STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.versusHARYANA CIVIL SECRETARIAT PERSONAL STAFF ASSOCIATION

A                        STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.
                                           v.
                         HARYANA CIVIL SECRETARIAT
                         PERSONAL STAFF ASSOCIATION

                                   JULY l 0, 2002
B

              [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.]


          Service Law:
c         Haryana Civil Services-Fourth Central Pay Commission Report-
   Jmplementation of-Personal Assistants-Revision in pay scale-Fixation of
   scale of pay lower than scale of pay recommended to Personal Assistants
   working in Cent£_al Secretariat Service-Disparity-Interference by Court-
   Held, Fixation ojpay and determination ofparity in duties and responsibilities
D is a ,matter for the executive to discharge taking into consideration financial
   posiiion, policies ofState Government in giving priority to different categories
 , ofposts etc.-Courtshould interfere only when they are satisfied that decision
   of the Government is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial to a section
   of employees.

E          Respondent-Association filed a writ petition praying for grant of
     revised pay scale to Personal Assistants at par with the pay scale given to
     Personal Assistants working in the Central Secretariat Service, consequent
     to ·the acceptance of recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay
     Commission by the State Government. High Court placed reliance on the
     principle of equal pay for equal work and found the fixation of pay of
F
     Personal Assistants improper and allowed the writ petitions.

           In appeal to this Court, State Government contended that the High
     Court had ignored settled principle of law for determination of the claim
     relating to parity of pay and fixation of revised scale of pay to the Personal
G    Assistants working in the State Secretariat.

          Allowing the appeal, the Court

          HELD: 1.1. While making copious reference to the principle of equal
     pay for equal work and equality in the matter of pay, the High Court
     overlooked the position that the parity sought by the petitioner in the case
ll                                        118
           ST ATE v. HARV ANA CIVIL SECRETARIAT PERSONAL STAFF ASSOCIATION.   119

was with employees having only the same designation under the Central               A
Government. Such comparison by a section of employees of State
Government with employees of Central Government based merely on
designation of the posts was misconceived. The High Court also fell into
error in assuming that the averment regarding similarity of duti.es and
responsibilities made in the writ petition was unrebutted. The appellants,          B
in their counter affidavit, have taken the specific stand that no comparison
between the two sections of employees is possible since the qualifications
prescribed for the Personal Assistant in the Central Secretariat are different
from the Personal Assistants in the State Civil Secretariat (123-D-F)
      1.2. Even assuming that there was no specific rebuttal of the
averment in the writ petition, that could not form the basis for grant of C
parity of scale of pay as claimed by the respondent. The High Court has
not made any comparison of the nature of duties and responsibilities; the
qualifications for recruitment to the post of Personal Assistants in the State
Civil Secretariat with those of Personal Assistants in the Central
Secretariat. (123-F-G)                                                         D
      2.1. Claim of equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right
vested in any employee though it is a constitutional goal to be achieved
by the Government. Fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties
and responsibilities is a complex matter which is for the executive to
discharge. While taking a decision in the matter several relevant factors E
are to be considered keeping in view the prevailing financial position and
capacity of the s.tate Government to bear the additional liability of a
revised scale of pay. It is also to be kept in mind that the priority given to
different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the State
Government is also a relevant factor for consideration by the State F
Government. (125-D-F)

      Secretary, Finance Department and Ors. v. West Bengal Registration
Service Association and Ors., (1993) Supp. 1 SCC 153, relied on.

      2.2. In the context of complex nature of issues involved, the far
reaching consequences of a decision in the matter and its impact on the             G
administration of the State Government ordinarily Courts should not try
to delve deep into administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and
pay parity. That is not to say that the matter is not justiciable or that the
Courts cannot entertain any proceeding against such administrative
decision taken by the Government. The Courts should approach such                   H
    120                        SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A   matters with restraint and interfere only when they are satisfied that the
    decision of the Government is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial
    to a section of employees and the Government, whi'e taking the decision,
    has ignored factors which are material and ·relevant for a decision in the
    matter. Court should avoid giving a declaration granting a particular scale
B   of pay and compelling the Government to implement the same.
                                                          1125-F-H; 126-A, BJ




         From the Judgment and Order dated 13.8.1996 of the Punjab and
C   Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 4206 of 1995.

          P.C. Jain, Ms. Hemantika Wahi and Mahabir Singh, for the Appellants.

          Anup G. Choudhary, Vishal Malik, Joon Choudhary and K.S. Rana
    for the Respondents.
D
          The Judgment of the Cou~t was delivered by

          D.P. MOHAPATRA. J. This appeal filed by the State of Haryana,
    represented by the Chief Secretary and the Secretary to Government of
    Haryana, Department of Finance, is directed against the judgment of the
E   Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 13.8.1996 in CWP No. 4206195 filed by
    the Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association through its General
    Secretary Shri Ram Mehar Sharma. In the Writ petition the petitioner prayed
    for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the
    Personal Assistants (for short 'P.A.s') the pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3500 plus
    Rs. 150/- as special pay which have been given to the P.A.s working in the
F   Central Secretariat for the reason that the State of Haryana had accepted the ·
    recommendations made by the Fourth Central Pay Commission with regard
    to revision of pay scales with eff~ct from 1.1.1986 with all consequential
    benefits like fixation of pay arrears and other benefits.

G         The case of the Writ petitioner sans unnecessary details was that prior
    to 1986 the P.A.s in the Civil Secretariat, Haryana were enjoying higher scale
    of pay than the P.A.s of the Central Secretariat. On receipt of the Fourth Central
    Pay Commission Report the Central Government revised the pay scale of P.A.s
    to Rs.2000-3500 with effect from l. l .1986. Though the Government of
    Haryana accepted the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission
H   and implemented the same in respect of certain categories of employees but
     STATE v. HARYANA CIVIL SECRETARIAT PERSONAL STAFF ASSOCIATION. (MOHAPATRA, J.J   121

in respect of P.A.s in the Civil Secretariat the revised scale of pay was fixed A
at Rs. 1640-2900 + Rs. 150 as special pay, instead of Rs. 2000-3500. The
further case of the petitioner was that in respect of certain categories of
employees of different departments of State of Haryana like Education, Police,
Transport, Health and Engineering and Technical staff, the State Government
revised the scale of pay exactly according to recommendation of the Fourth B
Central Pay Commission and granted them the scale of Rs. 2000-3500 but in
case of the P.A.s the State Government fixed the lower revised scale of Pay
denying them parity of pay scale with their counterparts in the Central
Government. The Petitioner alleged that the post of P.A. in Civil Secretarial
of the State of Haryana is comparable with the post of P.A. in Central
Secretarial; they discharge similar duties and responsibilities as those of their C
counterparts in the Central Sercetariat. The petitioner contended that employees
like Police Inspectors and some others who were borne on the same scale of
pay as P.A. prior to implementation of the Fourth Central Pay Commission
Report i.e. Rs. 700-1250, were granted the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200 whereas
the P.A.s were placed in the scale of Rs. 1640-2900 only. Such action on the
part of the State Government, the petitioner contended, was arbitrary, D
discriminatory and irrational. The further case of the petitioner was that on
receipt of several representations from the petitioner-association and its
members, the State Government referred the matter to the Pay Anomalies
Commission headed by the Chief Secretary, which did not accept the claim
of the petitioner but only recommended the Selection Grade ofRs.2000-3200 E
to the 20% of the posts of P.A.s with the condition of 12 years of service. It
was asserted by the petitioner that the P.A.s working in the Civil Secretatriat
were entitled to get the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 with effect from I. !.1986
and the decision taken by the State Government granting the Selection Grade
of Rs. 2000-3200 and that too only to those P.A.s who have completed 12
years of services and maximum up to 20% of the posts in cadre is wholly illegal F
and unjust.

       Refuting the allegations made in the writ petition the respondents in
their counter affidavit questioned the very basis of the claim laid by the
petitioner which was based on the assumption that P.A.s in the State Civil                  G
Secretariat were entitled to the same scale of pay granted by the Central
Government to P.A.s working in the Central Secretariat. Such comparison for
the purpose of claim of parity of pay, the respondents contended, was
misconceived and was of no avail to the petitioner in the case. According to
the respondents, though the State Government on principle accepted the report
of the Fourth Central Pay Commission it did not entitle the members of the                  H
    122                        SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A   petitioner to claim post to post and scale parity of pay The respondents
    asserted that considering various relevant aspects which were required to be
    taken into account for fixation of pay scale the State Government decided to
    fix the revised scale ofRs.1640-2900 for P.A.s working in the Civil Secretariat
    and subsequently on recommendation of Pay Anomalies Commission the
B   State Government decided to grant the Selection Grade pay of Rs. 2000-3200
    plus Rs. 150 special pay to P.A.s with 12 years of service and up to 20% of
    the posts in the cadre. Such administrative decision, the respondents contended,
    was within the power of the State Government; therefore the decision cannot
    be said to be arbitrary or irrational. The High Court in the judgment dated
    13.8.1996 allowed the writ petition, declared that the P.A.s were entitled to
C   the scale of Rs. 2000-3500 from 1.1.1986 and directed that arrears would be
    restricted to 38 months from the date of filing of the writ petition i.e. 21 51
    March, 1995 but after fixing the pay notionally from 1.1.1986. The High
    Court further directed that the selection grade would merge with the revised
    scale of Rs. 2000-3500 and the State may consider if it would like to grant
    the special pay to the P.A.s or not. The State Government, feeling aggrieved
D   by the judgment rendered by the High Court, has filed this appeal assailing
    the judgment.

           In the judgment the High Court placed reliance on the principle of
    'equal pay for equal work'. It also took note of the principle of law that
E   ordinarily the matter of fixation of pay would be left to be determined by the
    executive authorities and court would only interfere when it finds that
    classification is improper or discriminatory. Then the High Court proceeded
    to consider facts of the case particularly taking note of the position that in
    case of certain other category of employees the State Government had granted
    exactly the revised scale of pay, Rs.2000-3500 sanctioned by the Central
F   Government wher~as in the case of P.A.s a lower scale was fixed. The High
    Court appears to have proceeded on the assumption that P.A.s serving in the
    Civil Secretariat are discharging the duties and responsibilities similar to
    those of P.A.s in the Central Secretariat for the simple reason that the averment
    to the effect in the writ petition was not rebutted by the respondents. The
G   High Court observed : ''It is true that it is for the government to fix the scales
    but the same cannot be done by ignoring the equities and the principles of
    equality". Referring to certain decisions of this Court like State of West
    Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, [1952] SCR 284, Randhir Singh v. Union of
    India and Ors. [1982] 1 SCC 618, P. Savita and Ors. v. Union of India and
    Ors., [ 1985] 3 SCR 29, State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Pramod Bhartiya
H   and Ors., (1993) I Recent Services Judgments 618, Purushottam Lal and
     ST ATE 1·. HARV ANA CIVIL SECRETARIAT PERSONAL STAFF ASSOCIATION_ [MOHAPATRA, J.)   J23

Ors. v. Union of India and Anr, AIR (1973) SC 1988, Haryana State Biologists A
Association v. The State of Haryana, (1994) 4 Recent Services Judgments
444, the High Court accepted the case of the writ petitioner, allowed the writ
petition and issued the directions as noted earlier.
     Shri P.C. Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants
contended that the High Court has ignored the settled principles.of law in a                   B
claim relating to parity of pay and fixation of revised scale o'f pay; the
judgment of the High Court is patently erroneous and should be set aside.
      On the other hand, Shri Anup G. Choudhary, learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondent supporting the judgment urged that in the context
of facts and circumstances of the case the High Court rightly accepied the                     C
claim of parity of scale of pay pleaded by the respondent and no interference
with the judgment is called for.
      From the discussions in the impugned judgment it is clear to us that the
High Court has ignored certain settled principles of law for d 'termination of
the claim on parity of pay scale by a section of government employees. D
While making copious reference to the principle of equal pay for equal work
and equality in the matter of pay, the High Court overlooked the position that
the parity sought by the pCtitioner in the case was with employees having
only the same designation under the Central Government. Such comparison
by a section of employees of State Government with employees of Central
Government based merely on designation of the posts was misconceived. E
The High Court also fell into error in assuming that the averment regarding
similarity of duties and responsibilities made in the writ petition was
unrebutted. The appellants in their counter affidavit have taken the specific
stand that no comparison between the two sections of employees is possible
since the qualifications prescribed for the P.A.s in the Central Secretariat are F
different from the P.A.s in the State Civil Secretariat. Even assuming that
there was no specific rebuttal of the avennent in the writ petition that could
not form the basis for grant of parity of scale of pay as claimed by the
respondent. The High Court has not made any comparison of the nature of
duties and responsibilities, the qualifications for recruitment to the posts of
P.A.s in the State Civil Secretariat with those of P.A.s of the Central Secretariat. G

      This Court in the case of Secretary, Finance Department v. West Bengal
Registration Service Association and Ors., [1993] Supp 1 SCC 153, dealing
with the question of equation of posts and equation of salaries of government
employees, made the following observations :
                                                                                               H
    124                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A         "We do not consider it necessary to traverse the case law on which
          reliance has been placed by counsel for the appellants as it is well
          settled that equation of posts and detennination of pay scales is the
          primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and, therefore,
          ordinarily courts will not enter upon the ask of job evaluation which
          is generally left to expert bodies like the Pay Commissions, etc. But
B         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, realize that job
          evaluation is both a difficult and time consuming task which even
          expert bodies having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise
c         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
D         of his department (ii) the nature of contribution expected of him (iii)
          the extent of his responsibility and accountability of 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
E         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 service and the effort of 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
F         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 rationalization 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
G
          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 the 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.
H          We have referred to these matters in some detail only to emphasise
     ST ATE 1•. HAR YANA CIVIL SECRETARIAT PERSONAL STAFF ASSOCIATION. [MOHAPATRA, J_J   125

        that several factors have to be kept in view while evolving a pay A
        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 B
        the Judicial Secretary who had strongly recommended a substantial
        hike in the salary of the 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 C
        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.
                                                              (emphasis supplied)
                                                                                               D
       It is to be kept in mind that the claim of equal pay for equal work
is not a fundamental right vested in any employee though it is a constitutional
goal to be achieved by the Government. Fixation of pay and determination
of parity in duties and responsibilities is a complex matter which is for
the executive to discharge. While taking a decision in the matter several                      E
relevant factors, some of which have been noted by this Court in the
decided case, are to be considered keeping in view the prevailing financial
position and capacity of the State Government to bear the additional liability
of a revised scale of pay. It is also to be kept in mind that the priority
given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the State
Government is also a relevant factor for consideration by the State Government.                F
In the context of complex nature of issues involved, the far reaching
consequences of a decision in the matter and its impact on the administration
of the State Government courts have taken the view that ordinarily courts
should not try to delve deep into administrative decisions pertaining to
pay fixation and pay parity. That is not to say that the matter is not
justiciable or that the courts cannot entertain any proceeding against such                    G
administrative decision taken by the government. The courts should approach
such matters with restraint and interfere only when they are satisfied that
the decision of the government is patently irrational unjust and prejudicial
to a section of employees and the government while taking the decision
has ignored factors which are material and relevant for a decision in the                      H
    126                         SUPREME COURIREPORTS [2002) SUPP. I S.C.R.

A   matter. Even in a case where the court holds the order passed by the
    government to be unsustainable then ordinarily a.direction should be given
    to the State Government or the authority taking the decision to reconsider
    the matter and pass a proper order. The court should avoid giving a
    declaration granting a particular scale of pay and compelling the government
B   to implement the same. As noted earlier, in the present case ·the High
    Court has not even made any attempt to compare the nature of duties and
    responsibilities of the two sections of the employees, one in the State
    Secretariat and the other in the Central Secretariat. It has also ignored the
    basic principle that there are certain rules, regulations and executive instructions
    issued by the employers which govern the administration of the cadre.
c         On the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, we have no hesitation
    to hold that the High Court was in error in allowing the writ petition and
    directing the appellants to grant the scale of Rs. 2000-3500 to the P.A.s
    of the State Civil Secretariat with effect from 1.1.1986. The judgment \~f
    the High Court is unsustainable. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the
D   judgment under challenge is set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondent
    herein is dismissed. There will, however, be no. order for costs.

          We make it clear that if any of the Personal Assistant(s) serving in
    the Haryana State Civil Secretariat has/have received any additional emolument
    in pursuance of the judgment of the High Court under challenge such
E   amount will not be recovered from him/them.

    S.K.S.                                                           Appeal allowed.