Holding

The different fitment formulas for pre‑ and post‑1 January 1987 Junior Foremen are valid because the two groups were not similarly situated, so there is no violation of Article 14.

Summary

The case concerned the revision of pay scales and fringe benefits for officers and workmen of Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. (FCI). Workmen who were promoted to the lowest officer scale before 1 January 1987 were already officers, whereas those promoted after that date were still workmen at the time of the 1987 pay revision. The corporation issued an office memorandum on 18 April 1991 prescribing different fitment formulas for the two categories of Junior Foremen. The workmen challenged the formula, alleging discrimination in violation of Article 14. The High Court held there was discrimination and struck down the formula. On appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the two groups were in different classes as of 1 January 1987, allowing the corporation to apply different principles for pay fixation, and therefore found no violation of Article 14. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court judgment.

Issues considered

Whether the fitment formula for post‑1 January 1987 Junior Foremen violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the corporation can apply different pay‑fixation principles to pre‑ and post‑1 January 1987 Junior Foremen.

Legislation cited

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 18, s. 181

Subjects

pay revisionArticle 14industrial disputesfitment allowanceofficer vs workmen classificationdiscrimination

Judgment

A FERTILIZER CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. AND ANR.
v.
SARATCHANDRA RATH AND ORS. t
'(
AUGUST 23, 1996

B [J.S. VERMA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.]

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 : S.181-0ffice memorandum dated
18.4.91 for revision of pay scales and fiinge benefits for officers in FCI-Para
5.1 a11d 5.3-Woikers and officers belo11g to two differe11t a11d distinct clas-
c ses-Therefore different p1inciples can be followed i11 fu:ing the salalies in case
of workme11 a11d revising salmies i11 case of officers--U11equals ca1111ot be
treated as equals.

Respondents 1 to 23 were employed as workmen by the appellant
corporation. On 20th .January 1982 a seven years stagnation scheme was
D introduced by virtue of which the employees in highest workmen's pay scale
were promoted to lowest officer's scale and they were designated as Assis-
.taut foreman, Junior officer and they were treated as officers and received
all the facilities admissible to officers.

E On 30th Oct., 1983 a draft of settlement was finalised between the
management and the workmen and on that basis, a settlement u/s. 18 of
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was entered into for revision of various
pay scales w.e.f. 1st January 1983 to 31 December, 1986. The highest scale
of workmen was 915-1520 and the next wage agreement was to be effective
from 1st January, 1987.
F
As per this settlement workmen in the highest scale were only to be
placed (not promoted) from existing scale of Rs. 915-1520 to the lowest
officer's scale of Rs. 960-1610 and were given the designation of Junior
Foreman. Though they were entitled to D.A admissible to officers, all other
allowances, benefits, union membership etc. remained unaltered.
G (
Thus, the two categories of employees as on 31 Dec. 1986 were:

(1) Employees who had already undergone placement from highest
workers scale of Rs. 915-1520 to the lowest officers scale of Rs. 960-1610
H as they had fultilled the conditions under seven years stagnation scheme
90
F.C.l. LID. v. SARATCHANDRARATH 91

on or before 31st December 1986. A
(2) Employees in workmen category in the pay scale of Rs. 915 • 1520
who had not fullilled the eligibility conditions under the stagnation
scheme.

Respondents 1 to 23 fulfilled the eligibility conditions under the B
seven years stagnation scheme on 1st September, 1987 and they were
placed in the officers pay scale of Rs. 960 • 1610 w.e.f. 1st September 1987
by virtue of officer memorandum dated 7th Nov. 1987.

Appellants and respondents entered into a settlement on 1st July
1987 which was approved by Govt. of India on 23rd March, 1990. By this C
settlement the pay of workmen who were placed in officers category after
1.1.87 was revised from Rs. 915 · 1520 to Rs. 1580-2842 from 1.1.87 to
31.12.91. However they were to draw the same pay as they had been drawing
after they were placed in officers pay scale that is Rs. 960-1610. The
workmen who were in officers grade before 1.1.87 were to continue in their D
current officers scale.

On 18.4.91 the central officer of FCI issued memorandum revising
pay scales and fringe benefits for officers in F.C.I. and officers scale of Rs.
960 • 1610 was revised to 2200 ·3600 exclusive of fitment amount of Rs. 400.
The new scales were effective from 1.1.87 for a period of 5 years. E

The officers as on 1.1.87 (including Junior Foreman (W) (S) were to
be fitted into the corresponding revised pay scales as per formula given in
para 5.1. which included a fitment amount also.

Certain Ad-hoc advances were drawn by junior Foreman from time F
to time. These were required to be adjusted against future benefits on
revision of pay scales, etc. However after the pay scales of the respondents
were fitted into the revised pay scales of officers they started drawing lower
emoluments prior to officers pay scale revisi9n.
G
On 31 October, 1991 a differential amount was made payable as
personal pay to be adjusted against future increments etc.

The demand of the respondents that personal pay should not be
adjusted and recovered against the future increments due but may be
adjusted only from the benefit which may become due on promotion or H
92 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A revision of pay scales was not acceded to by the appellant. Therefore the
respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court. However, no
prayer for quashing the fitment formula as contained in para 5.3 of Office
Memorandum dated 18 April 1991 for post 1.1.1987 Junior Foreman was
made . Similarly no prayer was made that fitment amount being given to
pre 1.1.1987 Junior Foremen should also be given to post 1.1.1987 Junior
B Foreman.

The High Court while allowing the writ petition held that there was
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution in the method of fixing of pay
scales of pre 1.1.1987 rJunior Foreman (W) and post 1.1.1987 Junior
C Foreman.

Allowing the App1!al preferred by the Appellant corporation, this I
Couirt ~

HELD : 1. Question of discrimination or violation of Article 14 of
D the constitution does not arise in the present case. Respondents as on 1st
January, 1987 did not acquire the officers grade. However, workers who
were in highest grade had by 1st January, 1987 already acquired the
officers grade. They were different classes of employees keeping in view
their designation as well as pay scale as on 1st January, 1987. [100-C; F-G]
E
2. Two categories of Junior Foremen were dealt with by two different
sets of rules because as on 1st January, 1987 they were not similarly
situated. [101-D]

3. If judgment of High Court is given effect to then the respondents
F would get more emoluments than their seniors who were placed in the
orlicers scale prior to 1st January, 1987 and will result in the treatment of
unequals as equals, which was clearly not contemplated. [102-A-B]

4. It is open to the employer to change the conditions of service
G unilaterally. In the present case the rules regarding fixation of pay of the
officers and of the workers were different, with effect from 1st January,
1987 and therefore, fresh fixation had to take place. Workers and officers
belong to two different and distinction classes. The respondents who weri;
not officers as on 1st January, 1987 could not claim parity with the persons
who were in the category of officers as on that date. This being so the
H appellants could fix the pay scale of a worker on his appointment after 1st
F.C.l. LID. v. SARATCHANDRARATH 93

January, 1987 in .the officer class on a principle different from the one A
which was adopted in revising the pay of an officer who was in position as
on 1st January, 1987. Whereas with regard to the respondents it would be
--< a case of initial fixation of their salaries on their placement in the officers'
grade, in the case of pre 1st January, 1987 Junior Foreman it would be a
matter of revision of their salaries in the same grade. It was open to the
B
appellants to follow different principles in these two cases. [102-B; D-F]

State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Ratan Behan Dey and Ors., [1993) 4
sec 63, relied on.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4807 of
1996.
c
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.4.95 of the Orissa High
Court in O.J.R. No. 1742/93.

V.R. Reddy, Addi. Solicitor General, Sunil Gupta, Ms. A.K. Verma D
and P.D. Tyagi for J.B. Dadachanji & Co. for the Appellants.

Tapas Ray, B.C. Baruha and A. Bhattacharjee for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
KIRPAL, J. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of
the Orissa High Court which had allowed the writ petition filed by 23
workmen of the appellants, respondents 1 to 23, and while striking down
a paragraph of a circular according to which their pay was fixed, a direction
was issued for re-fixation of the pay in a manner indicated by the High
Court. F
The respondents 1 to 23, prior to 1st January 1987, were empl9yed
as workmen by the appellants. On 20th January 1982 a seven years stagna-
tion scheme was introduced by the appellants whereunder its employees in
the highest workmen's pay scale, who had been stagnating for seven years,
were promoted to the lowest officer's scale. These employees, who were G
•
workmen and were called senior operators, senior technicians etc. were,
on their placement in the lowest officer's scale, designated as Assistant
-CJ Foremen (AFM 'D'), Junior Officers (JO 'D') etc. On such placement in
the officer's grade these erstwhile workmen were treated as officers and
they received all the facilities admissible as officers. H
94 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A On 30th October, 1983 a draft of settlement under Section 18 of the
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( for short 'the Act') for the pay revision was
finalised between the management and the workmen. Based on this on 25th
February, 1984 a further settlement under Section 18 of the Act was
entered into between the management of the FCI Talchar unit, the appel-
lants herein and its workmen. This settlement was, inter alia, for revision
B of various pay scales. The revised pay scale so fixed were to be effective
from 1st January, 1983 to 31 December, 1986 the highest scale of workmen
being Rs. 915-1520. The agreement further contemplated that the next
wage agreement was to be: effective from 1st January, 1987. It also sought
to touch upon some of the anomalies which were prevailing with respect
c to the implementation of seven years stagnation scheme. The relevant
salient features of this agreement/settlement were that with effect from 11th
August, 1986 the workmen is the higher scale on fulfilling eligibility condi-
tions under the stagnation scheme were only to be placed (not promoted)
from their existing scale of Rs. 915-1520 to the lowest officer's scale of
D 960-1610 and on such placement they were to be given the designation of
Junior Foreman (W). On such placement the said persons were entitled to
D .A. as admissible to officers but all other allowances, benefits, union
membership etc., which they had as workmen, were to remain unaltered.

As a result of the aforesaid settlement dated 11th August, 1986 there
E were, as on 31st December 1986, employees who had already undergone
placement from the highest workers scale of Rs. 915-1520 to the lowest
officer's scale of Rs. 960-1610 on account of the fact that they had fulfilled
the eligibility conditions under the seven years stagnation scheme on some
dates before 31st December, 1986. However, workmen like the respondents
.F who had not fulfilled the aforesaid eligibility conditions under the stagna-
tion scheme as on 31st December 1986 continued to remain in the
workmen's category, as on that day, in the pay scale of Rs. 915-1520.

The earlier agreement whereby pay scales were fixed from 1st
January 1983 to 31st December, 1986 having come to an end, the Govern-
G ment of India, by an mder dated 4th February, 1987, decided that negotia-
tions should take place between the management and the companies so as
to bring into existence the new wage settlement to be made effective from
1st January, 1987. Pending fresh fixation of pay scales the workmen and
the officers with effect. from 1st January, 1987 continued to get their salaries
H in the existing pay scales, i.e., the respondents 1 to 23 in the pay scales of
F.C.l.LTD. v. SARATCHANDRARA1H(KIRPAL,J.] 95

Rs. 915-1520 and the persons placed in ,the lowest pay scale of the officers A
category in the pay scale of Rs. 960-1610.

,,_; : The said respondents 1 to. 23 fulfilled the eligibility conditions under
) the seven years stagnation scheme on 1st September, 1987. By office
memorandum dated 7th November, 1987 these respondents were placed in
the officers pay scale of Rs. 960-1610 with effect from 1st September, 1987. B

A draft agreement dated 1st July, 1987 for the purpose of revising
the workmen's pay scales from 1st January, 1987 was finalised between the
management and the workmen at their inter company's level. The Govern-
ment of India approved the aforesaid agreement and on 23rd March, 1990 C
a settlement under Section 18 of the Act was entered into between the
appellants and the respondents. The salient features of the said settlement
are as follows.

"(i) The settlement i.e. the new pay scales for workmen were
effective from 1.1.1987 to 31.12.1991. D

(ii) In the case of workmen placed in the officer's category of JFM
(W) on any date after 1.1.1987, fixation was to be done in the
revised workman's pay scale from 1.1.1987 upto the date they
remained in the workman's category in the pre-revised scale of E
915-1520 and the arrears were to be paid to them till date in
accordance with the revised scale of 1580-2842. (However, such
employees were to continue to draw for future i.e. from the date
on which they were placed in the officers' pay scale the same pay
as they had been drawing after that date in that scale, namely,
'
960-1610). F

(iii) The workmen who were already enjoying the officers' grade
under stagnation scheme before 1.1.1987 were to continue in their
current officers' scale i.e. 960-1610; however, when the revised pay
scales for officers would become available, the appropriate scale I
G
was to be made applicable to them."

Respondents 1 to 23 got the benefit of this agreement while those
employees who were in the officers' grade prior to 1st January, 1987 had
to wait till their scales were revised and, till then, continued on the
pre-revised scales of pay. H
96 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R ..

A With regard to the officers' category, the Government of India issued
a communication on 25th March, 1991 approving the revision of their pay
scales.

That on 18.4.1991, based on the aforesaid communication/approval
of the Government of India the Central office of FCI issued an office
B memorandum for revision of pay scale and fringe benefits for officers in
FCI. The consequences of the said Office Memorandum are summarised
below:

"(i) the revised scales of pay were to remain in operation with effect
from 1.1.1987 for a period of 5 years.
c
(ii) the officers' scale of 960-1610 was revised to 2200-3600 in-
clusive of fitment amount of Rs. 400, the new scale being effective
from 1.1.1987.

(iii) the officers (including JFM (W)s) who were on the rolls of
D the company on 1.1.1987 were to be fitted into the corresponding
revised pay scale as per the formula given in para 5.1 which
included a fitment amount also."

This 5.1. of the said circular is as follows :
E "The Executives who were on the rolls of the company on 1st
January, 1987 will be fitted into the corresponding revised scales
of pay as per the following fitment method : •

Basic pay in the existing scale of pay as on 1.1.1987.
F Plus

First ad hoc relief related to actual basic as on 1.1.1987.

Plus

G Industrial DA Rs. 838.35 to AICPI 685 as on 1.1.1987.

Plus

Fitment amount as applicable.

H On the aggregate arrived at, pay will be fixed in the revised scale
F.C.I. LTD. v. SARATCHANDRARATH [KIRPAL,J.) 97

of pay, where the total does not fit in a stage of the revised scale A
of pay, the pay will be fixed at the next higher stage.

While fixing pay as per the above method, annual increment/ad-
vance increment falling on 1.1.1987 in the old scale, if any, should
be excluded. Hence the first ad hoc relief should be related to the
Basic Pay in the existing scales as on 31.12.86. In other words, the
B
annual increment falling on 1.1.1987 will be given in the revised
pay scale.

(iv) for the officers (including JFM (W)s who had undergone
placement only on a dale after 1.1.1987, a different fitment formula C
was stipulated in para 5.3 and the same did not include any fitment
amount."

The said para 5.3. of the same circular is as follows :

"METHOD OF FIXATION OF PAY OF SUCH OF THE D
EMPLOYEES WHO HA VE BEEN PROMOTED FROM THE
HIGHEST CATEGORY OF WORKMEN TO THE JUNIOR
MOST CATEGORY OF OFFICERS ON OR AFTER 1.1.1987.

The pay of such category of employees will be fixed in the E
revised pay scale of Rs. 2200-100-3600 as per procedure
elaborated below :

5.3.1 Take basic pay of workmen category in the revised pay scale
of Rs. 1580-2842 on the date of promotion.
F
5.3.2 Find out the quantum of DA i.e. fixed DA + VDA as
admissible to workmen category on the date of promotion.

5.3.3 Allow one notional increment in the revised scale of Rs.
1580-2842 attached to the workmen category. G

5.3.4 Add (i), (ii) & (iii) from the aggregate amount thus arrived,
deduct revised DA applicable to Officers' category as on date of
promotion (Annexure~II).

5.3.5 On The aggregate now arrived at, pay will be fixed in the H
98 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A revised pay scale of Rs. 2200-100-3600 attached to the post of Asstt.
Foreman/Jr. Offic.:er and equivalent. Where the total does not fit
in a particular stage, the pay will be fixed at the next higher stage
in the revised scale of Rs. 2000-100- 3600."

B That from time to time certain ad hoc advances were being drawn
by the Junior Foremen (W) under different ad hoc arrangements between
the parties. These advances were required to be adjusted against future
benefits on revision of pay scale etc. However, when the pay scales of the
said respondents were fitted into the revised pay scale of officers under the
office Memorandum dated 18th April, 1991, such employees started draw-
C ing lower emoluments, prior to the revision of the officer's pay scale. On
31 st October, 1991, as a special gestures for them the differential amount
was made payable as personal pay to be adjusted against future increments,
promotional benefits or benefits on revision of pay scales, whichever came
earlier. When, however, the personal pay started being adjusted and
D recovered against the next increments due to such employees, they
demanded that adjustments be made only from the benefifts which may
become due on promotion or revision of pay scales and not against
increments.

The appellants did not accede to the aforesaid demand relating to
E
the adjustments. Consequently the said respondents filed a writ petition
being OJC No. 1742 of 1993 in the Orissa High Court seeking a relief that
the personal pay should be adjusted only against the benefits available on
promotion or revision of pay scales and not against the next increment due
to them. In the writ petition there was no prayer for quashing the fitment
F formula for post 1.1.1987 Junior Foremen (W) as was contained in para
5.3 of the office Memorandum dated 18th April, 1991, nor was there any
demand that fitment amount of Rs. 400 given to pre 1.1.1987 Junior
Foremen (W) should also be awarded to post 1.1.1987 Junior Foremen
(W).
G
In the counter-affidavit the case of the appellants was that pre
1.1.1987 and post 1.1.1987 Junior Foremen (W) were two different classes
of employ(~es and there was no discrimination between them in the matter
of fitment or revision of pay scales having regard to the date of 1st January,
H 1987. It was also categorically stated that post 1.1.1987 Junior Foremen (W)
F.C.I.LTD. v. SARATCHANDRARATH (KIRPAL,J.) 99

like the respondents had been given the benefit of revised workmen's pay A
scales of Rs. 1580-2842 for the period 1st January, 1987 to the date of their
placement, which was 31.st August, 1987 in the case of the respondents.

The High Court, while allowing the writ petition, observed that there
were two questions which essentially arose for its consideration. The first B
was whether the fitment amount indicated in the circular dealing with the
revision of pay scales and fringe benefits of officers of the appellants was
a part of the· pay scale. The second question was whether the impugned
circular as well as the method of fixation of pay Junior Foremen, who were
placed in the officers' grade prior to 1st January, 1987 and those placed in
that officers' grade after 1st January, 1987, was hit by the principle of C
discrimination. The High Court did not address itself or decide the ques-
tion with regard to the manner in which the adjustment of the personal pay
was to be made. Presumably this contention was not urged at the time of
arguments.
D
While considering the aforesaid two questions the High Court ob-
served that the counsel for the appellants herein had conceded that the
respondents/writ petitioners had not been paid their arrears on the revision
of workmen's pay scales from Rs. 915 - 1520 to Rs. 1580 - 2842 for the
period 1st January, 1987 to 31st August, 1987. Having recorded this con-
cession the High Court considered that "on the aforesaid conceded posi- E
tion, we would now examine the two questions posed by us and answer the
same."

In the special leave petition filed by the appellants it was specifically
stated that not such concession was made by the counsel for the appellants F
before the High Court. In support thereof affidavit of Sh. B.S. Tripathi,
Advocate who appeared for the appellanl~ before the High Court was filed
in which it was, inter alia, stated that he had not made any concession as
recorded by the High Court. During the hearing of this appeal Sh. Tapas
Ray, learned senior counsel for the respondents, very fairly stated that the G
(
said observation of the High Court was probably not correct and in fact
the respondents were paid their arrears on the revision of their pay scale
from Rs. 915 - 1520 to Rs. 1580 - 2842 with effect from 1st January, 1987
to 31August,1987. Thereafter with effect from 1st September 1987, though
they were initially placed in the lowest of the then prevailing officer's grade
of Rs. 960 - 1610, but on retrospective revision of this scale they were H
100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A placed in the revised scale of Rs. 2200 - 3600.

The High Court having thus proceeded on a wrong assumption of an
essential fact has, possibly for this reason, incorrectly answered the
aforesaid two questions posed by it. The High Court was wrong in coming
to the conclusion that there has been violation of Article 14 of the Con-
B stitution and that in the method of fixing the pay of these employees who
have been promoted from the highest category of workers to the junior
most category of officers on or after 1st January, 1987 must be held to have
been grossly discriminated.

C Form the facts enumerated hereinabove it is quite evident that the
question of discrimination or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
does not really arise in the present case. What has happened is that by
reason of two orders dated 23rd March, 1990 and 18th April, 1991 the pay
scales of the workmen and officers of the appellant company were revised.
D The earlier settlement of fixation of pay between the management and the
employees was for the period from 1st January, 1983 to 31st December,
1986. Therefore, with effect from 1st January, 1987 a new pay structure had
to be fixed. As normally happens on 1st January, 1987, or prior thereto, no
order revising the pay scales was actually issued. On 23rd March, 1990 the
pay scales of the workers were first revised and this was followed by order
E dated 18th April, 1991 whereby the pay scales of the officers were revised.
Both these orders revised the pay scales with effect from the same date,
i.e., 1st January, 1987. What is, therefore, to be seen is as to what was the
position of respondents 1 to 23 as on that date, i.e. 1st January 1987.

F From the facts stated hereinabove it cannot be disputed that respon-
dents 1 to 23 as on 1st January, 1987 had not acquired the officers' grade
and were working as Assistant Foremen.' On the other hand those of the
workers who were in the highest grade and had been placed in the lowest
scale of the officers' grade had by 1st January, 1987 already acquired the
officers' grade. These two categories of employees, keeping in view their
G designation as well as the pay scales which they actually were drawing as
on 1st January, 1987, were clearly in different classes. Employees like
respondents 1 to 23, for the period 1st January, 1987 to the date on which
they wc:re placed in the officers' pay scale on 1st September, 1987, were
given the benefit of the revised pay scale of Rs. 1580 - 2842 (instead of the
H old scale of Rs. 915-1520) and were also paid arrears for the said period
EC.I.LTD. v. SARATCHANDRARATH [KIRPAL,J.] 101

on the revised basis. For the period subsequent to the date of their A
placement in the officers' scale the said respondents actually continued in
the officers' unrevised pay scale of Rs. 960-1610 till they were given the
benefit of the revised pay scale of Rs. 2200-3600 with effect from 1st
September, 1987 as a result of the aforesaid order dated 18th April, 1991.
On the other hand pre 1st January, 1987 Junior Formen (W) who were
B
already in the officers' scale of Rs. 960-1610 as on 31st December, 1986
continued to remain the the same scale as on 1st January, 1987. They were
not given the advantage and were only placed in the revised workmen's pay
scale of Rs. 1580-2842 which was made available to writ petitioners for the
period 1st January, 1987 to 31st August 1987. However, when the revised
pay scale of Rs. 2200-3600 for the officers was made available vide order c
dated 18th April, 1991, the same became applicable to them. It was in order
to off set this disadvantage that by para 5.1 of the impugned circular a
fitment allowance of Rs. 400 was allowed to such pre 1st January, 1987
Junior Foremen (W).
D
From the aforesaid it is clear that the two categories of Junior
foremen (W) dealt with by two different sets of rules because as on 1st
January, 1987 they were not similarly situate. Whereas the respondents
. herein were Assistant Foremen, those who were placed in the officers'
grade prior to 1st January, 1987 were regarded as officers. There could
thus be no comparison between these two categories of persons. These two E
categories were unequal and respondents could not, in law, make any
grievance if different principles were adopted in the fixation of their
respective pay scales.

The effect of the High Court judgment is that the fixation of pay of F
post 1st January, 1987 Junior Foremen (W) like the respondents in the
revised officers' pay scales has been. done on the basis of their revised grade
of Rs. 1580-2842. On the other hand the fixation of pay of pre 1st January,
1987 Junior Foremen (W) has been done on the basis of their unrevised
officers' grade of Rs. 960-1610 after giving them a fitment of Rs. 400. The
direction to grant the additional fitment benefit of Rs. 400 to the post 1st G
January, 1987 Junior Foremen (w), whose pay has been revised on the basis
of the grade of Rs. 1580-2842, would result in an undue and unjust double
advantage being given to the respondents herein. There would, in effect,
be a reverse discrimination inasmuch as if the judgment of the High Court
is given effect to then the respondents would get more emoluments than H
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A their seniors who were placed in the officers scale prior to 1st January,
1987. It has been rightly contended on behalf of the appellants that the
High Court's judgment will result in the treatment of unequals as equals,
which was clearly not contemplated.

Apart from the fact that these two classes of employees are different
B and are governed by different rules, it is open to the State or the appellants
to change the conditions of service unilaterly. As observed in the State of
West Bengal and Ors. v. Rata11 Behali Dey and Ors., [1993) 4 SCC 63 at
page 65 "the employer has the undoubted power to revise the salaries
and/or the pay scales as also terminal benefits/pensionary benefits. The
C power to specify a date from which the revision of pay scales or terminal
benefits/pensionary benefits, as the case may be, shall take effect is a
concomitant of the said power. So long as such date is specified in a
reasonable manner, i.e., without brining about a discrimination between
similarly situated persons no interfen;nce is called for by the court in that
D behalf." In the present case the ruled regarding fixation of pay of the
officers and of the workers were different. With effect from 1st January,
1987, therefore, fresh fixation had to take place. Workers and officers
belong to two different and distinct classes. The respondents who were not
officers as on 1st January, 1987 could not claim parity with the persons who
were in the category of officers as on that date. This being so the appellants
E could fix the pay scale of a worker on his appointment after 1st January,
1987 in the officer class on a principle different than the one which was
adopted in revising the pay of an officer who was in position as on 1st
January, 1987. Whereas with regard to the respondents it would be a case
of initial fixation of their salaries on their placement in the officers' grade,
in the case of pre 1st January, 1987 Junior Foremen it would be a matter
F
of revision of their salaries in the same grade. It was open to the appellants
to follow different principles in these two cases.

There is also considerable force in the contention of Sh V.R. Reddy,
learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants, that the
G High Court ought not to have granted reliefs to the respondents which they
had not even prayed for inasmuch as relief prayed for in the writ petition
was only with regard to the adjustment of the personal pay against the
incremental benefits. But as the case had been argued at length on the
points decided by the High Court, we need not advert further on this
H aspect.
F.C.I. LID. v. SARATCHANDRARAIB [KIRPAL,J.] 103

From the aforesaid discussion it follows that para 5.3 of the office A
Memorandum dated 18th April, 1991, which contained the principle on the
basis of which the pay of the respondents was fixed in the lowest scale of
the officers' grade, is not invalid and the High Court fell in error in striking
it down. This appeal is accordingly allowed, the judgment of the High
Court is set aside the effect of which would be that the writ petition filed B
by respondents 1 to 23 is dismissed. The parties will bear their own costs.

S.S. Appellant Corporation's Appeal allowed.

c

;!