Confederation to All India Central Government Stenographers Associations and M. Harisuthan and P.S. Anirudhan and Liji S.R. and K.P. Sreenivasan and G. Ramadas and M.P. Sivakumar V. Union of India

OP (CAT)/45/2021

AI Insights

The case involves the Confederation of All India Central Government Stenographers Associations and individual petitioners who are Stenographers in Non-secretariat services, challenging the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench. They sought pay parity with their counterparts in the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service (CSSS) effective from 01.01.2006. The Tribunal had previously denied their claim, leading to this appeal in the High Court of Kerala. The petitioners argued that historically, there was parity in pay which was disrupted by the 2006 pay upgradation for CSSS Stenographers, ignoring the VIth Central Pay Commission's recommendations. The court, after reviewing various pay commission reports and previous judgments, noted the absence of a detailed study on the differences in duties and responsibilities between the two groups and directed the government to conduct a comprehensive study.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 694608 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Secretary Finance Department and Others v. West Bengal Registration Service Association and Others, Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association, State of U.P. and Others v. J.P. Chaurasia and Others
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: K R RAJKUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: V KUMAR
• Keywords: Central Administrative Tribunal; Pay parity; Central Government Stenographers; Central Secretariat Stenographers Service; VIth Central Pay Commission

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN FRIDAY, THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2024 / 2ND CHAITHRA, 1946 OP (CAT) NO. 45 OF 2021 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN OA NO.512 OF 2016 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH PETITIONER/S: 1 CONFEDERATION TO ALL INDIA CENTRAL GOVERNMENT STENOGRAPHERS ASSOCIATIONS, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, HARISUTHAN, S/O.G.MADHAVAN UNNITHAN, AGED 45 YEARS, STENO GRADE D, STENOGRAPHER, O/O. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POSTS, KOLLAM - 691 001, RESIDING AT NADUKUNNIL KIZHAKKETHIL, NAVANEETHAM, KADIKA, KAITHAPARAMBU P.O., ENATHU, PATHANAMTHITTA - 691526. 2 M.HARISUTHAN, S/O.G.MADHAVAN UNNITHAN, 45 YEARS, STENO GRADE D, STENOGRAPHER, O/O. THE SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, KOLLAM - 691001, RESIDING AT NADUKUNNIL KIZHAKKETHIL, NAVANEETHAM, KADIKA, KAITHAPARAMBU P.O., ENATHU, PATHANAMTHITTA - 691526. 3 P.S.ANIRUDHAN, S/O.P.SREEDHARAN, 51 YEARS, STENOGRAPHER GRADE D, O/O. THE PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (SGSA) AUDIT BHAVAN, AGS BHAVAN, AGS OFFICE P.O., STATUE, M.G.ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001, RESIDING AT GOUTHAM VIHAR, PUNUKKANNUR, PERUMPUZHA P.O., KOLLAM - 691 504. 4 LIJI S.R. D/O.V.RAGHUNATHAN, 42 YEARS, STENOGRAPHER GRADE- D/GR.III, O/O. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, ICE BHAVAN, PRESS CLUB ROAD, TRIVADNRUM - 695 001, RESIDING AT KETHARAM, TC 43/666(2), NKRA-50, NEELATTINKARA, KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD P.O., TRIVANDRUM - 695 009. O.P.(CAT) No.45/2021 2 5 K.P.SREENIVASAN, 49 YEARS, S/O.V.K.PARAMESWARAN (LATE), STENOGRAPHER GRADE-D/GR.III, O/O. THE COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (APPEALS), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MANANCHIRA, KOZHIKODE - 673 011, RESIDING AT SREENIDHI, NEAR PISHARIKAV TEMPLE, EDAKKAD P.O., WEST HILL, KOZHIKODE - 673 005. 6 G.RAMADAS, S/O.N.GOPALACHARY, AGED 56 YEARS, STENO GRADE D, STENOGRAPHER STATE, O/O. THE NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCS, MINISTRY OF SOCIAL JUSTICE AND EMPOWERMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, TC 24/547(1), OPP. THYCAUD HPO, THYCAUD, TRIVANDRUM - 695 014, RESIDING AT GURU PRIYA, ENRA 20, TC 36/663, ENJACKAL, VALLAKKADAVU P.O., TRIVANDRUM - 695 008. 7 M.P.SIVAKUMAR, 46 YEARS, S/O.C.P.SETHUKUMAR, STENOGRAPHER GRADE-I, REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICE, PANAMPILLY NAGAR, COCHIN - 36, RESIDING AT NANDANAM, NEAR YASHORAM FLATS, NIRAPPATHU, CHOTTANIKKARA P.O., ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SAJITH KUMAR V. VIVEK A.V. GODWIN JOSEPH SREEHARI V.S. AMMU M. RESPONDENT/S: 1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI - 110001. 2 SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI - 110 001. BY ADV SHRI.K.R.RAJKUMAR, C.G.C. THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23.01.2024, THE COURT ON 22.03.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.(CAT) No.45/2021 3 A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE & SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ O.P.(CAT) No.45 of 2023 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2024 JUDGMENT A.Muhamed Mustaque, J. The first petitioner is an Association, representing the interest of the Stenographers who are working in the Central Government. The remaining petitioners are working in Non-secretariat Service of the Central Government as Stenographers. They approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench(for short, the 'Tribunal'), claiming parity in pay at par with their counterparts in the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service(CSSS) with effect from 01.01.2006. They were unsuccessful before the Tribunal. Challenging the order of the Tribunal, they have approached this Court. 2. We heard Sri.V .Sajith Kumar, the learned O.P.(CAT) No.45/2021 4 counsel for the petitioners and Sri.P .Vijayakumar, the learned Senior Central Government Counsel. 3. The petitioners claim that the recruitment of the Stenographers to the Central Secretariat as well as Non-Secretariat Offices is made by the Staff Selection Commission. The educational qualification and the recruitment criteria are one and the same. According to them, the notification gave them the option to seek preference to work either in CSSS or in Non-secretariat Subordinate Services under the Government of India. It is specifically pointed out that their appointments were made from a common rank list based on the merit cum option. It is further pointed out that there was a historical pay parity between the Stenographers of the CSSS and the Stenographers of the Non-secretariat Service. It is submitted that the petitioners and their counterparts in CSSS were having parity of pay since 1986 onwards and due to the financial upgradation scheme implemented in CSSS, the difference in pay scale initially occurred was rectified based on the arbitration O.P.(CAT) No.45/2021 5 award dated 18.8.1989. It is further pointed out that Vth Central Pay Commission had also removed certain anomalies and disparities that existed between the Private Secretaries at Secretariat and Non-secretariat Service. Therefore, it is submitted that after the implementation of Vth Central Pay Commission, there was no disparity. According to the petitioners, disparity came out when upgradation of pay was granted to the Stenographers in Group C in CSSS, overlooking the VIth Central Pay Commission recommendation in the year 2006. The Government Order dated 25.9.2006 was produced as Annexure A3 before the Tribunal. It is pointed out that after the order dated 25.9.2006, the Personal Assistants of CSSS got an upgradation of their pay. A comparative chart of the pay of the Stenographers in both services is made available after the application filed before the Tribunal which we reproduced herewith for reference: 1. Stenographers of the Central Secretariat & attached Offices 2. Stenographers-non- secretariat: subordinate/field Offices O.P.(CAT) No.45/2021 6 Entry level Steno Gr.D Rs.2400/- Steno Gr.D/III Rs.2400/- Upgradation in the same post as Steno.Gr.D after 5 years of service (automatic) Steno. Gr.D Rs.4200/- Although the steno Gr.III post is now upgraded to Steno.Gr.II (new), no upgraded grade pay is given. Rs.2400/- Next promotion Steno.Gr.II/C Rs.4600/- Grade-II & I(Erstwhile posts) (2 promotions received in the old pattern are merged Rs.4200/- Next promotion PS Rs.4800/- PS Rs.4600/- Next promotion Automatic upgradation to Rs.5400/- after 4 years Rs.5400/- No such upgradation No such post exist in CSSS Sr.PS (only one post exist in few departments) Rs.4800/- Automatic upgradation to Rs.5400/- after 4 years Rs.5400/- Next Upgradation PPS Rs.6600/- No such post exists in subordiante offices Next promotion Sr.PPS Rs.7600/- No such post exists in subordinate officers 4. In the reply affidavit filed by the Union before the Tribunal, it is stated that Stenographic assistants in Central Secretariat and Non-secretariat offices are quite different as the responsibilities and duties are different. O.P.(CAT) No.45/2021 7 Reliance has been placed on 3rd Central Pay Commission report, in regard to the nature of work undertaken in both services. 5. We are not referring to the disparity in detail as the same has been reproduced in the impugned order. 6. It is seen that the issue raised by the petitioners was considered by VIth Central Pay Commission. Paragraph 3.1.1 of the report reads thus: “Office staff in Headquarters and Field Organisations of Government of India “The various Secretariats of the Ministries and Departments of Government of India together constitute the headquarters organization. The Secretariats are chiefly involved in matters relating to formulation of policy and ensuring that these policies are executed in a coordinated and effective manner. Actual execution of these policies, however, is left to field agencies outside the Secretariat which may be either attached or subordinate offices or quasi- Government/autonomous/public sector undertakings.” They have recommended a separate pay scale for CSSS. Before going through the discussion in this matter, it is also appropriate to refer to the relevant paragraphs in 3rd O.P.(CAT) No.45/2021 8 Central Pay Commission and VIth Central Pay Commission. The 3rd Pay Commission had also stated as follows regarding the parity of scales:- “.......we feel, however that the position needs to be examined a little more critically because the size of Stenographer's job is very mach dependent upon the nature of the work entrusted to that officer. Zit would not be correct, therefore, to go merely by status in these matters and disregard the functional requirements. By the very nature of Secretariat working the volume of dictation and typing work can be expected to be heavier than in a subordinate office, also the requirements of secrecy even in the civil offices of the Secretariat can be very stringent. Considering the differences in hierarchical structures and in the type of work transacted the Secretariat and in the subordinate offices, we are not in favour of adopting a uniform pattern. Once the functional requirements are seen to be different for the Secretariat and the Subordinate Offices, it will not be worthwhile to aim for absolute parity in the pay scales of Stenographers working on the two sides......”. 8. The VIth Pay Commission had also stated as follows regarding the parity of scales:- “.............. to our mind, the observations of the Third CPC are as relevant today as they were at that point of time and we are not inclined to overlook them O.P.(CAT) No.45/2021 9 totally. In view of the above mentioned distinguishable features, we do not concede the demand for absolute parity in regard to pay scales between stenographers in offices outside the secretariat and in the secretariat notwithstanding the fact that some petitioner stenographers Grade II have got the benefit of parity in pay scale through courts.........”. 7. The Tribunal, after noting all the pay commission reports and the judgments cited at the Bar was of the definite view that the equal pay for equal work cannot be extended to all posts similar in nomenclature. It is appropriate to refer para 12 of the order, which reads thus: “From the above discussions we can see that the Stenographers of Field Offices are entitled to pay parity depending on several factors. It does not depend just upon either the nature of work or the volume of work done or nomenclature of post. Primarily, it requires among others evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts by the competent authorities constituted for the purpose and Courts cannot ordinarily substitute themselves in the place of those authorities. The quantity of the work may be same but the quality may be different. That cannot be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits filed by interested parties. It must be determined by Pay O.P.(CAT) No.45/2021 10 Commissions and Government who would be the best judges to evaluate the nature of duty, responsibilities and all other relevant factors. The applicants had not produced the detailed order of the arbitration award (Annexure A-1). We are unable to gather anything from Annexure A-1 produced by the applicants.” 8. The factors that influenced the Tribunal in declining the relief are essentially noting the factual appreciation in the matter and the pay commission report. The Government having adverted to the factual aspects is of the opinion that it is not for the Tribunal to determine that there exists parity between the Stenographers of the Central Secretariat and the Stenographer of Non-Secretariat service. 9. We shall now look at the precedents referred to and relied on by the counsel for the petitioners. The Apex Court in Secretary Finance Department and Others v. West Bengal Registration Service Association and Others [1993 Supp. (1) SCC 153] held in paragraph 23 as follows: “We do not consider it necessary to traverse the case law on which reliance has been placed by counsel O.P.(CAT) No.45/2021 11 for the appellants as it is well settled that equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like the Pay Commissions, etc. But that is not to say that the Court has no jurisdiction and the aggrieved employees have no remedy if they are unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction. Courts must, however, realise that job evaluation is both a difficult and time consuming task which even expert bodies having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found difficult to undertake sometimes on account of want of relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of different groups of employees. This would call for a constant study of the external comparisons and internal relativities on account of the changing nature of job requirements. The factors which may have to be kept in view for job evaluation may include (i) the work programme of his department (ii) the nature of contribution expected of him (iii) the extent of his responsibility and accountability in the discharge of his diverse duties and functions (iv) the extent and nature of freedoms/limitations available or imposed on him in the discharge of his duties (v) the extent of powers vested in him (vi) the extent of his dependence on superiors for the exercise of his powers (vii) the need to co- ordinate with other departments, etc. We have also referred to the history of the service and the effort of O.P.(CAT) No.45/2021 12 various bodies to reduce the total number of pay scales to a reasonable number. Such reduction in the number of pay scales has to be achieved by resorting to broadbanding of posts by placing different posts having comparable job charts in a common scale. Substantial reduction in the number of pay scales must inevitably lead to clubbing of posts and grades which were earlier different and unequal. While doing so care must be taken to ensure that such rationalisation of the pay structure does not throw up anomalies. Ordinarily a pay structure is evolved keeping in mind several factors, e.g., (i) method of recruitment, (ii) level at which recruitment is made, (iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre, (iv) minimum educational/technical qualifications required, (v) avenues of promotion, (vi) the nature of duties and responsibilities, (vii) the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs, (viii) public dealings, (ix) satisfaction level, (x) employer's capacity to pay, etc. We have referred to these matters in some detail only to emphasise that several factors have to be kept in view while evolving a pay structure and the horizontal and vertical relativities have to be carefully balanced keeping in mind the hierarchical arrangements, avenues for promotion, etc. Such a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well. It is presumably for this reason that the Judicial Secretary who had strongly recommended a substantial hike in the salary of the O.P.(CAT) No.45/2021 13 Sub-Registrars to the Second (State) Pay Commission found it difficult to concede the demand made by the Registration Service before him in his capacity as the Chairman of the Third (State) Pay Commission. There can, therefore, be no doubt that equation of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post and Court's interference is absolutely necessary to undo the injustice.” 10. The Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court in W .P .(C) No.4606/2013 held as follows: “The petitioners were treated historically as equals to CSS/CSSS employees and enjoyed equal pay and all benefits flowing from equal pay. This was based on the previous four instances of determinations by successive Pay Commissions that they performed equal work. No other evidence of \"complete identity\" of work was necessary in the circumstances of the case. The materials on the record do show that the Sixth CPC stated in more than one place specifically that historical parity in pay scales ought not to be disturbed. Such being the case, this Court is of the opinion that the CAT fell into error in holding that differentiation was facially justified, and could not be gone into given the nature of restricted judicial review. Consequently, a direction is O.P.(CAT) No.45/2021 14 issued to the respondents to fix the members of the Petitioner Association and other similarly placed Assistants working in Ordnance Factories and in OFB in the same pay scale as was given to Assistants similarly placed in CSS/CSSS, Army Headquarters, UPSC, CAT, MEA, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, etc. with effect from the same date as was first given to them. Consequential pay fixation and fitment orders shall be issued within eight weeks from today. The writ petition is allowed in the above terms without any order as to costs.” 11. In a recent judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association [2023 KHC 6164] held as follows: 14.In view of the afore - stated legal position, it clearly emerges that though the doctrine \"equal pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of Law, the equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the Executive and not of the Judiciary. The Courts therefore should not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions which undertake rigorous exercise for job evaluation after taking into consideration several factors like the nature of work, the duties, accountability and responsibilities attached to the posts, the extent of O.P.(CAT) No.45/2021 15 powers conferred on the persons holding a particular post, the promotional avenues, the Statutory rules governing the conditions of service, the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs etc. It may be true that the nature of work involved in two posts may sometimes appear to be more or less similar, however, if the classification of posts and determination of pay scale have reasonable nexus with the objective or purpose sought to be achieved, namely, the efficiency in the administration, the Pay Commissions would be justified in recommending and the State would be justified in prescribing different pay scales for the seemingly similar posts. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues or frustration due to longer duration of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. It is also a well accepted position that there could be more than one grade in a particular service. The classification of posts and the determination of pay structure, thus falls within the exclusive domain of the Executive, and the Courts or Tribunals cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service.” 12. In State of U.P . and Others v. J.P .Chaurasia and Others (1989 (1) SCC 121), the Apex Court in paragraph 18 held as follows: The first question regarding entitlement to the pay scale admissible to Section Officers should not detain us longer. The answer to the question depends upon O.P.(CAT) No.45/2021 16 several factors. It does not just depend upon either the nature of work of volume of work done by Bench Secretaries, Primarily it requires among others, evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts. More often functions of two posts may appear to be the same or similar but there may be difference in degrees in the performance. The quantity of work may be the same, but quality may be different that cannot be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parties. The equation of posts or equation of pay must be left to the executive Government. It must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission. They would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts. If there is any such determination by a Commission or Committee the court should normally accept it. The court should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration.\" 13. We have gone through the findings made by the Tribunal. We noted that in the absence of any other study or any other materials, the Tribunal was not able to order parity of pay. However, at the same time, we cannot ignore the existence of historical parity. We can also not remain oblivious to the duties and responsibilities attached to the post in Central Secretariat Services and O.P.(CAT) No.45/2021 17 Non-secretariat Service. In the pay commission report a reference has been made as to the reasons for different pay structures. We do find that absolutely no study has been conducted in the matter. The nature of the work and the value attached to such work of equal post is the factor that may demand equal pay for equal work. Quantity, quality, onerous duties and responsibilities are all relevant factors to hold for parity or to deviate from parity. The Court will not be justified in entering into such domain which it has no expertise. In a case like this, when the Court prima facie feels that primary functions of such Government servants are one and the same, the Court can at the best order the Government to constitute a Committee to undertake a study and make a recommendation thereon based on such study. Here we note that the petitioners are able to make out a prima facie case based on historical parity that exists. In such view of the matter, we are of the view that the first respondent shall constitute a Committee to undertake a study as to the claim for parity with the Stenographers O.P.(CAT) No.45/2021 18 who are working in the Central Secretariat. We direct therefore, the first respondent to constitute a Committee to address the grievance raised by the petitioner regarding claim for parity. Needful shall be done by the first respondent within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The original petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE JUDGE Sd/- SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN JUDGE ln O.P.(CAT) No.45/2021 19 APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 45/2021 PETITIONER EXHIBITS Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01/06/2021 IN O.A.NO.512/2016 OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE O.A.NO.512/2016 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE ARBITRATION AWARD DATED 18/08/1989. Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE O.M.NO.7(18)-E 111/81 DATED 31/07/1990 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Annexure A3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.20/29/2006-CS II DATED 25/09/2006 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Annexure A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.F.NO.10/3/2004-CS.II (PT.I) DATED 24/06/2005 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Annexure A4(a) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.F.NO.1/1/2008-IC DATED 16/11/2009 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. Annexure A4(b) A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.20/49/2009-CS.II(B) DATED 22/06/2011 ISSUED ON BEHALF OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT. Annexure A5 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE 6TH PAY COMMISSION REPORT. Annexure A6 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 6TH CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION. Annexure A7 A TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DATED 02/02/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT BEFORE THE MEMBER SECRETARY, CADRE REVIEW COMMITTEE. Annexure A8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 23/04/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE CONFEDERATION OF ALL INDIA CENTRAL O.P.(CAT) No.45/2021 20 GOVERNMENT STENOGRAPHERS ASSOCIATION. Annexure A9 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 24/09/2012 SUBMITTED BY THE 1ST APPLICANT. Annexure A10 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 15/07/2015 IN O.A.NO.3335 OF 2011 OF THE HONOURABLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PRINCIPAL BENCH. Annexure A11 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19/02/2009 IN O.A.NO.164/2009. Annexure A12 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 05/06/2012 IN O.A.NO.658/2010 OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, MADRAS BENCH. Annexure A13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21/10/2011 IN O.A.NO.314/2010 OF THE HONOURABLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. Annexure A14 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.FILE NO.V.IV/681/1/08-PT DATED 11/05/2012 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS. Annexure A15 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 06/04/2016 IS O.A.NO.709 OF 2013 OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. Annexure A16 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 14/10/2014 IN WP(C) NO.4606/2013 OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT. Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN O.A.NO.512/2016. Annexure R2 TRUE COPY OF THE DOPT O.M.MO.10/3/2004-CS II (PART VII) DATED 28/10/2005. Annexure R3 TRUE COPY OF THE DOPT NOTIFICATION DATED 29/11/2010. Annexure R4 TRUE COPY OF THE MODEL RRS CIRCULATED, VIDE DOPT OM DATED 24/01/2011. Annexure R5 TRUE COPY OF THE O.M. DATED 13/11/2009 BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE. Annexure R6 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF O.P.(CAT) No.45/2021 21 THE 6TH CPC RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN PARA 3.1.14 IN ITS REPORT. Annexure R7 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE 6TH CPC RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN PARA 3.1.49 IN ITS REPORT. Annexure R8 TRUE COPY OF THE 6TH CPC RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN PARA 3.1.09 OF ITS REPORT READ WITH PARA 2.2.18. Annexure R9 TRUE COPY OF THE DOPT O.M. DATED 25/09/2006. Annexure R10 TRUE COPY OF THE O.M. DATED 16/11/2009 BY THE MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE. Annexure R11 TRUE COPY OF THE DOPT O.M. DATED 22/06/2011. Annexure R12 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF 3RD CPC IN PARA 54 OF CHAPTER 10 OF ITS REPORT. Annexure R13 TRUE COPY OF THE MINISTRY'S NOTIFICATION DATED 30/09/1997 ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE 5TH CPC. Annexure R14 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION FROM MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF EXPENDITURE. Annexure R15 TRUE COPY OF THE OP(CAT) NO.1597/2012 DATED 17/07/2012. Annexure R16 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12/06/2012 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS. Annexure R17 TRUE COPY OF THE O.M. CITED 24/04/2014 ISSUED BY THE MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS. Annexure R1 TRUE COPY OF THE DOPT O.M.NO.35034/4/97-ESTT.(D) DATED 11/04/2001. Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER DATED 09/10/2017 FILED BY THE APPLICANTS IN THE O.A. Annexure A17 A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE 7TH CENTRAL PAY COMMISSION REPORT. Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 06/01/2021 IN S.L.P.(C) NO.11574/2020 OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT. O.P.(CAT) No.45/2021 22 Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.F.12- 50/2009-ESTT. (RCT) DATED 09/04/2021 ISSUED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, AIIMS RECRUITMENT CELL. Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 27.07.2022 IN SLP NO. 29204/2019 BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT "