Supreme Court of India
UNION OF INDIA & ORSversusD.G.O.F. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ANR.
- Citation
- 2023 INSC 995
- Decided
- 9 November 2023
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- A S BOPANNA
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the High Court was correct in applying para 3.1.9 of the Sixth CPC, as the OFB headquarters employees were similarly placed and historically enjoyed parity with CSS staff, and the High Court’s order merely rectified a discriminatory pay anomaly.
Summary
The D.G.O.F. Employees Association, representing assistants and personal assistants of the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) headquarters, sought parity in pay with similarly placed employees of the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) and other central cadres, invoking para 3.1.9 of the Sixth Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendations. The Central Administrative Tribunal had rejected the claim, and the Delhi High Court set aside that order, holding that the OFB employees were historically treated on par with CSS staff and were entitled to the benefits under para 3.1.9, rejecting the appellant's reliance on para 3.1.14. The Union of India appealed, arguing that judicial review of pay scales is limited and that para 3.1.14 should govern the case. The Supreme Court examined the scope of judicial review, the doctrine of historical parity, and the applicability of the Sixth CPC recommendations, concluding that the High Court was correct in applying para 3.1.9 based on factual similarity and historical parity. It held that the High Court’s decision merely rectified a pay anomaly and did not overstep judicial restraint. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, leaving the High Court’s order in force.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court was justified in applying para 3.1.9 of the Sixth CPC recommendations to grant pay parity to OFB headquarters employees.
- Whether para 3.1.14 of the Sixth CPC recommendations should control the determination of pay scales in the present case.
- Whether the courts may intervene in pay scale determinations where there is historical parity and alleged discrimination, notwithstanding the general principle of judicial restraint in service matters.
Legislation cited
Subjects
service lawpay paritycentral pay commissionarticle 14judicial reviewhistorical paritypay scale determinationequality before law
Judgment
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 856 : 2023 INSC 995
CASE DETAILS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
v.
D.G.O.F. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 1663 of 2016)
NOVEMBER 09, 2023
[A.S. BOPANNA AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justified in
holding that the respondents would be entitled to the benefit in terms of para
3.1.9 of the recommendations contained in the VIth Central Pay Commission
and in that regard whether it rightly rejected the contention of the appellant
that it ought to have been guided by para 3.1.14.
Service Law – Parity in pay scales – Historical similarity –
Respondent-Association of Employees in the Head Quarters of
Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) sought upgradation of the pay scales
of Assistant and Personal Assistants of OFB, Headquarters as given to
similarly placed employees of Central Secretariat Service (CSS) and
equivalent posts in Armed Force Headquarters Civil Service Cadre,
New Delhi and similar other cadres – Prayer declined by CAT – Order
set aside by High Court inter alia holding that the members of the
respondent were historically treated as equals to CSS/CSSS employees
and had earlier enjoyed equal pay and all benefits – Legality:
Held : The reliance placed by the High Court on para 3.1.9 is based
on the fact that there was similarity inasmuch as the pay scale as sought
for implementation is the one which was provided to the employees of
the headquarters as they were similarly placed as the employees of the
headquarters in CSS/CSSS – Further, what was also taken into consideration
by the High Court is the historical similarity in pay scales which existed
prior to the recommendations in the Sixth CPC – Such historical similarity
856
UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. D.G.O.F. EMPLOYEES 857
ASSOCIATION AND ANR.
which had existed was taken note and, in that light, the pay scale which
was applicable was taken into consideration and accordingly arrived at
the conclusion that the employees in the headquarters of the Ordnance
Factories being similarly placed cannot be discriminated – Therefore, such
consideration would fall within the parameters as permitted by this Court
– Also, the High Court adverted to the fact situation and rectified the pay
anomaly – High Court having kept in view the legal, as well as the factual
aspects, did not proceed in a manner so as to equate two sets of employees
in different organizations – But, keeping in view the recommendation of the
Pay Commission and the applicability of the pay scales recommended to
similarly placed employees employed in the headquarters and on noticing
discrimination despite historical similarity merely rectified the error, which
does not call for interference. [Paras 12, 13 15]
Service Law – Determination of pay scale – Power of Court:
Held: Though the Courts would not undertake the exercise of
determining the pay scale keeping in view the nature of the work by
comparing employees who are not similarly placed in cases where the
exercise of determining such complex issues would arise, at the same time,
relief cannot be denied to the employees when the entitlement is denied due
to irrational consideration without application of mind to the facts involved
in the case by the employer, thereby denying the benefits to the employees.
[Para 10]
LISTS OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Union of India and Others vs. Manoj Kumar and Others, Civil Appeal
Nos.913-914 of 2021 disposed of on 31.08.2021 – distinguished.
All India Naval Clerks Association and Others vs. Union of India and
Others, Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.29204
of 2019 dated 27.07.2022 – relied on.
State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others, (2017) 1 SCC
148: [2016] 7 SCR 350; Union of India vs. Indian Navy Civilian Design
Officers Association and Another, (2023) SCC Online SC 173; Union of
India vs. Dineshan K.K., (2008) 1 SCC 586 : [2008] 1 SCR 100 – referred to.
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1663 of 2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.10.2014 of the High Court of
Delhi at New Delhi in WPC No.4606 of 2013.
Appearances:
R. Bala, Sr. Adv., Arvind Kumar Sharma, Rajesh Ranjan, Madhav
Sinhal, Shantnu Sharma, Navanjay Mahapatra, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Advs.
for the Appellants.
Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv., S. J. Amith, Ms. Vidushi Garg, Ms. Aishwarya
Kumar, Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, Advs. for the Respondents.
JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGMENT
A.S. BOPANNA, J.
1. The appellants-Union of India and others are before this Court
assailing the order dated 14.10.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi in
Writ Petition (Civil) No.4606 of 2013. By the said order, the High Court has
set aside the order dated 18.10.2012 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Principal Bench (‘CAT’ for short) in O.A. No.39 of 2011 and the
order dated 01.04.2013 passed in the Review Application bearing R.A.No.43
of 2013. The CAT had thereby declined the relief sought by the respondents
herein for parity in pay scales. The High Court while setting aside the order
of CAT has held that the respondents would be entitled to the benefit in terms
of paragraph 3.1.9 of the recommendations contained in the VIth Central Pay
Commission (VIth CPC for short). The appellants therefore claiming to be
aggrieved are in this appeal.
2. The respondent is an Association of Employees in the Head Quarters
of Ordnance Factory Board. They sought for upgradation of the pay scales of
Assistant and Personal Assistants of Ordnance Factory Board, Headquarters
as had been given to similarly placed employees of Central Secretariat
Service (‘CSS’ for short) and equivalent posts in Armed Force Headquarters
UNION OF INDIA & ORS V. D.G.O.F. EMPLOYEES 859
ASSOCIATION AND ANR. [A.S. BOPANNA, J.]
Civil Service (‘AFHCS’ for short) Cadre, New Delhi and similar other
cadres. The Ministry of Defence through the order dated 20.04.2010 did
not approve the same. This was communicated to the respondents by the
letter dated 07.06.2010. The respondents therefore being aggrieved were
before the CAT. The CAT also declined the prayer which resulted in the
writ proceedings before the High Court.
3. The High Court having analysed the matter was however of the
view that the members of the respondent were historically treated as equals
to CSS/CSSS employees and had earlier enjoyed equal pay and all benefits.
Hence a direction was issued to the appellants herein to fix the members of
the Respondent Association and other similarly placed Assistants working
in Ordnance Factories and in OFB in the same pay scale as was given to
Assistants similarly placed in CSS/CSSS, Army Headquarters, UPSC, CAT,
MEA, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs etc. with effect from the same date
as was first given to them. The appellant therefore claiming to be aggrieved
by the same are in this appeal.
4. Heard Mr. R. Bala Subramanian, learned senior counsel for the
appellant, Ms. Kiran Suri, learned senior counsel for the respondents and
perused the appeal papers.
5. The thrust of the contention on behalf of the appellants is that
the power of judicial review in matters pertaining to pay scale is limited,
unless arbitrariness can be demonstrated or there is palpable discrimination.
Insofar as the provision contained in the recommendations of the VI th CPC
the appellants seek to rely on para 3.1.14 which recommended replacement
pay scale. The reliance placed by the respondents instead on para 3.1.9 is
disputed to contend that it does not refer to employees of OFB and it is
further contended that it does not extend any extra benefits. In that backdrop,
it is seen that the High Court having noted the fact that the successive CPC
recommendations had resulted in parity in pay scales and in view of such
equal treatment historically had also considered the pay scale as provided
in the VIth CPC as well as the intention as contained in para 3.1.9 which
provided for parity.
6. In order to appreciate the manner in which the High Court has
analysed the issue to arrive at its conclusion, it would be apposite to
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.
reproduce relevant portion of the consideration made by the High Court.
The same reads as hereunder:-
“16. In this background, it would be necessary to extract the relevant
recommendations of the Sixth CPC, i.e. paras 3.1.9 and 3.1.14 which
reads as follows:
“3.1.9 Accordingly, the Commission recommends upgradation of the
entry scale of Section Officers in all Secretariat Services (including
CSS as well as non-participating ministries/departments/organizations)
to Rs. 7500-12000 corresponding to the revised pay band PB 2 of
Rs.8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs.4800. Further, on par with
the dispensation already available in CSS, the Section Officers in other
Secretariat Offices, which have always had an established parity with
CSS/CSSS, shall be extended the scale of Rs.8000-13500 in Group B
corresponding to the revised pay band PB 2 of Rs.8700-34800 along
with grade pay of Rs.4800 on completion of four years service in the
lower grade. This will ensure full parity between all Secretariat Offices.
It is clarified that the pay band PB 2 of Rs.8700-34800 along with grade
pay of Rs.4800 is being recommended for the post of Section Officer
in these services solely to maintain the existing relativities which were
disturbed when the scale was extended only to the Section Officers
in CSS. The grade carrying grade pay of Rs.4800 in pay band PB-2
is, otherwise, not to be treated as a regular grade and should not be
extended to any other category of employees. These recommendations
shall apply mutatis mutandis to post of Private Secretary/equivalent
in these services as well. The structure of posts in Secretariat Offices
would now be as under: -
Post Pre revised pay scale Corresponding revised pay
band and grade pay
LDC Rs.3050-4590 PB-1 of Rs.4860-20200 along
with grade pay of Rs.1900
UDC Rs.4000-6000 PB-1 of Rs.4860-20200 along
with grade pay of Rs.2400
Assistant Rs.6500-10500 PB-2 of Rs.8700-34800 along
with grade pay of Rs.4200
UNION OF INDIA & ORS V. D.G.O.F. EMPLOYEES 861
ASSOCIATION AND ANR. [A.S. BOPANNA, J.]
Section Officer Rs.7500-12000 Rs.8000- PB-2 of Rs.8700-34800 along
13500 (on completion of with grade pay of Rs.4800
four years) PB-2 of Rs.8700-34800 along
with grade pay of Rs.5400*
(on completion of four years)
Under Secretary R s . 1 0 0 0 0 - 1 5 2 0 0 PB-3 of Rs.15600-39100 along
Rs.8000-13500 (on with grade pay of Rs.6100
completion of four years)
Deputy Secretary Rs.12000-16500 PB-3 of Rs.15600-39100 along
with grade pay of Rs.6600
Director Rs.14300-18300 PB-3 of Rs.15600-39100 along
with grade pay of Rs.7600
* This scale shall be available only in such of those organizations/
services which have had a historical parity with CSS/CSSS. Services
like AFHQSS/AFHQSSS/RBSS and Ministerial/ Secretarial posts
in Ministries/Departments organizations like MEA, Ministry
of Parliamentary Affairs, CVC, UPSC, etc. would therefore be
covered.”
XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX
Recommendations for non-Secretariat Organizations
3.1.14 In accordance with the principle established in the earlier
paragraphs, parity between Field and Secretariat Offices is
recommended. This will involve merger of few grades. In the
Stenographers cadre, the posts of Stenographers Grade II and
Grade I in the existing scales of Rs.4500-7000/Rs.5000-8000 and
Rs.5500-9000 will, therefore, stand merged and be placed in the
higher pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. In the case of ministerial post
in non-Secretariat Offices, the posts of Head Clerks, Assistants,
Office Superintendent and Administrative Officers Grade III in the
respective pay scales of Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-
105000 will stand merged. The existing and revised structure in
Field Organization will, therefore, be as follows:-
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.
Designation Present Recommended Pay Corresponding Pay
pay scale Band & Grade Pay
scale Pay Grade Pay
Band
LDC 3050- 3050-4590 PB-1 1900
4590
UDC 4000- 4000-6000 PB-1 2400
6000
Head Clerk/Assistant/
4500- 6500-10500 PB-2 4200
7000/
Steno Grade II/
5000-
equivalent
8000
Office Superintendent/ 5500-
Steno Grade I/equivalent 9000
Superintendent/Asstt. 6500- 6500-10500 PB-2 4200
Admn. Officer/Private 10500
Secretary/equivalent
Administrative Officer 7500- 7500-12000 entry PB-2 4800
Grade II/Sr. Private 12000 g ra d e f o r fr es h
5400
Secretary/equ. recruits) 8000-13500
(on completion of (after 4 years)
four years)
Administrative Officer 1 0 0 0 0 - 10000-15200 PB-2 6100
Grade I 15200
Note1: The posts in the intermediate scale of Rs.7450-11500,
wherever existing, will be extended the corresponding replacement
pay band and grade pay.”
Note 2 The existing Administrative Officer Grade II/Sr. Private
Secretary/equivalent in the scale of Rs.7500-12000 will, however, be
placed in the corresponding replacement pay band and grade pay till
the time they become eligible to be placed in the scale of Rs.8000-
13500 corresponding to the revised pay band PB 2 of Rs.8700-34800
along with grade pay of Rs.5400.”
17. The Sixth CPC had this to say about the AFHQ Civil Service,
AFHQ Stenographer’s Services and other similarly placed posts in
different Headquarter organizations:
“AFHQ Civil Services and AFHQ Stenographers Service
UNION OF INDIA & ORS V. D.G.O.F. EMPLOYEES 863
ASSOCIATION AND ANR. [A.S. BOPANNA, J.]
7.10.22 AFHQ Civil Services and AFHQ Stenographers Service have
demanded parity with CSSS and CSS. Since the Commission has
recommended parity between posts in headquarters and field offices,
it is only justified that such parity also exists between similarly
placed posts in different headquarter organisations. The Commission,
accordingly, recommends that parity should be maintained between the
posts at the level of Assistant and Section Officer in these services.”
18. It is evident from the above discussion that the denial of parity
is based upon the Central Governments interpretation of the 6th CPC
recommendations. As observed earlier, there is about that parity had
existed as between Assistants working in the OFs falling within the
jurisdiction of the OFB and identically situated Assistants working
in CSS/CSSS. This parity had also existed as between CSS/
CSSS Assistants on the one hand and similar ranking employees
in all other non-Secretariat employees working in different
departments in the Central Government. This parity existed
for 10 years even after the Fifth CPC recommendations and its
implementation. The singular event which brought about a change
was not the result of the Sixth CPC recommendations; it was the
intervening upgradation of the pay scales that had existed for
Assistants in all these organizations pending the acceptance of
those recommendations. The upgradation given to all others but
denied to employees in OFs was the point of departure, and also
the turning point of the discrimination practiced against them.
19. The Central Government’s first explanation for denial is
that this is in terms authorized by Para 3.1.14 of the Sixth CPC
recommendations. That is plainly incorrect, because that portion
of the Sixth CPC merely indicated the replacement scales from
the existing Rs.5000-8000/- to be Rs.6500-10,500/-. By the time
this recommendation was accepted, Assistants in the CSS/CSSS
were already enjoying the higher scale of Rs.6500-10,500/-. Even
the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008 support this inference. Under
Rule 3(1) of the said Rules, “existing basic pay” means “pay drawn in
the prescribed existing scale of pay, including stagnation increment(s),
but does not include any other type of pay like ‘special pay’, etc. Rule
3(2) on the other hand, prescribed “existing scale” in relation to a
Government servant as “the present scale applicable to the post held
864 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.
by the Government servant…as on the 1st day of January..2006”. Rule
3 (7) defined “revised pay structure” as one in relation to any post
specified in column 2 of the First Schedule and meaning “the pay band
and grade pay specified against that post or the pay scale specified in
column 5 & 6 thereof, unless a different revised pay band and grade
pay or pay scale is notified separately for that post.” Rule 11 prescribed
the mode of fixation in pay after 01.01.2006. Part B of Section II of
the First Schedule to the Rules specifically stated as follows:
“XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
“ S l . Post (2) Present R e v i s e d Corresponding Pay Para No
No. scale (3) Scale (4) & Band of the
(1) re port
(7)
Pay Band Grade Pay
(5) (6)
OFFICE STAFF IN THE SECRETARIAT*
1. Section 6500- 7500- PB-2 4800/- 3.1.9
Officer/ 10500/- 12000 PB-3 5400/-
PS/ 8000- (on
equivalent 13500 completion
(on of 4 years)
completion
of 4 years)
* This scale shall be available only in such of those organizations/
services which have had a historical parity with CSS/CSSS. Services like
AFHQSS/AFHQSSS/RBSS and Ministrial/Secretarial posts in Ministries/
Departments organizations like MEA, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs,
CVC, UPSC, etc. would therefore be covered.
OFFICE STAFF WORKING IN ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE
SECRETARIAT
1. Head clerk/ 4500- 6500-10500 PB-2 4200/- 3.1.1
Assistants/ 7000/5000- 8000-135000 5400/- (on
Steno Grade II 8000/ (on completion
equivalent completion of of 4 years)
4 years)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS V. D.G.O.F. EMPLOYEES 865
ASSOCIATION AND ANR. [A.S. BOPANNA, J.]
2. Administrative 7500-12000 7500-12000 PB-2 480/- 3.1.1
Officer (entry grade 5400/-
Grade II/ for fresh (on
Senior Private recruits) completion
Secretary/ 8000- of 4 years)
equivalent 13000/- (on
completion
of 4 years)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX”
The interesting part of the above table is that but for the explanation it
affords, the substantive part of the Rules are based on the replacement
scales being in accordance with the ones indicated in Part A of the
First Schedule-read with definition of “revised pay”. The scales
indicated, under the First schedule are in the form of merger of four
pay scales- Rs.4500-7000/-; Rs.5000-8000/-; Rs.5500-9000/- and
Rs.6500-10,500/-. All are merged into one pay scale, i.e., Rs.9300-
34800/-. The Rules, as well as the Sixth CPC recommendations
specifically talk of continuation of pay benefits on the basis of
“historical parity”. As observed earlier, this historical parity is
not denied; however, the explanation for denial of the benefit
of upgradation – and the consequent placement in higher pay
scales, to employees in Ordnance Factories is that OFB employees
are not specifically mentioned, as opposed to mention of other
non-secretariat employees: “like AFHQSS/AFHQSSS/RBSS
and Ministerial/Secretarial posts in Ministries/ Departments
organizations like MEA, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, CVC,
UPSC, etc.” This argument is both unpersuasive and specious,
because mention of specific department was meant only by way
of illustration; else a contrary intention would have been clearer.
That the mention of some, not all non-secretariat employees
is illustrative and not exhaustive is clear from the qualifying
terms – “like” and “etc.” The allusion to historical parity with
reference to only a few illustrations was to encompass all those
organizations where employees had identical pay scales and
not merely those in enumerated departments or organizations.
Any other interpretation would negate the whole intention of
maintaining historical parity altogether.
866 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.
21. The other submission of the respondents was that employees
in Ordnance Factories were not working in Headquarters based
organizations. The history of Ordnance Factories, available from
the record is that by the Central Government order dated 27th
September, 1975, the President had extended the Armed Forces
Headquarters Service scheme mutatis mutandis to the Directorate
General Headquarters Staff. Later, by order of 09.01.1979, the
Ordnance Factory Board was set up at the Headquarters office
of the DGOF. These documents point to the untenability of the
respondents’ submission that of services are not Headquartes based
services. In this context, it is worth mentioning that what comprises
“Headquarters” is indicated in the Sixth CPC recommendations
although no such definition exists under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules.
At para 3.1.1 of the Sixth CPC recommendations, it is stated that:
“Office staff in Headquarters and Field Organisations of
Government of India
3.1.1 The various Secretariats of the Ministries and Departments
of Government of India together constitute the headquarters
organization. The Secretariats are chiefly involved in matters
relating the formulation of policy and ensuring that these
policies are executed in a coordinated and effective manner.
Actual execution of these policies, however, is left to field
agencies outside the Secretariat which may be either attached
or subordinate offices or quasi- Government/autonomous/public
sector undertakings.”
22. If the respondents’ submission is that Headquarters implies the
headquarters being located in New Delhi, there is no warrant-either
express or implied, for such a contention. Headquarters of different
Central Government organizations can and are geographically
dispersed- some, deliberately having regard to functional necessity
and others as a historical reality. These can, without anything more,
not be the basis of discrimination or valid differentiation.”
(emphasis supplied)
7. Having noted the manner of consideration made by the High Court,
before we advert to appreciate the correctness of the same, it would be
necessary to take note of the rival contentions addressed relating to the power
UNION OF INDIA & ORS V. D.G.O.F. EMPLOYEES 867
ASSOCIATION AND ANR. [A.S. BOPANNA, J.]
of the Court to delve into the aspect relating to determination of pay scale.
The learned senior counsel for the appellant in support of his contention that
the fixation of pay scale is in the realm of the employer and the Court should
exercise restraint has relied on the pronouncement of this Court in State
of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others (2017) 1 SCC 148 with
specific reference to para 42 wherein the parameters relating to consideration
of cases relating to equal pay for equal work has been adverted to and the
extent to which comparison between one set of employees with another is
permissible. It is stated therein that where there is no comparison between
one set of employees of one organisation and another set of employees of a
different organization, there can be no question of the equation of pay scales
under the principle of “equal pay for equal work” even if two organizations
have a common employer.
8. The decision in Union of India vs. Indian Navy Civilian Design
Officers Association and Another (2023) SCC Online SC 173 is next
referred to by the learned senior counsel for the appellant to point out the
consideration made therein at para 11 to 14 with reference to the earlier
decisions of this Court. It is thereafter held therein that the Courts, therefore,
should not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the
expert bodies like the Pay Commissions which undertake rigorous exercise
for job evaluation after taking into consideration several factors like the
nature of work, the duties, accountability and responsibilities attached to
the posts, the extent of powers conferred on the persons holding a particular
post, the promotional avenues, the statutory rules governing the conditions
of service, the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs etc.
9. The learned senior counsel for the respondents on the other hand
has referred to the decision of this Court in Union of India vs. Dineshan
K.K. (2008) 1 SCC 586 wherein it is held that though the equation of posts
and equation of pay structure being complex matters are generally left to the
executive and expert bodies like the Pay Commission etc. and the carefully
evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed by the Court as it
may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well,
nevertheless, it will not be correct to lay down as an absolute rule that
merely because determination and granting of pay scales is the prerogative
of the executive, the Court has no jurisdiction to examine any pay structure
and an aggrieved employee cannot be left with no remedy if he is unjustly
treated by arbitrary State action or inaction, except to go on knocking at
868 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.
the doors of the executive or the legislature. It is further held therein that
undoubtedly, when there is no dispute with regard to the qualifications, duties
and responsibilities of the persons holding identical posts or ranks but they
are treated differently merely because they belong to different departments
or the basis for classification or post is ex facie irrational, arbitrary or unjust
it is open to the Court to intervene.
10. A cumulative perusal of the opinion expressed by this Court
would indicate that though the Courts would not undertake the exercise
of determining the pay scale keeping in view the nature of the work by
comparing employees who are not similarly placed in cases where the
exercise of determining such complex issues would arise, at the same time,
relief cannot be denied to the employees when the entitlement is denied due
to irrational consideration without application of mind to the facts involved
in the case by the employer, thereby denying the benefits to the employees.
If this aspect of the matter is kept in view, a perusal of the consideration
made by the High Court as seen from the portion reproduced above from the
judgment of the High Court, it would disclose that the High Court has not
undertaken the exercise regarding which restraint has been expressed by this
Court. However, on the admitted facts and the earlier situation which existed,
a consideration has been made keeping in view the very recommendation
of the Pay Commission in reckoning the appropriate application of the pay
scale. In that regard, all that has been adverted to by the High Court is as
to whether the employees who are the members of the respondent and are
employed in the headquarters are similarly placed as that of the employees
of CSS/CSSS and in that regard has considered the matter further to ensure
that the members of the respondent are not discriminated upon.
11. In that view of the matter what is to be taken into consideration is
as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case the High
Court was justified in arriving at the conclusion that the provision contained
in para 3.1.9 of the Sixth CPC would apply to the fact situation and in that
regard whether it had rightly rejected the contention of the appellant herein
that it ought to have been guided by para 3.1.14 of the recommendations.
The contention as noted by the High Court is what was urged before us.
In that regard, at the outset it is necessary to clarify that the conclusion as
reached with regard to the parity in pay scale in the case of the employees
who are members of the first respondent is basically due to the fact that they
are employees in the headquarters of the Ordnance Factory and therefore
UNION OF INDIA & ORS V. D.G.O.F. EMPLOYEES 869
ASSOCIATION AND ANR. [A.S. BOPANNA, J.]
they are similarly placed as that of the Assistants in CSS/CSSS Army
Headquarters as well as such other similarly placed organisations referred
to in the recommendations. If that be the position, the conclusion as reached
by the High Court is unexceptionable.
12. However, the learned senior counsel for the appellant in order to
buttress his contention that para 3.1.14 of the recommendations would apply
has sought to rely on the decision of this Court in Union of India and Others
vs. Manoj Kumar and Others Civil Appeal Nos.913-914 of 2021 disposed of
on 31.08.2021 wherein this court while examining the very same provision
as contained in paras 3.1.9 and 3.1.14 had arrived at the conclusion that the
benefit of equal pay in the said case cannot be extended and had held that the
Pay Commission, which is a specialised body set up with the objective of
resolving anomalies had made its recommendation, which would not call for
interference. The decision would indicate that this Court though had referred to
the very paragraph as contained in the Sixth CPC recommendations, what had
however arisen for consideration therein was with regard to disparity between
Secretariat and Field Officers. What was noted in that case was the claim made
by Private Secretaries Grade II employed in Eastern Central Railways (Field
Office/Zonal Railways) for parity in pay with their counterparts working in
the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service/Railway Boards Secretariat
Stenographers Service/Central Administrative Tribunal. In that view, this Court
was of the view that though there is an observation that the recommendations
shall apply mutatis mutandis to Private Secretaries and posts equivalent thereto
in the service under para 3.1.9; the subsequent para 3.1.14 has specifically dealt
with the aspect of parity between the Field and Secretariat Offices which was
really the subject matter of the claim therein. The said observation, though
emphasised by the learned senior counsel for the appellant would indicate
that it is not a consideration akin to the consideration herein. As seen from the
highlighted portion of the reproduced paragraphs from the impugned order
passed by the High Court hereinabove, it would disclose that in the instant facts
the reliance placed by the High Court on para 3.1.9 is based on the fact that
there was similarity inasmuch as the pay scale as sought for implementation is
the one which was provided to the employees of the headquarters as they were
similarly placed as the employees of the headquarters in CSS/CSSS.
13. Further, what was also taken into consideration by the High
Court is the historical similarity in pay scales which existed prior to the
recommendations in the Sixth CPC. Such historical similarity which had
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R.
existed was taken note and, in that light, the pay scale which was applicable
was taken into consideration and had accordingly arrived at the conclusion
that the employees in the headquarters of the Ordnance Factories being
similarly placed cannot be discriminated. Therefore, such consideration
in the instant case would fall within the parameters as permitted by this
Court. Also, in the present circumstance, the High Court has adverted to
the fact situation and has thereby rectified the pay anomaly. In fact, the
question of parity with regard to the pay scale to the Assistants in the lower
formations in the Indian Navy with that of the Assistants in CSS was held as
discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution by this Court
in the case of All India Naval Clerks Association and Others vs. Union
of India and Others in Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No.29204 of 2019 dated 27.07.2022.
14. As noted by the High Court, it is evident that parity of pay scales
vis-à-vis LDCs, UDCs, Assistants/PAs and Stenographers, was maintained
even prior to 01.01.1986 under the Third Central Pay Commission
recommendations (for the period of 01.01.1973 to 31.03.1985). This parity
was continued in the Fourth Central Pay Commission recommendations
(with effect from 01.01.1986 to 31.12.1995) and the Fifth Central Pay
Commission recommendations (for the period 01.01.1996 to 14.09.2006).
The post of Assistants, PAs and Stenographers is governed by Director
General Ordnance Factories Headquarters Civil Service Rules, 1977.
15. Be that as it may, in the present facts the perusal of the judgment
passed by the High Court impugned herein would indicate that the High Court
having kept in view the legal, as well as the factual aspects, has not proceeded
in a manner so as to equate two sets of employees in different organizations.
But, keeping in view the recommendation of the Pay Commission and the
applicability of the pay scales recommended to similarly placed employees
employed in the headquarters and on noticing discrimination despite historical
similarity has merely rectified the error, which does not call for interference.
16. In view of the above, the appeal being devoid of merit, stands
dismissed with no order as to costs.
17. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.
Headnotes prepared by: Appeal dismissed.
Divya Pandey
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "service law"Sign in to search