Service Law – Parity of Pay Scale – When cannot be granted – Respondents, included in Group XII of the appellant-Board, were working as Sub Fire Officers in the appellant-Board – Respondents claimed parity of pay scale with other three classes within Group XII viz., Head Clerks, Head Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountants and Internal Auditors – Single Judge allowed the writ petition – Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant – On appeal, held: Work performed by the Sub Fire Officer is entirely different from the nature of duties performed by the other three posts within the same group – Appellant is an autonomous body – It was for the appellant to classify its employees/posts on the basis of qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the posts concerned – If the classification has reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved, the appellant would be justified in prescribing different pay scales – Further, burden of establishing parity in pay scale and employment is on the person claiming such right – However, the respondents did not produce any material to show that there is any similarity/identity between them and the Head Clerks, Head Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountants and Internal Auditors in terms of the nature of duties, responsibilities, qualifications and mode of recruitment to claim parity of pay scale – Determination of parity or disparity in duties and responsibilities is a complex issue and the same should be left to the expert body – When the expert body considered revision of pay for various posts, it did not revise the pay scale of Sub Fire Officers – Only in cases of complete similarity in the nature of work, duties, responsibilities and promotional channels, parity of pay scale can be claimed – In the present case, nature of work, duties, responsibilities and initial qualification for recruitment of each post are entirely different as all these posts belong to different cadre – Mere difference in pay scale does not always amount to discrimination, it depends upon the mode of selection/recruitment, nature, quality of work and duties and the status of both the posts – Judgment of the Single Judge and the impugned judgment of the Division Bench set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The duties and nature of work of Head Clerks and Internal Auditors are entirely different. Head Clerks work under XEN, Drawing and Disbursement Officer and there is only one Head Clerk in the Division Office. Head Clerk is the Head of the establishment in the Divisional Office and total work of the establishment is under the control of the Head Clerk. Head Clerk also maintains the leave and other miscellaneous works for the Sub-divisions and the Division Offices and also discharges administrative functions and thus, has more responsibilities. Duty of an Internal Auditor is to audit the billing of the Revenue Department of the Sub-division Office which includes billing of domestic supply to large supply. Whereas the duty of the Sub Fire Officer is entirely different viz., rush to the spot of emergency along with firefighting equipment crew, direct and supervise firefighting and rescue operations, arrange for extra fire fighting equipments, if need be discharge mechanical foam, dry chemical powder, etc. and inform the fire pump house for continuous running of pumps and also inform Fire Officer/Sr.Xen/Fire and Safety regarding incident. Thus, the work performed by the Sub Fire Officer is entirely different from the nature of duties performed by the Head Clerks and the Internal Auditors. [Para 18][339-H; 340-A-D]
1.2 The appellant-Board being an autonomous body governed by its own regulations, it was for the Board to classify its employees/posts on the basis of qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the posts concerned. If the classification has reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved, the Board would be justified in prescribing different pay scales. Article
14 of the Constitution of India would be applicable only when a discrimination is made out between the persons who are similarly situated and not otherwise. It is the duty of an employee seeking parity of pay to prove and establish that they have been discriminated. [Para 19][340-D-E]
1.3 The person claiming parity must produce material before the court to prove that the nature of duties and functions are similar and that they are entitled to parity of pay scales. Burden of establishing parity in pay scale and employment is on the person claiming such right. There were neither pleadings nor any material produced by the respondents to prove that the nature of work performed by the Sub Fire Officers is similar with that of the Head Clerks and the Internal Auditors to claim parity of pay scale. Determination of parity or disparity in duties and responsibilities is a complex issue and the same should be left to the expert body. When the expert body considered revision of pay for various posts, it did not revise the pay scale of Sub Fire Officers. When the expert body took such a view, it is not for the courts to substitute its views and interfere with the same and take a different view. [Paras 20, 21][340-G; 341-F-H; 342-A]
1.4 Only in cases of complete similarity in the nature of work, duties, responsibilities and promotional channels, parity of pay scale can be claimed. Merely on the ground that Sub Fire Officers are categorised in Group XII along with Head Clerks, Head Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountants and Internal Auditors cannot be a ground for seeking parity of pay scale. The nature of work, duties, responsibilities and initial qualification for recruitment of each post are entirely different as all these posts belong to different cadre. That apart, though in the year 1988 there were only four posts in Group XII, number of posts have been subsequently included. Vide Finance Circular No. 44/89 dated 15.06.1989, seven more posts were added in Group XII. Thereafter, vide Finance Circular No.45/89 dated 26.06.1989, there was a further increase of seven posts in Group XII. If the contention of the Sub Fire Officers for parity of pay scale with pay scale of Head Clerks, Head Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountants and Internal Auditors is accepted, such parity of scale of pay may have to be extended to all other posts in Group XII which would involve huge financial repercussion on the finance of the Board which is a service-oriented institution. The High Court erred in not keeping in view the financial consequences of the direction to give parity of pay scale to the Sub Fire Officers. [Paras 22, 23][342-C-E, G-H; 343-A]
1.5 Inclusion of posts of Sub Fire Officers in Group XII may not be a determinative factor to hold that the Sub Fire Officers are equal with Head Clerks, Head Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountants, and Internal Auditors. Mere difference in pay scale does not always amount to discrimination; it depends upon the mode of selection/recruitment, nature, quality of work and duties and that the status of both the posts are identical. The judgment of the Single Judge and the impugned judgment of the Division Bench cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. [Paras 26, 27][343-G; 344-E-F]
Steel Authority of India Limited and Others v. Dividend Bhattacharya (2011) 11 SCC 122:[2010] 13 SCR 429; S.C. Chandra and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others (2007) 8 SCC 279 : [2007] 9 SCR 130 – relied on.
State of Haryana and Another v. Tilak Raj and Others (2003) 6 SCC 123 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 522; Union of India and Another v. Manik Lal Banerjee (2006) 9 SCC 643 : [2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 66 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.