STATE OF MADHYA PRADESHversusR.D. SHARMA AND ANR.

                        [2022] 2 S.C.R. 707                           707


                STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                               A
                                v.
                   R.D. SHARMA AND ANR.
                (Civil Appeal Nos. 474-475 of 2022)
                       JANUARY 27, 2022                               B
       [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
                BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
       Service Law – Constitution of India – Article 227 – Indian
Forests Service (Pay) Second Amendment Rules, 2008 –Amended
                                                                      C
Rules provided for upgradation of one existing post of Principal
Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF) as the Head of Forest Force in
the apex scale – Respondent no.1 who retired as PCCF sought
revision of his pension as per said Rules – Rejected – Filed
application before Tribunal, dismissed – Writ petition allowed by
High Court – Said order was challenged by appellant before            D
Supreme Court, SLP was disposed of granting liberty to approach
the High Court – Accordingly, appellant filed review petition,
dismissed – Present appeals challenge the said order and the order
passed by High Court allowing the writ petition, held: While
disposing of the SLP, the appellant was granted liberty to approach
                                                                      E
the High Court, also the SLP was disposed of without expressing
any opinion on merits – All the issues were kept open for being
considered by High Court in the Review Petition, and the appellant
was permitted to approach this court, if aggrieved by the order
passed therein as well as in the Writ Petition – Present appeals
maintainable – On merits, since the respondent no.1 had retired as    F
the PCCF in the year 2001, much prior to the coming into force of
the Amended Rules of 2008, his claim to get the benefit of the apex
scale as per the said rules was misconceived – Apex scale was fixed
for the upgraded post w.e.f. 27.09.08 and was to be filled up by
way of selection and not as a matter of course – Further, power u/
                                                                      G
Article 227 is to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases –
High Court wrongly set aside the well considered order of Tribunal
by applying the principle of “equal pay for equal work” –
Interference was unwarranted – Orders passed by High Court set
aside.
                                                                      H
                               707
708            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A          Service Law – Selection – Held: Filling up a post by selection
      would always require a process of screening the eligible employees,
      and cannot be automatic on the basis of seniority.
            Service Law – Equation of post, determination of pay scales
      – Held: Equation of post and determination of pay scales is the
B     primary function of the executive and not the judiciary – Ordinarily
      courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is
      generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions –
      Constitution of India – Article 227.
            Constitution of India – Article 227 – Power under – Held:
C     Power u/Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in
      appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts
      and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for
      correcting mere errors.
            Allowing the appeals, the Court
D            HELD: 1. As discernible from the earlier order dated 1st
      December, 2017, this court while disposing of the SLP had granted
      a liberty to the appellant to go back to the High Court and get
      the records corrected, as according to the Ld. Counsel appearing
      for the appellant-State, certain facts were not correctly recorded
E     by the High Court in the impugned order. This court also clarified
      that it had otherwise not considered the matter on merits. As
      rightly submitted by the appellant-State, since this court had
      granted a liberty to the appellant to approach the High Court and
      had disposed of the SLP without expressing any opinion on merits,
      it was intended to keep all the issues open for being considered
F     by the High Court in the Review Petition, and to permit the
      appellant to approach this court, in case the appellant was
      aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court in the Review
      Petition as well as in the Writ Petition.The present appeals are
      legally maintainable. [Para 8][714-D-F; 715-F]
G           Sudhakar Baburao Nangnure vs. Noreshwar
            Raghunathrao Shende 2020 (11) SCC 399 : [2019] 4
            SCR 945 – relied on.



H
    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. R.D. SHARMA AND ANR.                  709


      2.1 The relevant Amended Rules of 2008 came into effect        A
from 27th September, 2008. From the relevant sub-rule (1) of
Rule 3 of the said Amended Rules, 2008 , it is abundantly clear
that one existing post of PCCF was to be upgraded as the Head
of Forest Force in each State cadre, fixing the apex scale at Rs.
80,000/- w.e.f. the date of the issue of Notification of the said
                                                                     B
Amended Rules i.e. 27th September, 2008, and that the said post
of PCCF in the apex scale was to be filled up by selection from
amongst the officers holding the post of PCCF in the State cadre
in the HAG + scale of Rs.75,500/- (annual increment @ 3%) –
80,000/-. Since the respondent no. 1 had retired as the PCCF in
the year 2001 that is much prior to the coming into force of the     C
Amended Rules, 2008, his claim to get the benefit of the apex
scale as per the said rules was thoroughly misconceived. The
apex scale of Rs. 80,000/- was fixed for the upgraded post
designated as the Head of Forest Force w.e.f. 27th September,
2008 and was to be filled up by way of selection and not as a
                                                                     D
matter of course. Filling up a post by selection would always
require a process of screening the eligible employees, and cannot
be automatic on the basis of seniority. The contention raised by
the respondent no. 1 that even prior to the amendment in the
rules in the year 2008, the officers working on the post of PCCF
were the Head of the Forest Force and the respondent no. 1 was       E
also working as such, cannot be accepted, for the simple reason
that if all the officers working on the post of PCCF were also
working as the Head of the Forest Force, there was no need to
upgrade one existing post of PCCF in the apex scale of Rs. 80,000/
- and designate it as the Head of the Forest Force, w.e.f. 27th
                                                                     F
September, 2008, as specifically provided in Sub-Rule 1 of Rule
3 of the Amended Rules of 2008. Rule 11 of the said Amended
Rules of 2008 also specifically reiterates the said position about
upgradation and designation of the post of PCCF as the Head of
Forest Force in the State of Madhya Pradesh, as in other States
and Union Territories. The High Court in the impugned orders         G
passed in Writ Petition as well as in the Review Petition had
thoroughly misdirected itself by applying the principle of “equal
pay for equal work”. The equation of post and determination of


                                                                     H
710           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A     pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the
      judiciary and therefore ordinarily courts will not enter upon the
      task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies
      like the Pay Commissions. This is because such job evaluation
      exercise may include various factors including the relevant data
      and scales for evaluating performances of different groups of
B
      employees, and such evaluation would be both difficult and time
      consuming, apart from carrying financial implications. Therefore,
      it has always been held to be more prudent to leave such task of
      equation of post and determination of pay scales to be best left to
      an expert body. Unless there is cogent material on record to come
C     to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing
      the pay scale for a given post, and that the court’s interference
      was absolutely necessary to undo the injustice, the courts would
      not interfere with such complex issues. “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. [Paras
D
      12-14][716-G; 717-E-H; 718-A-H; 719-A]
            State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh and Ors. 2017
            SCC 148; Secretary, Finance Department Vs. West
            Bengal Registration Service Associations and Ors. 1993
            Suppl. 1 SCC 153 : [1992] 1 SCR 897; State of Haryana
E           and Anr. Vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff
            Association 2002 (06) SCC 72 : [2002] 1 Suppl. SCR
            118 – referred to.
            2.2. Pertinently the Administrative Tribunal after
      considering the relevant factual and legal aspects had rightly
F     rejected the claim of the respondent no. 1 for granting the apex
      scale on the basis of “equal pay for equal work” in the O.A. filed
      by him. The said well- considered, just and proper order of the
      Tribunal was wrongly set aside by the High Court on extraneous
      grounds applying the principle of “equal pay for equal work”,
G     while exercising the power of superintendence under Article 227
      of the Constitution of India. The power under Article 227 is
      intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for
      the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within


H
    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. R.D. SHARMA AND ANR.                         711


the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors.           A
In the instant case, the Tribunal had not committed any
jurisdictional error, nor any failure of justice had occasioned, and
hence the interference of the High Court in order passed by the
Tribunal was absolutely unwarranted. The impugned orders
passed by the High Court being thoroughly misconceived in law
                                                                            B
and in facts, are set aside. [Paras 15, 16][719-B-E]
      K.S. Krishnaswamy & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr.
      2006 (13) SCC 215 : [2006] 9 Suppl. SCR 330–
      referred to.
                          Case law reference                                C
[2019] 4 SCR 945                 relied on                 Para 8
[2006] 9 Suppl. SCR 330          referred to               Para 10
2017 SCC 148                     referred to               Para 14
[1992] 1 SCR 897                 referred to               Para 14          D
[2002] 1 Suppl. SCR 118          referred to               Para 14
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 474-
475 of 2022.
      From the Judgment and Order dated 28.04.2017 of the High Court        E
of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in W.P. No.14940 of
2013 and Order dated 17.09.2019 in R. P. No.1386 of 2018.
      Saurabh Mishra, AAG, Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, Manish Yadav,
Advs. for the Appellant.
     Vikramjit Banerjee, ASG, Nachiketa Joshi, B. K. Satija, Ms. Indira     F
Bhakar, Udai Khanna, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Anish Kumar Gupta,
Venugopal Abhay, Vaibhav Verma, Advs. for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
                                                                            G
      1. Leave granted.
      2. The appellant-State of Madhya Pradesh by way of present
appeals filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India has assailed

                                                                            H
712             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A     the Judgments and Orders dated 28.04.2017 and 17.09.2019 passed by
      the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in W.P.
      No. 14940 of 2013 and R.P. No. 1386 of 2018 respectively.
             3. The respondent no. 2 herein i.e. Government of India, Ministry
      of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel
B     and Training), in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 1 of
      section 3 of All India Services Act, 1951 and in supersession of the
      Indian Forests Service (Pay Rules 1968) had made the Rules namely
      the Indian Forests Service (Pay) Rules 2007). The said Rules of 2007
      came to be amended by the respondent no. 2 vide the notification dated
      27the September 2008. The said Amended Rules were called the Indian
C     Forests Service (Pay) Second Amendment Rules, 2008 (hereinafter
      referred to as the Amended Rules of 2008). Sub-Rule 1 of the Rule 3 of
      the said Amended Rules of 2008 provided for the upgradation of one
      existing post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF), to be
      designated as the Head of Forest Force in the each State cadre. The
D     said rule further provided for the apex scale at Rs. 80,000/- (fixed) for
      the said upgraded post designated as the Head of Forest Force. It also
      provided that the said upgradation was to be made w.e.f. the date of
      issue of the notification of the Amended Rules, 2008 i.e. 27 th September,
      2008, and that the said upgraded post was to be filled by “selection”
      from amongst the officers holding the post of PCCF in the State cadre in
E     the HAG+ scale of Rs. 75,500 - Rs. 80,000.
             4. The respondent no. 1 (the petitioner before the High Court)
      retired from the post of PCCF on 31st December, 2001. On 2nd April,
      2011, the respondent no. 1 made a representation to the Government of
      India requesting it to revise his pension from Rs.37,750/- (50% of HAG
F     Scale 75000-80000) to Rs. 40,000/- (50% of apex scale 80000) as per
      the Indian Forests Service (Pay) Second Amendment Rules, 2008. The
      said representation came to be rejected by the Government of India,
      Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of
      Pension and Pensioners Welfare vide the order dated 24th June, 2011.
G     The aggrieved respondent filed an O.A. being No. 1142/2011 before the
      Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’),
      Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh on 27th November, 2011. The said O.A. came
      to be dismissed by the Tribunal vide the order dated 17th May, 2013.
      However, the Writ Petition being No.14940 of 2013 filed by the
      respondent challenging the said order passed by the Tribunal, came to
H
     STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. R.D. SHARMA AND ANR.                           713
                  [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]

be allowed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur vide the              A
order dated 24th August, 2013. The High Court by the said order held
that the respondent no. 1 was eligible to get the benefit of Rs. 40,000/-
as pension at par with the other officers, as per the Rules of 2008.
       5. The aggrieved appellant-State of MP challenged the said order
passed by the High Court before this Court by filing the special leave         B
petition (Diary) No. 36531 of 2017. The said SLP came to be disposed
of by this Court vide order dated 1st December, 2017, which reads as
under:
      “Delay condoned.
      In the judgment it is observed as follows:-                              C

      “It is an admitted fact that the petitioner retired from the post of
      Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Head of the Forest
      Department…..”.
      According to the learned counsel appearing for the State this is         D
      not true to facts.
      If that be so, it is for the petitioner to go back to the High Court
      and get the records corrected.
      With the liberty, as above, the special leave petition is disposed of.
      We make it clear that we have not otherwise considered the matter        E
      on merits.
      Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
       6. The appellant availed the liberty granted by this Court and
approached the High Court by filing a review petition being R.P. No.           F
1386 of 2018. The said review petition however came to be dismissed
by the High Court vide impugned order dated 17th September, 2019. The
aggrieved appellant, therefore, has challenged both the orders dated
28.04.202017 and 17.09.2019 passed by the High Court, by way of these
appeals.
                                                                               G
       7. In the instant appeals, the question that falls for consideration
before this court is, whether the High Court while exercising its powers
of superintendence under Article 227 of Constitution of India, had
misdirected itself by applying the principle of “equal pay for equal work”
to the case of respondent no. 1 who had already retired as the PCCF on
31.12.2001, for the purpose of granting him the benefit of the apex scale      H
714             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A     fixed for the upgraded post of Head of the Forest Force, MP Cadre, as
      per the Amended Rules of 2008 which came into effect from 27the
      September 2008 and fixing his pension accordingly?
             8. However, before adverting to the rival contentions raised by
      the Ld. Advocates for the parties, let us first deal with the preliminary
B     objection raised by the Ld. Advocate Mr. Anish Kumar Gupta appearing
      for the respondent no. 1 as regards the maintainability of the appeals.
      According to Mr. Gupta, the appellant having earlier challenged the order
      dated 28th April, 2017 passed by the High Court by filing the SLP before
      this court and this court while disposing of the said SLP vide the order
      dated 1st December, 2017 having not granted any liberty to approach
C     this court again after the disposal of Review Petition by the High Court,
      the present appeals are not maintainable. The court does not find any
      substance in the said preliminary objection raised by Mr. Gupta. As
      discernible from the earlier order dated 1st December, 2017 reproduced
      hereinbefore, this court while disposing of the SLP had granted a liberty
D     to the appellant to go back to the High Court and get the records
      corrected, as according to the Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant-
      State, certain facts were not correctly recorded by the High Court in the
      impugned order. This court also clarified that it had otherwise not
      considered the matter on merits. As rightly submitted by Ld. AAG Mr.
      Saurabh Mishra for the appellant-State, since this court had granted a
E     liberty to the appellant to approach the High Court and had disposed of
      the SLP without expressing any opinion on merits, it was intended to
      keep all the issues open for being considered by the High Court in the
      Review Petition, and to permit the appellant to approach this court, in
      case the appellant was aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court
F     in the Review Petition as well as in the Writ Petition. In the opinion of
      the court, the observations made by this court in the latest decision in
      case of Sudhakar Baburao Nangnure Vs. Noreshwar Raghunathrao
      Shende 2020 (11) SCC 399 clinch the issue, in which the Supreme
      Court in almost similar issue as raised in the present appeals, has observed
      as under:
G
            “It is well settled that if a submission which has been urged
            before the High Court has not been noticed or considered, it
            is to the High Court that the aggrieved litigant must turn for
            the rectification of the record. But, apart from this, the
            observation in the order dated 12 December 2017 that this
H
    STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. R.D. SHARMA AND ANR.                          715
                 [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]

      Court had not considered the matter on merits is of crucial            A
      significance. The purpose of that clarification was to ensure
      that the issues which were raised (in any event with regard to
      the catch-up rule) were entirely open, to be urged before the
      High Court in the first instance and thereafter, if the appellant
      were to be aggrieved, in further proceedings before this Court.
                                                                             B
      The above observation of this Court was not merely intended
      to keep the issue of the non-consideration of the catch-up
      rule open to be urged before the High Court. That this issue
      was kept open, is evident from the last part of the order dated
      12 December 2017 which specifically keeps open the
      contentions of the parties to be urged before the High Court.          C
      In addition, the order of this Court carefully enunciates that
      we have not considered the matter on merit.
      In view of this clear clarification, it is impossible to accept
      the preliminary objection that a recourse to this Court is barred
      after the High Court decided the review petitions. To take             D
      any other view would effectively deny access to justice to the
      appellant. Evidently, the grievance of the appellant was not
      considered by this Court on merits on 12 December 2017. To
      adopt a construction which would deprive the appellant of
      the remedy of moving this Court after the decision of the High
      Court in review would lead to an egregious failure of justice.         E
      Such a construction must be eschewed.”
       In view of the clinching observations made by this court in the
afore-stated decision, no further elaboration is required for holding that
the present appeals are legally maintainable.
                                                                             F
      9. So far as the merits of the appeals are concerned, Ld. AAG
Mr. Mishra for the appellant strenuously urged placing reliance upon the
Rules of 2008 that the said rules having come into force w.e.f. 27th
August, 2008, and the respondent no. 1 having already retired as PCCF
in 2001, the respondent no. 1 could not have been granted the benefit of
the apex scale as erroneously granted by the High Court, applying the        G
principle of “equal pay for equal work”. According to him, the said
principle had no application to the upgradation of post of PCCF as the
Head of Forest force in the apex scale which had to be filled up by
“selection” and that too with effect from 27th August, 2008. He also
drew the attention of the court to the Rules of 2007 and of 2008 to          H
716             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A     submit that the respondent no. 1 was working as PCCF and was not
      working on the upgraded post of Head of the Forest Force which was
      designated for the first time in the year 2008, and that the High Court
      had erroneously observed in the impugned orders that the respondent
      no. 1 was working as the PCCF, Head of the Forest Force.
B            10. The Ld. ASG Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee for the respondent no. 2
      Union of India, supplementing the submissions made by the Ld. AAG
      Mr. Mishra for the appellant State, submitted that the benefit of
      upgradation of one existing post cannot be given to the pensioner who
      had already retired before such upgradation. In this regard, he had relied
      upon K.S. Krishnaswamy & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. Reported
C
      in 2006 (13) SCC 215.
             11. Per contra, the Ld. Advocate Mr. Anish Kumar Gupta
      appearing for the respondent no. 1, taking the court to the various
      appointment orders issued by the appellant in case of other officers
      submitted that the officers appointed as PCCF, MP were also appointed
D
      as the Head of the Forest Department, M.P. before the Amended Rules
      came into force and that the respondent was also shown as the PCCF,
      M.P., in the list of members of IFS, which meant that the respondent
      was also the PCCF, Head of the Forest Department in the State of
      Madhya Pradesh. Invoking the principle of “equal pay for equal work”,
E     he submitted that the work and responsibility of a PCCF, M.P. and the
      upgraded post of PCCF, Head of Forest Force were the same and
      therefore the High Court had rightly granted the benefit of the apex
      scale as per the Amended Rules of 2008. He further submitted that the
      post of PCCF, Head of Forest Force in IFS was not a newly created
      post but was upgraded from the existing post of PCCF in the department,
F
      by virtue of the Amended Rules, and therefore also though the respondent
      had retired in 2001, he was required to be treated as eligible for the
      pension as per the apex scale of Rs. 80,000/-.
            12. In order to appreciate the rival contentions raised by the learned
      counsel appearing for the parties, it would be beneficial to reproduce the
G
      relevant Amended Rules of 2008 which came into effect from 27th
      September, 2008. The relevant sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the said Amended
      Rules, 2008 reads as under:
            (1) Pay-Bands and Grade Pays: - The pay bands and grade
            pays admissible to a member of the Service and the dates with
H
     STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. R.D. SHARMA AND ANR.                           717
                  [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]

      effect from which the said pay bands and grade pays shall be             A
      deemed to have come into force, shall be as follows:
      A to C ……………………….
      D Above Super Time Scale: -
      (i)     Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest –               B
              Pay-Band – 4: Rs.37400-67000; plus Grade Pay Rs.12000;
      (ii)    HAG +: Rs.75500- (annual increment @ 3%)- 80000;
              Grade Pay: Nil;
      (iii)   Apex Scale: Rs.80000 (fixed), Grade Pay: nil (by                 C
              upgradation of one existing post of Principal Chief
              Conservator of Forest as head of Forest Force in the each
              State Cadre);         (With effect from the date of issue of
              notification of the Indian Forests Service (Pay) Amendment
              Rules, 2008);                                                    D
      Note 1: ………………….
      Note 2: The post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest in
      the apex scale shall be filled by selection form amongst the officers
      holding the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest in the
      State cadre in the HAG + Scale of Rs. 75500-(annual increment            E
      @ 3%)-80000.
       From the above quoted rules, it is abundantly clear that one existing
post of PCCF was to be upgraded as the Head of Forest Force in each
State cadre, fixing the apex scale at Rs. 80,000/- w.e.f. the date of the
issue of Notification of the said Amended Rules i.e. 27th September,           F
2008, and that the said post of PCCF in the apex scale was to be filled
up by selection from amongst the officers holding the post of PCCF in
the State cadre in the HAG + scale of Rs.75,500/- (annual increment @
3%) – 80,000/-.
       13. Since the respondent no. 1 had retired as the PCCF in the           G
year 2001 that is much prior to the coming into force of the Amended
Rules, 2008, his claim to get the benefit of the apex scale as per the said
rules was thoroughly misconceived. The apex scale of Rs. 80,000/- was
fixed for the upgraded post designated as the Head of Forest Force
w.e.f. 27th September, 2008 and was to be filled up by way of selection
                                                                               H
718             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 2 S.C.R.


A     and not as a matter of course. It is needless to say that filling up a post
      by selection would always require a process of screening the eligible
      employees, and cannot be automatic on the basis of seniority. The
      contention raised by Mr. Gupta for the respondent no. 1 that even prior
      to the amendment in the rules in the year 2008, the officers working on
      the post of PCCF were the Head of the Forest Force and the respondent
B
      no. 1 was also working as such, cannot be accepted, for the simple
      reason that if all the officers working on the post of PCCF were also
      working as the Head of the Forest Force, there was no need to upgrade
      one existing post of PCCF in the apex scale of Rs. 80,000/- and designate
      it as the Head of the Forest Force, w.e.f. 27th September, 2008, as
C     specifically provided in Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 3 of the Amended Rules of
      2008. Rule 11 of the said Amended Rules of 2008 also specifically
      reiterates the said position about upgradation and designation of the post
      of PCCF as the Head of Forest Force in the State of Madhya Pradesh,
      as in other States and Union Territories.
D             14. The High Court in the impugned orders passed in Writ Petition
      as well as in the Review Petition had thoroughly misdirected itself by
      applying the principle of “equal pay for equal work” placing reliance on
      the decision of this court in case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Jagjit
      Singh and Ors. 2017 SCC 148, which had no application to the facts
      of the present case. It may be noted that this court has consistently held
E     that the equation of post and determination of pay scales is the primary
      function of the executive and not the judiciary and therefore ordinarily
      courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally
      left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions. This is because such
      job evaluation exercise may include various factors including the relevant
F     data and scales for evaluating performances of different groups of
      employees, and such evaluation would be both difficult and time
      consuming, apart from carrying financial implications. Therefore, it has
      always been held to be more prudent to leave such task of equation of
      post and determination of pay scales to be best left to an expert body.
      Unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion
G     that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post,
      and that the court’s interference was absolutely necessary to undo the
      injustice, the courts would not interfere with such complex issues. A
      beneficial reference of the observations made in this regard in case of
      Secretary, Finance Department Vs. West Bengal Registration Service
H     Associations and Ors. 1993 Supl. 1 SCC 153 be made. As held in
     STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. R.D. SHARMA AND ANR.                            719
                  [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]

State of Haryana and Anr. Vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal                A
Staff Association 2002 (06) SCC 72 “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.
       15. Pertinently the Administrative Tribunal after considering the
relevant factual and legal aspects had rightly rejected the claim of the        B
respondent no. 1 for granting the apex scale on the basis of “equal pay
for equal work” in the O.A. filed by him. The said well-considered, just
and proper order of the Tribunal was wrongly set aside by the High
Court on extraneous grounds applying the principle of “equal pay for
equal work”, while exercising the power of superintendence under Article
227 of the Constitution of India. It is well-settled legal position that the    C
power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in
appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and
tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere
errors. In the instant case, the Tribunal had not committed any
jurisdictional error, nor any failure of justice had occasioned, and hence      D
the interference of the High Court in order passed by the Tribunal was
absolutely unwarranted.
      16. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders passed by the
High Court being thoroughly misconceived in law and in facts, deserve
to be quashed and set aside and the same are hereby set aside. The              E
appeals are allowed accordingly.

Divya Pandey                                                 Appeals allowed.
(Assisted by : Deepak Panwar, LCRA)

                                                                                F




                                                                                G




                                                                                H