STATE OF MIZORAM AND ANR.versusMIZORAM ENGINEERING SERVICE ASSOCIATION AND ANR.

A                    STATE OF MIZORAM AND ANR.
                                       v.
     M!ZORAM ENGINEERING SERVICE ASSOCIATION AND ANR.

                                MAY 6, 2004

B              [BRIJESH KUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.]

         Service Law:

          Pay scales-Higher pay scale to Engineers recommended by the
C   Fourth Pay Commission-Grant of in respect of one incumbent and denial
    to others-Correctness of--Held, on facts, State Government has accepted
    recommendations of Fourth Pay Commission and granted higher pay scale
    to one incumbent-Similar pay scales should be given to other incumbents
    without discrimination.
D         Appellant-State Government issued a notification withdrawing
    benefits of revised pay scales to Executive Engineers and Superintending
    Engineers. The respondent-Association filed a Writ Petition before
    High Court for quashing the notification and for grant of higher pay
    scales to Chief Engineers and Additional Chief Engineers respectively
E   on the basis of the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay
    Commission. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Writ
    Petition, which was affirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal by
    the State.

F        In appeal to the Court, the State Government contended that the
    Engineers of the respondent-Association are not entitled to higher pay
    scales; and that they belong to unorganised service due to absence of
    Recruitment Rules.

         Dismissing the appeal, the Court
G
         HELD: 1.1. The fact that the revised pay scale was being allowed
    to one incumbent in tune with the recommendations of the Fourth
    Central Pay Commission, shows that the State Government has duly
    accepted the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission.
H   Having done so, it cannot be permitted to discriminate between
                                      496
STATE v. MIZORAM ENGG. SERVICE ASSON. [ARUN KUMAR, J.] 497

individuals and not allow the same to the rest. There is no special A
reason or justification for confining the higher scale to a particular
individual and deny the same to others. The State Government cannot
be permitted to discriminate between similarly placed individuals in
this behalf between those holding the post at the time of revision of pay
scales and future incumbents of the post. (502-B-F]                       B

      1.2. For failure of the State Government to fraine recruitment
rules and bring Engineering Service within the framework of organized
service, the Engineers cannot be made to suffer. There is hardly any
difference in organized and unorganised service so far as Government C
service is concerned. In Government service, such a distinction does
not appear to have any relevance. [503-A-Bl

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 793 of
1998.
                                                                        D
     From the Judgment and Order dated 28.2.97 of the Gauhati High
Court at Assam in W.A. No. 347 of 1996.

    L. Nageshwar Rao, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Hemantika
Wahi, Ms. Sumita Hazarika and Ms. Archana Palkar Khopde for the E
Appellants.

     Harish N. Salve, Kailash Vasudev, P.C. Prushi, S.K. Shandilya,
Prateek Kumar and Mrs. V.D. Khanna for the Respondents.

     K.N. Madhusoodhanan and R. Sathish for Intervenors.
                                                                        F

     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

     ARUN KUMAR, J. : This appeal is directed against the judgment
dated 28th February, 1997 passed by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High G
Court. By the impugned judgment the Division Bench dismissed the appeal
against the judgment dated 17th May, 1996 passed by the learned Single
Judge. The learned Single Judge had allowed a writ petition filed by
respondent herein challenging a notification No. G. 12011/3/87 F.Est dated
3rd February, 1989 whereby certain categories of engineers in the State H
    498                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A Engineering Service had been excluded for purposes of revision of pay
  scales accepted by the State vide Notification No. G. 1201 l/3/87F.Est
  dated 19th January, 1989. The Mizoram Engineering Service Association
  (respondent) has been demanding higher pay scales for its members. The
  background is that prior to 1971 what is now known as the 1 State of
B Mizoram was a district called the Lushai Hills District within the State of
  Assam. From 1971 to 1986 Mizoram was a Union Territory under the
  North Eastern Areas Reorganisation Act, 1971. It attained full state-hood
  on 20th February, 1987. In 1974 when the State was a Union Territory,
  the Government of India constituted a Departmental Pay Committee to
  suggest scales of pay and allowances for employees of Mizoram on the
C pattern of Central Government employees vide Ministry of Home Affairs
  letter No. 1.3.1973. M.P. dated 4th Novemebr, 1974. On the recommendation
  of the said Departmental Pay Committee, the Government of India revised
  the scales of pay and allowances for the employees of the State ofMizoram
  w.e.f. 1.1.1973. On a demand made by Superintending and Executive
D Engineers of the respondent Association for equalizing their respective
  scales of pay with their counterparts in the Central Public Works Department,
  the Government of India vide letter dated 16.10.1983 intimated to the
   Secretary to the Mizoram Administration, Public Works Department
  conveying the sanction of President of India for revision of pay scales of
E the Engineers (Group 'A' posts) in tune with the pay scales enjoyed by
   the engineers in the CPWD.

        The Government oflndia accepted the Fourth Central Pay CommisJion
  Report regarding revision of pay scales for Group A, 8, C, D & E posts
F in the Central Civil Services w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The recommendations of the
  Fourth Central Pay Commission accepted by the Government of India
  became applicable for the civil services in Mizoram also. The Central Civil
  Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 came into force w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and
  they were made applicable to the employees forming part of the civil
  services in Mizoram. Certain representations were made on behalf of
G employees for removal of anomalies resulting from the Fourth Central Pay
  Commission Report. In 1987 an Anomalies Committee was appointed to
  look into the alleged anomalies and make suitable recommendations. The
  recommendations of the Anomalies Committee created further anomalies
  rather than resolving them. On 7th November, 1988 another Anomalies
H Committee was appointed. The report of the Anomalies Committee was
STATE v. MIZORAM ENGG. SERVICE ASSON. [ARUN KUMAR, J.] 499

accepted by the Government of the State of Mizoram. A notification No. A
G 12011 /3/87F .Est. dated 19th January, 1989 accepting the recommendations
was issued. Soon thereafter the State Government issued another notification
dated 3rd February, 1989 (the impugned notification) to the effect that the
scales of pay for Group 'A' officers as mentioned in paras 28 of Schedule
A and Schedule B did not include pay scales for MCS officers/MPS B
officers whose pay scales were governed by their respective service rules.
The notification further excluded engineering officers of the rank of
Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer from the benefits of the
notification dated 19th January 1989. This notification was challenged by
the respondent Association by filing a Writ Petition in the Gauhati High C
Court. In the Writ Petition the first prayer was with regard to quashing the
notification dated 3rd February, 1989 which excluded the Executive
Engineers and the Superintending Engineers from getting the benefit of
revised pay scales under the notification of the State Government dated
 19th January, 1989. The second prayer was with respect to the Chief
Engineers and Additional Chief Engineers seeking directions that they D
should get the conversion scale of pay of Rs. 5900-6700 and Rs. 4500-
5700 respectively instead of the revised scales of pay prescribed for them
by the State Government. The scale of Rs. 5900-6700 for the Chief
Engineer and Rs. 4500-5700 for Additional Chief Engineer demanded by
the respondent Association was as per the recommendations of the 4th E
 Central Pay Commission and was the same as was being allowed to
 incumbents holding equivalent posts in the Central Public Works
Department. The learned Single judge allowed the Writ Petition granting
both the prayers of the Writ Petitioner. The appeal against the judgment
·of the learned Single Judge was dismissed by the Division Bench. F
 The present appeal is directed against the said judgment of the Division
 Bench.

      We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. At the
outset we may note that the learned counsel for the appellant has not
seriously challenged the impugned judgment so far as it grants relief to the G
Executive Engineers and Superintending Engineers by quashing the
Notification dated 3rd February, 19-89. The challenge in the appeal is
mainly directed against the scale of pay granted to the Chief Engineers and
Additional Chief Engineers i.e. Rs.5900-6700 and Rs. 4500-5700
respectively. In this connection following points have been raised :         H
    500                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   I.    The base year for purposes of revision of pay scales of Chief Engineer
          and Additional Chief Engineer should be taken as 1973 and not 1983
          even though the revision was being taken into consideration w.e.f.
          1.1.1986 as per the Fourth Central Pay Commission Report which had
          been accepted by the State Government.

B
    2.    In respect of Chief Engineer, the recommendation of the Pay
          Anomalies Committee which was accepted vide Notification dated
          19th January, 1989 was to the effect that only the existing incumbent
          would get the scale of Rs. 5900-6700 and future entrants would be
          entitled to pay scales of Rs. 4500-5700 only. This scale is the scale
c         for all heads of departments in the State of Mizoram while the scale
          of Rs. 5900-6700 was for next higher post.

          It was not disputed that the then incumbent of the post of Chief
          Engineer namely, Mr. Robula was given the scale of Rs. 5900-6700.
D         It was submitted that the said scale was specially allowed to him since
          he was holding the post on 1.1.1986 i.e. the date from which Fourth
          Central Pay Commission recommendations were made applicable.
          Subsequent entrants to the service were not to be given that scale. (Per
          letter dated 13th January, 1989 from Secretary, PWD to Director
E         Accounts & Treasury, Mizoram).

    3.    It was vehemently argued that scale of Rs. 5900-6700 was being
          allowed by the Government of India for senior level posts in the
          corresponding cadres. Engineering Service in the State of Mizoram
          was not an organized service. There were no Recruitment Rules for
F         the service. Therefore, there were no senior level posts which would
          entitle the incumbents to get the grade of Rs. 5900-6700.

          So far as the question as to which base year should be taken into
    consideration for purposes of revision of pay i.e. 1973 or 1983, we may
G   recall that Mizoram became a Union Territory in the year 1973. The
    Government of India had accepted the fact that the persons employed in
    Engineering Services within the State of Mizoram should get pay scale at
    par with those working in the Central Public Works Depa1tment. This
    decision was also implemented. The scales of pay for Engineers working
H   in the Mizoram State were revised w.e.f. 1973. The next crucial event in
STATE v. MIZORAM ENGG. SERVICE ASSON. [ARUN KUMAR, J.] 501

this connection is the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay A
Commission which were accepted by the State ofMizoram as well. These
recommendations take 1983 as the base year for the purpose of revision
of pay scales. Apart from this the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay)
Amendment Rules, 1987 also take the year 1983 as the base year. These
rules came into force on !st January, 1986. At that time Mizoram was a B
Union Territory. The Government of India accepted the Rules. They were
made applicable in Mizoram as well. The schedule annexed to the Rules
refers to present scales and revised scales of pay. The present scales mean
the scales which were in force at that time. For the relevant category of
posts the existing scale given in the Schedule is Rs. 2250-125/2-2750 and C
the revised pay scale is Rs. 5900-200-6700. In this background there does
not appear to be any good reason for taking 1973 as the base year for the
purpose of pay revision in Mizoram. No reason is forthcoming. Mr. L.
Nageshwara Rao, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for
the appellant relied on a Notification dated !st February, 1989 to submit
that it was the decision of the State Government to treat the year 1973 as D
the base year for the purpose of pay revision and that has to be accepted.
We are unable to accept this submission made on behalf of the appellants
in view of the fact that recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay
Commission have been duly accepted by the State Government. Additional
 factor which impels us to take this view is that the State Government itself E
 accepted the scale of Rs. 5900-6700 and allowed the same to the then
 incumbent Mr. Robula w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The State linked up revision of pay
scale of Mr. Robula with the date of revision of pay scales as per
1ecommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission. A different
 reasoning cannot be applied in case of other officers in the service. In this F
connection it is also worth noting that in para 4 of the counter affidavit
 filed on behalf of the Sate Government before the learned Single Judge
 in response to the Writ Petition it is admitted that the existing pay scale
 for the post of Chief Engineer was Rs. 2250-2500 prior to enforcement of
recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission. This is also
admitted that the conversion scale for the scale of Rs. 2250-2500 is Rs. G
5100-5700 and 5900-6700 as per the Fourth Pay Commission Report.
However, it is submitted that grade of Rs. 5900-6700 was applicable only
 in respect of organized Medical, Engineering and other Central Services
as per specific recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission.
 In view of this stand of the State Government it is difficult to accept that H
    502                SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A the Chief Engineers will not be allowed the grade or Rs. 5900-6700.

        Coming to the argument that the scale of pay of Rs. 5900-6700 was
  confined to only the then Chief Engineer Mr. Robula and was not be
  allowed to future entrants in the service, we find no justification for this.
B The fact that the revised pay scale was being allowed to Mr. Robula in tune
  with the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission, shows
  that the State Government had duly accepted the recommendations of the
  Fourth Central Pay Commission. Having done so, it cannot be permitted
  to discriminate between individuals and not allow the same to the rest. In
  this context the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it is not
c unusual that sometimes special pay is granted to an individual and the same
  does not become a precedent for others. As a proposition it may not be
  disputed. But there has to be special reason for this. In the facts of the
  present case we do not find any justification for confining the higher scale
  to a particular individual and deny the same to others. There may be special
D reasons for instance special merit, expertise or the like, for giving special
  pay to a particular individual. In the present case no such reason is
  forthcoming. On the other hand the reason given is that since he was
  holding the post on I. I.I 986, the date from which Fourth Central Pay
  Commission recommendations were given effect to, he was being allowed
E the higher pay scale. This reason rather supports the case of respondent.
  It shows an admission on the part of the appellant that the revised pay scales
  for the post of Chief Engineer as per the recommendations of the Fourth
  Central Pay Commission was Rs. 5900-6700 and was allowed to a Chief
  Engineer. The State Government cannot be permitted to discriminate
F between similarly placed individuals in this behalf between those holding
  the post at the time of revision of pay scales and future incumbents of the
  post. The argument has no merit.

         Great stress was laid on the fact that Engineering Service in the State
    was not an organized service and therefore, it did not have categorisation
G   by way of entrance level and senior level posts and for that reason the
    higher scale of Rs. 5900-6700 which was admissible for senior level posts
    could not be given in the Engineering Service. The main reason for
    dubbing Engineering Service as an unorganized service in the State is
    absence of recruitment rule for the service. Who is responsible for not
H   framing the recruitment rules? Are the members of the Engineering Service
STATE v. MIZORAM ENGG. SERVICE ASSON. [ARUN KUMAR, J.] 503

responsible for it? The answer is clearly 'No'. For failure of the State A
Government to frame recruitment rules and bring Engineering Service
within the framework of organized service, the engineers cannot be made
to suffer. Apart from the reason of absence of recruitment rules for the
Engineering Service, we see hardly any difference in organized and
unorganized service so far as Government service is concerned. In B
Government service such a distinction does not appear to have any
relevance. Civil Service is not trade unionism. We fail to appreciate what
is sought to be conveyed by use of the words 'organised service' and
'unorganised service'. Nothing has been pointed out in this behalf. The
argument is wholly misconceived.
                                                                           c
      The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that if the scale of
Rs. 5900-6700 is to be allowed to the CheifEngineers, the State Government
will have to allow the same scale to other heads of departments in the
service of the State Government which will be a heavy burden on the
financial resources of the State Government and for that reason we should D
restrict the scale for post of Chief Engineer and Additional Chief Engineer
to Rs. 4500-5700 and Rs. 4100-5300 respectively. In our view this is hardly
any ground to interfere with the decision of the High Court. It has been
found that the claim of the respondents is fully justified by the facts on
record. The Central Government as well as the State Government accepted E
the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission and the scales
being allowed to the members of the respondent Association are based on
those recommendations.

     Thus we do not find any merit in the present appeal. The impugned     F
judgment does not call for interference. The appeal is dismissed leaving
the parties to bear their respective costs.

B.S.                                                  Appeal dismissed.