Service Law – Constitution of India – Article 227 – Indian Forests Service (Pay) Second Amendment Rules, 2008 –Amended 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 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 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 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/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.
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 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: 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
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 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 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] Sudhakar Baburao Nangnure vs. Noreshwar
Raghunathrao Shende 2020 (11) SCC 399 : [2019] 4 SCR 945 – relied on.
2.1 The relevant Amended Rules of 2008 came into effect 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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”, 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 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 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 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.
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.