K (1) of NDPSA. ATFP has been hearing appeals under SAFEMA and NDPSA since May, 1989. In other words, the two Acts constitute- ATFP with different set of Rules under both the Acts, laying down the conditions of service of the chairman and members. 4. Rule 4 of the ATFP Rules, 1978 framed under SAFEMA, 1976 states that whoever is appointed as a member of the ATFP will draw a salary of Rs. 3,000 per mensem, and is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e SAFEMA or NDPSA, had been removed. 8. Accordingly, vide notification No. 10/2001 dated 01.10.2001, Rule 4 of the ATFP (Conditions of Service of Chairman and Member) Rules, 2001 under SAFEMA, 1976 was amended. Similarly, vide notification dated 24.12.2001, Rule 4 of the ATFP (Conditions of Service of Chairman and Member) Rules, 2001 under NDPSA, 1985 was amended. The pay scale of the members appointed under both the Acts was made as Rs. 22,400-525-24,500. This was the same as that being paid to members appointed under SAFEMA. In effect, the pay scale of the members appointed under the NDPSA was downwardly revised from Rs. 24,050-650-26,000 to Rs. 22,400-525-24,500. 9. Not satisfied, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT/Tribunal) by preferring OA. No. 1557/2002, seeking the higher pay scale of Rs. 24050-26000. The Tribunal, by order dated 02.05.2003, allowed the application on the basis that the ATFP was one body exercising functions under SAFEMA and NDPSA, and two different pay scales could not be prescribed in respect of one post under the different Acts. The different pay scales were held to be a clear case of discrimination. 10. The respondents ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the petitioner is not entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 24050-650-26000, as the appointment order dated 13.04.1999 clearly mentions that the pay scale payable to the petitioner is Rs. 22400-525-24500, and the petitioner did not challenge the said appointment order at any stage, much less in the present petition. He accepted the terms and conditions offered to him and, now, cannot turn around and challenge the same at this belated stage. 16. Ld. Counsel for the Respondents submits that the petitioner cannot claim a higher pay scale on the ground that the Act under which he was appointed was not specified in his appointment order. There is clearly no dispute about that fact that ATFP is the Appellate Tribunal under both the Acts, SAFEMA and NDPSA. Learned counsel further submits that this contention of the petitioner cannot be sustained, as it had been notified vide notifications Nos. 6/1999 and 7/1999 issued on 21.05.1999 that the Petitioner was obliged to hear appeals under both said Acts. We may note that the Respondent has not placed the said notifications on record. The averment of the Respondent in Para 23 of the counter affida....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ual work for both men and women' means equal pay for equal work for everyone and as between the sexes. Directive principles, as has been pointed out in some of the judgments of this Court have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation. Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the state not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws and Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. These equality clauses of the Constitution must mean something to everyone. To the vast majority of the people the equality clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal pay. X X X X X X X X X X Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Article 39(d) we are of the view that the principle 'Equal pay for Equal work' is 'deducible from those Article and may be properly applied to case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s to the object sought to be achieved. The members of the Tribunal being co-equals in terms of their functions, responsibilities and status, such classification was most unreasonable and arbitrary. Consequently, when the petitioner was appointed as the member of the ATFP vide order dated 13.04.1999, he was entitled to the same pay scale that is offered to the other members of the Tribunal appointed under NDPSA, 1985, i.e. Rs. 24050-650-26000. 22. The respondent effectively realized that the two pay scales offered to members appointed under the SAFEMA, 1976 and NDPSA, 1985 led to discrimination and, consequently, sought to amend the rules framed under the aforesaid two enactments by the impugned notification by equalizing the pay scales of the members appointed under both the enactments. However, while doing so, the pay scale permissible to members appointed under NDPSA, 1985 was lowered and made equal to that prescribed for members appointed under the SAFEMA, 1976. 23. The issue which arises for consideration is whether, the respondent could have resorted to such an exercise so as to obliterate the pre-existing discrimination in the matter of pay scales admissible to different me....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vantage by reducing their scales of pay or taking away any other service benefit, it cannot be understood as depriving of the benefit of higher scale of pay to them as given to other employees of the same employer. The High Court in the said order also observed that there was a bar to change the service conditions of such employees to their detriment and there was no bar to offer such employees better prospects". 26. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in The Jullundur District Co-operative Agricultural Service Societies Employees Union (Regd.) vs. State of Punjab and Ors., C.W.P. No. 12820 of 1999 decided on 01.10.2010, observed as follows: "24. Even if it is presumed that letter dated 3.6.1999 (P-9) amounts to exercising the power of amendment and Rule 19(b) of the 1997 Rules has been amended, still it would not be sustainable because no rule could be framed or executive instructions be issued reducing the pay of an employee particularly when under the 1997 Rules it is considered as penal action. Rule 14 of the 1997 Rules postulate infliction of minor and major punishments. Under both the heads, reduction in emoluments,....