1998 (9) TMI 659 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Redesignation of Data Processing Assistants as Data Entry Operators.
2. Change in pay scales and designations.
3. Application of retrospective qualifications.
4. Legality of administrative orders conflicting with statutory rules.
5. Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Redesignation of Data Processing Assistants as Data Entry Operators:

The petitioners, initially designated as Data Processing Assistants, were redesignated as Data Entry Operators by the Union Government's order dated 2.7.1990. This redesignation was challenged on the grounds that it amounted to a reversion to an entry grade below that of Data Processing Assistants. The Supreme Court noted that the redesignation resulted in the petitioners being shifted from the Data Processing stream to the Data Entry stream, which was not consistent with the statutory rules under which they were recruited. The Court observed that the redesignation was arbitrary and violated the petitioners' rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

2. Change in Pay Scales and Designations:

The impugned order dated 2.7.1990 also altered the pay scales of the petitioners, placing them in a lower scale than the one applicable to Data Processing Assistants. The Court found that the petitioners, who were confirmed in their posts as Data Processing Assistants, were entitled to the revised scale of Rs. 1600-2660 applicable to Data Processing Supervisors and not the lower scale of Rs. 1350-2200. The Court held that the change in pay scales was illegal and that the petitioners were entitled to the higher pay scale from the date the IV Pay Commission scales came into force.

3. Application of Retrospective Qualifications:

The Court addressed the issue of new qualifications being applied retrospectively to the petitioners. It was argued that the new qualifications, which included a diploma or certificate in computer applications or knowledge of programming, could not be imposed on those already recruited as Data Processing Assistants. The Court held that applying these qualifications retrospectively was arbitrary and violated the petitioners' rights. The Court emphasized that recruitment qualifications could not be altered retrospectively to affect those already recruited and confirmed in their posts.

4. Legality of Administrative Orders Conflicting with Statutory Rules:

The Court examined the legality of the administrative orders dated 2.7.1990 and 16.3.1998, which conflicted with the statutory rules governing the recruitment and designation of Data Processing Assistants. The Court found that these orders were not in consonance with the existing statutory rules and were therefore invalid. The Court reiterated that executive orders could not conflict with statutory rules and that any changes in qualifications or designations must be prospective and not affect those already recruited.

5. Violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India:

The Court held that the redesignation of the petitioners and the application of new qualifications retrospectively violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Court stated that the actions of the Union Government were arbitrary and discriminatory, as they deprived the petitioners of their rightful designations and pay scales. The Court declared the impugned orders as ultra-vires and violative of the petitioners' constitutional rights.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the review petition, set aside the impugned orders dated 2.7.1990 and 16.3.1998, and restored the petitioners to their original designation as Data Processing Assistants in the revised scale of Rs. 1600-2660 with effect from 1.1.1986. The Court also awarded the petitioners the scale of Rs. 5000-8000 with effect from 1.1.1996, in line with the Vth Pay Commission recommendations. The judgment was specifically applicable to the 48 petitioners who were directly recruited as Data Processing Assistants in the NSSO, Department of Statistics, Ministry of Planning.