RAMESH SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.

•
                        [2008] 4 S.C.R. 767


                         RAMESH SINGH                            A
                                II.
                     UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                (Writ Petition (C) No. 648 of 2002)
                        MARCH 11, 2008
                                                                 8
          (DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND
                      AFTAB ALAM, JJ.)
           .
         Service Law:
         Writ petition - Employees of Border Road Organisaiton c
    and Central Government claiming parity in service benefits
    with employees of Army/General Reserve Engineering Force
    - Held: 4th and 5th Central Pay Commissions considered the
    issues in question and did not make any recommendation
    thereof - Jn view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Sukhdev D
~
    Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab & Ors., service benefits as
    claimed not accepted.
         Petitioner, an employee, filed a writ petition under
    Article 132 of the Constitution of India for direction to the
    authorities concerned to consider parity in the matter of E
    service benefits for employees working in the Border
    Roads Organisation and the Government of India with the
    army personnel and Officers working in the General
    Reserve Engineering Force.
T                                                                 F
          Petitioner contended that this Court in the case of R.
    Viswan & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. directed the
    authorities to allow them parity in the matter of service
    benefits.
          Respondent-Union of India submitted that in the case G
    of R. Viswan & Ors. vs. Union of/ndia & Ors., no direction to
    allow parity in service benefits has been given.
         Dismissing the Petition, the Court
                               767                               H
    768       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [2008] 4 S.C.R.


A      HELD: In view of what has be.en stated in the case of
  Sukhdev Singh Gill and the fact that the 4th and 5th Central
  Pay Commissions had already considered the relevant
  aspects, this Court is of the view that the prayers as made
  cannot be accepted; more particularly, when there is no
B challenge to the recommendations of the 4th and 5th
  Central Pay Commissions. It needs no emphasis that even
  if such a challenge is made, the scope for interference is
  extremely limited because the Court does not normally
  substitute its views for those of expert bodies like Pay
C Commission unless some glaring infirmities are
  established. (Para - 6) [771-8, C]
        Sukhdev Singh Gill v. State of Punjab and Ors. (2000) 8
    sec 492 - relied on.
        R. Viswan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1983) 3
0
    sec 401 - held inapplicable.
        CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
    648of2002.
          Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India.
E
         Anagha S. Desai, Satyajit A. Desai and Venkateswara
    Rao Anumolu for the Petitioner
        B. Dutta, A.S.G., T.S. Doabia, Savitri Pandey, Kiran
F   Bhardwaj and Anil Katiyar for the Respondents.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
        DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Grievance in the writ petition
  under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'the
  Constitution') is that there should be parity in the matter of service
G benefits so far as the army personnel and officers working in
  the General Reserve Engineering Force (in short 'GREF'). Stand
  of the petitioner that he and other employees are serving in the
  Border Road Organisation and the Govern merit of India is bound
  to treat equally with the members of the Armed Force and there
H
•        RAMESH SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]
                                                                  769

    should not be any distinction pertaining to extending the facilities A
    and benefits in the service including allowance pay etc.
    Reference is made to a decision of this Court in R. Viswan and
    Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1983 (3) SCC 401) to contend
    that this Court had, in fact, directed such a course to be adopted.
    It is pointed out under a misconception the 4th and the 5th Central B
    Pay Commissions have not considered the connected issue in
    the proper perspective.
          2. Mr. 8. Dutta, learned Additional Solicitor General, on
    the contrary submitted that in R. Viswan's case (supra) there
    was no direction to give parity as is being contended by the C
    petitioner. On the contrary in Sukhdev Singh Gill v. State of
    Punjab and Ors. (2000 (8) SCC 492), this Court had, inter alia,
    held that such a course is not permissible.
          3. In R. Viswan's (supra) it was, inter-alia, observed as
                                                                        0
    follows:
         "11 . Before we part with this point, we may point out that
         an anguished complaint was made before us on behalf of
         the petitioners that there is considerable disparity between
         the Army personnel posted in GREF units and the other E
         officers and men of GREF insofar as the terms and
         conditions of service, such as, salary, allowances and
         rations are concerned. It is not necessary for us to consider
         whether this complaint is justified; it is possible that it may
         not be wholly unjustified but we may point out that in any F
         event it has no real bearing at all on the question whether
         the members of GREF can be said to be members of
         Armed Forces. Since the members of GREF are drawn
         from two different sources, it is possible that the terms
         and conditions of service of the personnel coming from G
         the two sources may be different. The Army personnel
         posted in GREF units naturally carry their own terms and
         conditions of service while the other officers and men in
         GREF are governed by their own distinctive terms and
         conditions. It is difficult to appreciate how differences in
                                                                        H
     770       SUPREME COURT REPORTS
                                                     .[2008] 4 S.C.R.
                                                                         e
A          terms and conditions of service between GREF personnel
           coming from two different streams can possibly have any       )r

           impact on the character of GREF as a force integral to the
           Armed Forces. It is immaterial for the purpose of
           determining whether the members of GREF are members
B          of the Armed Forces as to what are the terms and
           conditions of service of the members of GREF and whether
           they are identical with those of Armed personnel appointed
           on the same or equivalent posts in GREF units. But, we
           may observe th.at in case it is found that the terms and      1'

c          conditions of service of officers and men in GREF directly
           recruited or taken on deputation are in any way less
           favourable than those of Army personnel appointed to the
           same or equivalent posts in GREF, the Central Government
           might well consider the advisability of taking steps for
           ensuring that the disparity, if any, between the terms and
D
           conditions of service, such as, salary, allowances, rations
                                                                               ~
           etc. of Army personnel posted in GREF units and other
    ...    officers and men in GREF is removed."
                                                                         ;..
           4. Subsequently, in Union of India v. Dineshan K. K. (2008
E (1) sec 586) at para 10 it was observed as under:
           "10. Mr. B. Dutta, learned Additional Solicitor General,
           appearing for the Union of India contended that the
           direction given by the High Court is manifestly contrary to
           the settled legal position, enunciated by this Court in
F          several decisions that pay fixation is essentially an
           executive function, ordinarily undertaken by an expert body
           like the Pay Commission, whose recommendations are            Y'

           entitled to a great weight through not binding on the
           Government. It was argued that the recommendations of
G          an expert body are not justiciable since the Court is not
           equipped to take upon itself the task of job evaluation,
           which is a complex exercise. In support of the proposition,
           reliance is placed on two decisions of this Court in S.C.
           Chandra v. State of Jharkhand (2007 (8) SCC 279) and          ~

H          Union of India v. Hiranmoy Sen (2008 (1) SCC 630)."
'        RAMESH SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

          5. We find from the extract of the 4th Central Pay
    Commission's Report in para 10.472 the Commission had with
                                                                 771




    reference to this Court's judgment in R. Viswan's case (supra)
                                                                        A


    held that there was no scope for any parity as contended. Similar
    is the position in the 5th Central Pay Commission report.
          6. In view of what has been stated in Sukhdev Singh Gill!s    B
    case (supra) and the fact that the 4th and 5th Central Pay
    Commissions considered the relevant aspects,' we are of the
    view that the prayers as made cannot be accepted; more
    particularly, when there is no challenge to the recommendations
    of the 4th and 5th Central Pay Commissions. It needs no             C
    emphasis that even if such a challenge is made, the scope for
    interference is extremely limited because the Court does not
    normally substitute its views for those of expert bodies like Pay
    Commission unless some glaring infirmities are established.
                                                                        D
         7. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
    S.K.S.                                 Writ Petition dismissed.