IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 102 CWP-8293-1996 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.05.2025 Mrs. Raksha Devi and others ...Petitioners VERSUS Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate and Mr. Jugam Arora, Advocate; Mr. Prabhat Kashyap, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Ms. Anita Balyan, Advocate for the respondent(s)-UOI. Mr. I.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondent No.4. ***** VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in the present petition is for directing the respondents to release the pay-scale of Rs.1640-2900 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 alongwith the arrears and interest @18% per annum to the petitioners at par with what has been granted to the Senior Stenographers/Stenographers Grade ‘C’ working in the Central Secretariat Stenographers Services (CSSS), who were earlier placed in the same unrevised scale of Rs.1400-2600 alongwith the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel has argued that the petitioners were working as Senior Stenographers in the Technical Teachers’ Training Institute (hereinafter referred to as ‘the TTTI’), which is an autonomous body set up by the Union Government on the recommendations of All India Council for MANGAL SINGH 2025.05.20 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 102 CWP-8293-1996 (O&M) Technical Education (AICTE) to promote technical education. He contends that the said Institute is being run as per the Rules, Regulations, recommendations, pay-scale and other service conditions applicable to the Central Government Employees. It is argued that the Senior Stenographers who were working with the respondents were being given the pay-scale of Rs.425-700, which was revised to Rs.1400-2300 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 on the recommendations of the 4th Pay Commission. The said pay scale and pay revision were adopted uniformly for the employees of the Central Government, irrespective of whether they were working with other statutory/autonomous bodies of the Government of India or were the employees of the Central Government. It is contended that the aforesaid pay- scale of Rs.1400-2300 was undisputedly made applicable and released to the petitioners as well. The same was later revised to Rs.1400-2600 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 vide orders dated 04.05.1990 and 05.10.1990. The aforesaid revision of the pay-scale was again extended to all subordinate offices and autonomous organizations as well as to the offices non-participating in Central Secretariat Services. The said revision of the pay scale was also made applicable universally and without any discrimination, including the petitioners. He contends that since the pay scale of the petitioners as the Senior Stenographers was at par with the Central Government Employees, hence, they are entitled to the same allowances/pay revisions. 3. He submits that vide order dated 31.07.1990, the pay scale of Senior Stenographers working in the Central Secretariat Services was further revised to Rs. 1640-2900 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 whereas the pay of the MANGAL SINGH 2025.05.20 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 3 102 CWP-8293-1996 (O&M) petitioners was retained at Rs.1400-2600. 4. It is contended that the petitioners raised the aforesaid issue of anomaly with the respondent-Department who also forwarded their representation(s) with their positive recommendation, to the higher authorities for revision of their pay scale at par with the further revision of pay as granted to the Central Government Employees w.e.f. 01.01.1986 vide letter dated 31.07.1990. He submits that the respondents however refused to revise the pay scale of the petitioners at par with the employees of the Central Secretariat Services on the ground that as per the office memorandum dated 31.07.1990, the aforesaid further revision was restricted only to the employees of the Central Secretariat Services and Central Secretariat Stenographers Services and was not applicable or available to the employees of other subordinate office/organization. He contends that the said ground is not tenable as the same Clause was brought under challenge before the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in LPA-301-1997 decided on 31.05.2002 titled as ‘Yogeshwar Prasad and others Vs. National Institute of Education Planning and Administration and others’ as well, by the employees of Sahitya Akademi Delhi. The High Court of Delhi accepted the contentions raised by the Union of India and declined to interfere in the differential pay scale that had not been granted to the petitioners therein against which Civil Appeals No.288-89 of 2005 titled as Yogeshwar Prasad and others Vs. National Institute of Education Planning and Administration and others’ were preferred before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The claim of the petitioners therein was accepted by the Hon’ble MANGAL SINGH 2025.05.20 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 102 CWP-8293-1996 (O&M) Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 21.10.2010 reported as 2010 (14) SCC 323. The relevant extract thereof reads thus:- “14. Mr. Amitesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Institute-respondent no.1 tried to make out the case that duties, responsibilities and obligations of the appellants were different to their counterparts functioning in the Central Secretariat and they were justified in not giving the same pay scale. But we do not find any merit in the submission because the respondent Institute's stand all through was that the appellants be given the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900. At this stage, respondent no.1 cannot be permitted to take a somersault in this manner. The Union of India accepted the recommendations of the Vth and VIth Pay Commissions and are giving the appellants the same pay scale which their counterparts in the Central Government are getting. It may be pertinent to observe that these appellants were getting the same pay scale as was given to the employees of their categories in the Central Government up to 1.1.1986. The Union of India accepted the recommendation of the Vth and VIth Pay Commissions and are giving them same pay scale then how only during the IIIrd Pay Commission their pay scale could be different and how their duties, obligations and responsibilities became different only for a brief period? MANGAL SINGH 2025.05.20 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 102 CWP-8293-1996 (O&M) 15. In our considered view, the appellants are entitled to get the benefit of pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 which their counterparts were getting in the Central Government during the relevant period. In case this amount has not been paid, the same may be paid to the appellants by the Institute within three months from today.” 5. Adverting to the above, counsel contends that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has specifically admonished the respondents from creating an artificial distinction and held that the petitioners are entitled to the same pay scale that had been given to the employees of the Central Secretariat Services and the Central Secretariat Stenographers Services. He contends that the petitioners being identically placed, they are also entitled to the benefit of pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 which their counterparts were getting in the Central Secretariat Services and the Central Secretariat Stenographers Services for the said period. It is contended that the issue being covered against the respondents, they cannot run away from their obligation to disburse the said benefit to the petitioners. 6. He contends that the respondents gave the petitioners the same at par pay scale w.e.f. 01.01.1986 from Rs. 425-700 to Rs.1400-2300 and also made the revised pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 applicable universally to all the Stenographers, hence, there was no reason as to why the same yard- stick ought not to have been implemented when the instructions dated 31.07.1990 were issued. 7. Responding to the above, learned counsel for the respondent(s)- MANGAL SINGH 2025.05.20 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 6 102 CWP-8293-1996 (O&M) UOI contends that the claim of the petitioners under the instructions dated 31.07.1990 cannot be considered and more-so since validity and legality of the said instructions is not a subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. He submits that in the absence thereof, the respondents have to abide by what is provided in the instructions, hence, the benefit of revised pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 having been restricted to the Assistants and Stenographers in the Central Secretariat Services and the Central Secretariat Stenographers Services cannot be extended to the employees of other autonomous bodies under the Government of India. The petitioners thus cannot claim the benefits under the aforesaid instructions which are not applicable to them. 8. It is further submitted that a wrong portrayal has been made by the petitioners in arguing that their pay scale was at par with the employees of the Central Secretariat Services and the Central Secretariat Stenographers Services. While the pre-revised pay scale of the petitioners, as admitted by the petitioners, was Rs.425-700, the pre-revised pay scale of the employees (that petitioners claim to be similarly placed) in the Central Government service was Rs.425-800. Hence, they were not working in the same pay scale and therefore they cannot claim that all revisions as have been extended to the Central Government employees should also be extended to them, on the ground of parity. 9. It is contended that the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Yogeshwar Prasad and others (supra) would not be applicable to instant case since the said judgment has been passed on a MANGAL SINGH 2025.05.20 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 7 102 CWP-8293-1996 (O&M) foundation that the employees i.e. the petitioners herein and the employees of CSS and CSSS, were getting the same pay scales, hence, no benefit of the above further pay revision and instructions dated 31.07.1990 should be granted to the employees of any other autonomous body or statutory corporations under the Government of India. 10. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties and have gone through the documents appended with the instant petition with their able assistance. 11. The entire case set up by the petitioners is built around the petitioners being in the same pre-revised pay scale of Rs.425-700 with their counterparts in Central Secretariat Services/ Central Secretariat Stenographers Services which was revised to Rs.1400-2300 and re-revised to Rs.1400-2600 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Since the further revision of pay scale was only for Central Secretariat Services/ Central Secretariat Stenographers Services employees from Rs.1400-2600 to Rs.1640-2900 vide instructions dated 31.07.1990. The present writ petition has been filed for the same relief of further revised pay scale since the same was also granted to employees of NIEPA and Sahitya Akademi Delhi by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Yogeshwar Prasad and others (supra). Before examining the issue any further and to ascertain the applicability of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it would be necessary to advert to the pleadings about the similarity of pay scale. Writ Petition Reply Respondent No.4 Respondents No.1 and 2 3. xxxx The Senior PRELIMINARY 2. It is humbly submitted MANGAL SINGH 2025.05.20 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8 102 CWP-8293-1996 (O&M) Stenographers who were working in the subordinate offices with the pay scale of Rs. 425-700 were given the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 on the recommendation of Fourth Pay Commission, which was later on converted from Rs.1400-2300 to Rs.1400- 2600 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 vide orders dated 4.5.1990 and 05.10.1990 and was made applicable to all Subordinate Offices & Autonomous Organisations as well as to the offices non-participating in Central Secretariat Services (CSS). Xxxx 4. That since the Senior Stenographers who are the petitioners were getting prior to 1986 the pay scale of Rs.425-700 were firstly given the pay scale of Rs.1400-2300 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and thereafter their pay scale was also revised and converted from Rs.1400- 2300 to Rs.1400-2600 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 on the basis of the orders annexed herewith as Annexures P-1 and P-2. 6. That the Senior Stenographers who are also OBJECTIONS The petitioners who are presently in the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 were, prior to 1986, in the pre- revised pay scale of Rs.425-700 and not in the pre-revised scale of Rs.425-800 as has been wrongly stated in the petition. They were having no parity with the Stenographers of the Central Secretariat whose pre-revised pay scale was Rs.425-800. Consequent upon revision of pay scales by the Government of India on the basis of recommendations of Fourth Pay Commission, the pre-revised pay scale, of the petitioners, of Rs.425-700 was revised to Rs.1400-2600 whereas the pre-revised pay scale of the Stenographers of the Central Secretariat of Rs.425-800 was revised to Rs.1640-2900. In view of the facts stated above the contention of the petitioners that they were at par with the Stenographers of the that when it came to the notice of the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) that certain autonomous organizations on its own had extended the revised pay scales to the stenographers working in their respective organizations, it issued an order OM No. 6(3) -IC/95 dated 15.4.2004 directing all such defaulting autonomous organizations to withdraw the revised pay scale extended unauthorizedly forthwith. 3. It may kindly be noted that Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure had given directions reiterating that the revised pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 be withdrawn as the stenographers of such institutes/organizations were not entitled for the same and as such organizations were bound to follow the instructions of Government of India, Ministry of Finance in toto. The answering respondent does not have any data of the Institutes extended the benefit and later MANGAL SINGH 2025.05.20 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 9 102 CWP-8293-1996 (O&M) known as Grade II as well as Grade ‘C’ Stenographers in the Central Secretariat Services were also getting the pay scale of Rs.425-800 prior to 1.1.1986. Their pay scale was also revised from Rs.425-800 to Rs.1400-2600 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. Thereafter, the pay scale of the Senior Stenographers working in the Central Secretariat Services was further revised to Rs.1640-2900 w.e.f. 1.1.1986. 7. That in the matter of pay scale the petitioners were at par with the Senior Stenographers of Central Secretariat Services. Vide order dated July 31, 1990, the pay scale of the Senior Stenographers working in the Central Secretariat Services was further revised to Rs.1640-2900 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 whereas the petitioners who were totally at par with them and other autonomous offices from 1.1.1986 to 30.7.1990 were deprived of the enhanced pay scale of Rs.1640-2900. xxxxxxxx Central Secretariat as on 01.01.1986 is absolutely false and misleading. The petition needs to be dismissed due to presentation of wrong facts to this Hon'ble court. xxxxxxx 5. That para 5 of the petition is vehemently denied. The petitioners were never brought at par with the Stenographers in the Central Secretariat Services as has been falsely stated in the said para of the petition. They were always considered at par with the Stenographers of the subordinate offices of the Government of India and as such the Government of India orders dated 04.05.1990 (Annexure P- 1) which were applicable to the Stenographers of the subordinate offices of the Government of India were rightly extended to the petitioners. The petitioner's have themselves admitted in para 7 of the petition that the responding institute is withdrawn it. (iv) That the Ministry of Finance has informed: (a) That in terms of Ministry of Finance OM dt.2.12.1997, permission was granted for extending the pay scales indicated in part 'A' of the First Schedule to CCS(RP) Rules, 1997 in case of autonomous bodies. The pay scales indicated in part 'A' referred to above represent normal replacement scales. ............... Further, since there is no parity between the posts of Assistants/Personal Assistants of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and the posts with similar designations in Central Secretariat Service/ Central Secretariat Stenographers Service having regard to the nature of duties and responsibilities performed by the two categories (which are different), the applicants have no claim for higher pay scales extended to Assistants/ MANGAL SINGH 2025.05.20 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 10 102 CWP-8293-1996 (O&M) one of the subordinate offices. 6. That para 6 of the petition is also denied. The petitioners who were in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.425-700 prior to 01.01.1986 were not at par with the Stenographers of the Central Secretariat because Stenographers of the Central Secretariat were in the pre-revised scale of Rs.425-800 prior to 01.01.1986. From 01.01.1986 the pre- revised scale of the Stenographers of the Central Secretariat i.e. Rs. 425-800 was revised to Rs.1640-2900 as has already been rightly stated by the petitioners in para 6 of the petition, whereas the pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 425-700 was revised to Rs.1400- 2600 as per Government of India orders dated 04.05.1990 (Annexure P- 1). Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that they were at par with the Stenographers of the Central Secretariat prior Personal Assistants of Central Secretariat Service /Central Secretariat Stenographers Service. (b) That the above position has also been accepted by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide their judgments dated 31.5.2002 and 18.12.2003 wherein the Court has specifically rejected the contention of the employees of autonomous organizations i.e. KVS, NVS, NET and NIPEA that Assistant/Stenographers of autonomous bodies are entitled for the scale of Rs. 1640-2900 (4th CPC) w.e.f. 1.1.86. Accordingly, instructions were issued by Ministry of Finance vide OM dt. 15.4.2004 advising all the Ministries to withdraw the benefit of higher pays scales, if allowed, by any of the autonomous bodies including those under the Ministry of Human Resource Development. These instructions are still in force and are required to be followed. Waiver of overpayments in certain MANGAL SINGH 2025.05.20 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11 102 CWP-8293-1996 (O&M) to 01.01.1986 is absolutely false and mischievous as well as a futile effort to mislead this Hon'ble court. xxxxxx 7. That para 7 of the petition is vehemently denied. The petitioners were never at par with the Stenographers of Central Secretariat Services as already stated above. The petitioners are repeatedly misstating with an intention to mislead this Hon'ble court. The petitioners have clearly and rightly admitted themselves in this para of the petition that the Institute is at par with the subordinate offices of the Central Government and as such the Government of India orders applicable to the subordinate offices are extended to the staff of the Institute. The Government of India has never revised the pre- revised pay scale of Rs.425-700 applicable to the Stenographers of the subordinate offices to Rs.1640-2900. The cases on humanitarian grounds for the past period, where payments might have been made inadvertently without the approval of the competent authority, would not justify grant of the higher pay scale in the instant case. All proposals for parity in the pay scales of Assistant/Stenographers of autonomous bodies claiming parity with officers in Central Secretariat Service/ Central Secretariat Stenographers Service are examined in the light of these instructions and no deviations are being permitted by Ministry of Finance. MANGAL SINGH 2025.05.20 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 12 102 CWP-8293-1996 (O&M) Stenographers of this Institute were never at par with the Stenographers of the Central Secretariat and as such the question of revision of their pay scale to Rs.1640-2900 i.e. at par with the Stenographers of the Central Secretariat did never arise. xxxxxx 10. That para 10 of the petition is admitted to the extent that the Government of India had issued instructions to the effect that only the Senior Stenographers working in the Central Secretariat Services are entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 and not the Stenographers of the subordinate offices, which were never at par with Stenographers of the Central Secretariat Services. xxxxxx 14. That para 14 of the petition is admitted to the extent that some of the organisations were requested to supply copies of the orders MANGAL SINGH 2025.05.20 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 13 102 CWP-8293-1996 (O&M) regarding revision of pay scales of Stenographers in those organisations. However, none of the organisation intimated that the pay scale of their Stenographers was revised from the pre- revised scale of Rs.425- 700 to Rs.1640-2900. In this regard Annexures P- 5, P-6, P-7, P-15A, P-16, P-17, P-1B, P-19, P-20 may kindly be perused. A study of these Annexures will reveal that in most of the cases the pre-revised pay scale was Rs.425-800 whereas pre-revised pay scale of the petitioners was Rs.425-700. 12. It is evident from above that the respondents specifically pleaded and established that while un-revised pay scale of petitioners was Rs.425-700, the unrevised pay scale of CSS & CSSS was Rs.425-800. Hence, the initial pay scale was never at par. 13. The Union of India also directed all defaulting autonomous bodies under it to withdraw the wrongly extended further pay scale vide its order dated 15.04.2004 which reads thus:- “Subject: Revision of scale of pay of Assistant Grade of Central Secretariat Service and Grade 'C' Stenographers of Central Secretariat Stenographers Service. MANGAL SINGH 2025.05.20 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 14 102 CWP-8293-1996 (O&M) "The undersigned is directed to refer to DOPT's OM No. 6/6/90-CS- 1 dated 3.1.91 and Ministry of Finance OM No. 744/IC/90 dated 11th December, 1990 on the subject mentioned above and to state that DOPT'S OM dated 31.7.90 was meant exclusively for Assistants/Stenographers of the CSS/CSSS and this was not to be extended to autonomous organizations etc. However, it has come to the notice of the Govt. that some autonomous organizations had adopted the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 to their Assistants/Stenographers inadvertently. In some cases, the scale has been extended to autonomous organizations on the basis of order of the CAT. It may be stated in this connection that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide their judgment dated 31.5.2002 and 18.12.2003 have specifically rejected the contention of the employees of autonomous organizations i.e. KVS/NVS, NBT and NIEPA etc. that Assistants/Stenographers of autonomous bodies are entitled for the scale of Rs. 1640-2900 (pre-revised) w.e.f. 1.1.86. Accordingly, the benefit of higher pay scale is being withdrawn from all the autonomous bodies under the control of Ministry of HRD. The same benefit may also be withdrawn from the employees of other autonomous bodies of Govt. of India as well. All the Financial Advisors are requested to take urgent corrective measures to withdraw the scale of Rs. 1640-2900 (pre-revised) from Assistants/Stenographers of autonomous organizations. The amount of Pay & Allowances already paid to the employees on this account may also be recovered." MANGAL SINGH 2025.05.20 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 15 102 CWP-8293-1996 (O&M) 14. The averments contained in the additional written statement and additional affidavit of Union of India are of vital significance since petitioners laid much emphasis on the same further revised pay scale being granted to employees of other autonomous bodies. The specific stand of Union of India is that it has not been extended to SCOSB of Union of India and if released wrongly, stands withdrawn. The petitioners chose not to file any counter affidavit or rejoinder to dispute the same. Thus, the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 has not been proved to be extended to other similarly placed employees, other than those covered by the judgment of Yogeshwar Prasad and others (supra). Since the pay scales were undisputedly different and the further revision vide order dated 31.07.1990 was not extended to employees of SCOSB of Union of India and having been withdrawn, if given shows that there is a parity in the pay scales of employees of SCOSB of Union of India who were working in the pay scale of Rs.425-700. Thus, there has been a uniformity maintained. 15. Further, there is neither any pleading nor any argument raised by the petitioners as to whether the role, responsibilities, duties or qualification of employees of CSS and CSSS are similar to those of employees of SCOSB of Union of India. In an absence thereof, the specific stand of the respondents to the contrary remains undisputed and thus has to be accepted. 16. The same now leads to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Yogeshwar Prasad and others (supra). In the said MANGAL SINGH 2025.05.20 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 16 102 CWP-8293-1996 (O&M) judgment parity of the pay scale has been the foundation and the same is specifically recorded in paragraph No.2 that the appellants were getting the pay scale of Rs.425-800 upto 1986 and that the Assistant in the Central Government were also getting the same pay scale. The said fact is re- iterated even in the discussion and analysis as recorded in paragraphs Nos.14 and 15 of the above judgment as is already extracted in paragraph No.4 above. 17. Hence, the foundation of the judgment in the matter of Yogeshwar Prasad and others (supra) was on noticing that the petitioners therein as well as the employees of the Central Government were working on the same pay scale. The undisputed position which has emerged from the specific stand of the parties viz. the petitioners themselves in paragraph No.3 of the writ petition is that they were drawing the pay scale of Rs.425-700 and not Rs. 425-800. The respondents have also clarified the said aspect in the written statement filed by them. 18. It is held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi, reported as (1996) 6 SCC 44 that only the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment is a binding precedent and not the facts. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereinafter:- “9. ……… It is not everything said by a Judge while giving judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a Judge's decision binding a party is the principle upon which the case is decided and for this reason it is important to MANGAL SINGH 2025.05.20 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 17 102 CWP-8293-1996 (O&M) analyse a decision and isolate from it the ratio decidendi. According to the well-settled theory of precedents, every decision contains three basic postulates-(i) findings of material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential finding of facts is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct, or perceptible facts; (ii) statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and (iii) judgment based on the combined effect of the above. A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in the judgment. Every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there is not intended to be exposition of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. It would, therefore, be not profitable to extract a sentence here and there from the judgment and to build upon it because the essence of the decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein. The enunciation of the reason or principle on which a question before a court has been decided is alone binding as a precedent. The concrete decision alone is binding between MANGAL SINGH 2025.05.20 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 18 102 CWP-8293-1996 (O&M) the parties to it, but it is the abstract ratio decidendi, ascertained on a consideration of the judgment in relation to the subject-matter of the decision, which alone has the force of law and which, when it is clear what it was, is binding. It is only the principle laid down in the judgment that is binding law under Article 141 of the Constitution. A deliberate judicial decision arrived at after hearing an argument on a question which arises in the case or is put in issue may constitute a precedent, no matter for what reason, and the precedent by long recognition may mature into rule of stare decisis. It is the rule deductible from the application of law to the facts and circumstances of the case which constitutes its ratio decidendi. 10. Therefore, in order to understand and appreciate the binding force of a decision it is always necessary to see what were the facts in the case in which the decision was given and what was the point which had to be decided. No judgment can be read as if it is a statute. A word or a clause or a sentence in the judgment cannot be regarded as a full exposition of law. Law cannot afford to be static and therefore, Judges are to employ an intelligent technique in the use of precedents……….”. 19. Further, it has also been held in the matter of State of Orissa MANGAL SINGH 2025.05.20 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 19 102 CWP-8293-1996 (O&M) Vs. Sudhanshu Shekhar Misra, reported as AIR 1968 SC 647 that Courts can also distinguish a precedent if it was rendered on a misunderstanding of facts. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced hereinafter below:- “12. ..........A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. ......” 20. Thus while a binding precedent cannot be ignored as per the mandate of Article 141 of the Constitution of India, however, Courts can examine whether the judgment relied upon is actually a precedent or not. As per the definition of ‘precedent’ in ‘Black’s Law Dictionary’ Eighth edition, is a decided case that furnishes a basis for determining later cases involving similar issues. Hence, unless the judgment lays down a law or decides similar issue on facts, it may not be apt to hold the same as a precedent. 21. In the aforesaid legal position, the disparity and dis-similarity in the facts of the present case vis-a-vis Yogeshwar Prasad and others (supra) are elaborated as under:- i) The legality or validity of the letter dated 31.07.1990 whereby the further revision of pay to CSS and CSSS employees was extended excluding employees of SCOSB of Union of India was not under consideration of MANGAL SINGH 2025.05.20 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 20 102 CWP-8293-1996 (O&M) the Hon’ble Supreme Court. ii) The Hon’ble Supreme Court nowhere diluted or set aside the limited application of the further revision of the pay scale or declared that it was applicable to all employees and instead confined the benefits only to the applicants in the said appeals. Hence there was no universal declaration of any law or laying down of any precedent. It is thus a binding judgment to the parties in lis. iii) The Hon’ble Supreme Court never examined the scope of the letter dated 15.04.2004 specifically clarifying that the further revision vide O.M. dated 31.07.1990 was exclusive to CSS and CSSS and if any SCOSB has extended the benefit to its employees, the same be withdrawn. iv) The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeals after noticing that the appellants were in the pay scale of Rs.425-800 (which was the pre-revised pay scale of employees of CSS and CSSS as well) whereas the pre- revised pay scale of the petitioners herein was undisputedly Rs.425-700. Thus, both set of employees were working in different pay scales even before the pay revision. v) There is no pleading or argument or a finding recorded about similarity of duties and responsibilities or declaring MANGAL SINGH 2025.05.20 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 21 102 CWP-8293-1996 (O&M) that the employees constitute one single class entitled to same pay scale. Hence, the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Yogeshwar Prasad and others (supra) would not be of any help to the petitioner. 22. Even though the petitioners contend that the anomaly in the pay scale was redressed while revising the same to Rs.1400-2300 and thereafter to Rs.1400-2600, however, the said argument may not be entirely appropriate. It is evident from a perusal of office memorandum/revision dated 31.07.1990 that the said O.M. had been issued pursuant to the judgment dated 23.05.1989 in O.A. No1538/1987 wherein the question pertained to the revision of the pay scale of the Assistant Grade of the Central Secretariat Services and Grade ‘C’ Stenographers of Central Secretariat Stenographers Services from 01.01.1986. It thus seems that the Assistants/Stenographers Grade ‘C’ of the Central Secretariat Services and the Central Secretariat Stenographers Services had filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal specifically claiming revision of their pay scale. The portrayal by the petitioners that a pay anomaly has been created against thus seems an incorrect and improper portrayal, rather, it seems to be a rectification of some anomaly that may have occurred in fixation of pay. 23. The same shows that the respondent(s)-UOI had actually not intended the similarity of pay revision to be granted to the petitioners at par with the employees of the Central Secretariat Services and the Central Secretariat Stenographers Services. MANGAL SINGH 2025.05.20 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 22 102 CWP-8293-1996 (O&M) 24. It is also evident that there is no challenge to the order dated 31.07.1990 whereby the revision was carried out and the petitioners have made no effort to point out the applicability of the judgment dated 23.05.1989 passed in the O.A. No.1538/1987 by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi to their case(s) as well. The said revision to Rs.1640-2900 being in furtherance of directions issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioners cannot claim the same benefit to be extended to them unless the petitioners establish their parity with the applicant(s) in aforesaid O.A. Having failed to bring any evidence on record to the said effect, it would not be safe to apply the judgment in the matter of Yogeshwar Prasad and others (supra) as a precedent in the facts of the present case. The burden to prove parity with such employees lay entirely on the petitioners which they have failed to discharge, hence, finding no merit, the instant writ petition is dismissed. (VINOD S. BHARDWAJ) 05.05.2025 JUDGE Mangal Singh Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No MANGAL SINGH 2025.05.20 09:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document