Service Law:
Pay – Constitution of Pay Grievance Cell – For removal of anomalies in the pay scale of employees in question – Pursuant to recommendations regarding pay-scale of State Government employees in consonance with recommendations made by Central 6th Pay Commission – Initially one man Commission was appointed to remove anomaly in the pay-scale of Public Works Department employees – After accepting the recommendations of One Man Commission, the State later downgraded 52 categories of posts in various Departments to lower pay-scale – Representation by aggrieved employees – State constituted Pay Grievance Redressal Cell (PGRC) for looking into the grievances and consider representation – Writ Petitions – Dismissed by Single Judge of High Court directing the State to reconstitute the PGRC – Writ Appeal – During pendency of Writ Appeal, PGRC constituted, it considered several representations and gave its recommendations, which were implemented by the State by G.O. No. 242 dated 22.7.2013 – G.O. No. 242 was also challenged in Writ Petition – Disposing of the writ petitions and writ appeals, Division Bench of High Court held that reduction in pay-scale was without following principle of natural justice hence directed the State to constitute a ‘Pay Grievance Redressal Committee’ to analyse and consider the case – Appeal by the employees as well as the State to Supreme Court – Held: Recommendations of the One Man Commission were found to be anomalous – If the State government constituted the PGRC to address those anomalies, such decision by itself cannot be found to be illegal or invalid – Prescription of pay-scale and assessment in that behalf being a complex matter need to be assessed by experts – Therefore, there is no error in the impugned order directing constitution of PGRC.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. GO No. 242 dated 22.7.2013 indicates very clearly that the Assistant Engineers who were in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.6500-11100 by virtue of acceptance of the recommendations made by the 6th Central Pay Commission were kept in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4700/- as a result of GO No. 234 dated 01.06.2009, while the next promotional level i.e. of the Assistant Executive Engineers was kept at Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.5400/-. The recommendations of the One Man Commission resulted in upward revision to the extent of Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.5400/- for the Assistanct Engineers. The recommendations of the Pay Greivance Redressal Cell resulted in refixation for Assistant Engineers in the scale of Rs.9300-34800 with marginal increase of grade pay to Rs.5100/- as against what was available pursuant to GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009. [Para 13] [1025-B-D]
2. The recommendations of the PGRC dealt with the effects of the acceptance of the recommendations by the One Man Commission. The recommendations shows that certain aspects of the matter were found to be anomalous. The difference between the Assistant Engineers and the post immediately lower than that was getting widened, while at the same time, the post of Assistant Engineer and the next level of promotion i.e. the post of Assistant Executive Engineer were brought almost at the same level. These anomalies found by the State Government, had to be addressed. If the State Government, therefore, constituted the PGRC, such decision by itself cannot be found to be illegal or invalid. [Para 14] [1025-E-F]
3. Prescription of pay-scales and the assessment in that behalf is a complex matter which requires expertise. The 6 th Central Pay Commission comprising of experts in the field had recommended certain pay-scales for various posts. The Official Committee which comprised of Principal Secretary to the State, Home Department, as Chairperson with (i) Principal Secretary, Finance Department; (ii) Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department; and (iii)Principal Secretary, School Education Department as Members, had examined the matter and made certain recommendations which were accepted by the Government by GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009. The One Man Commission appointed to consider the anomalies, however, recommended something which was far in excess of what was accepted by GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009 which in turn was in tune with the recommendations of the 6 th Central Pay Commission. It is true that the Government had accepted the recommendations of the One Man Commission but if further anomalies were found which called for action on part of the Government, any exercise to reconsider the matter by the State Government could not be faulted nor could the constitution of the PGRC be said to be invalid or illegal. [Paras 15, 16] [1025-G; 1026-F-G; 1027-A-B]
4. Further, if there was any infirmity in the exercise of power by the PGRC in not granting adequate notice and hearing to the concerned, such infirmity could certainly be sorted out. That is exactly what the Division Bench undertook while passing the directions. Therefore, there is no error in the approach of and the directions issued by the Division Bench of the High Court. [Para 17] [1027-C]
5. But, it has been more than five years since the directions were issued by the Division Bench of the High Court and as a result of the interim orders passed by this Court, the PGRC could not be set up. In the circumstances, certain modifications in the directions issued by the Division Bench of High Court are called for. It is directed that the State Government shall issue appropriate orders constituting the PGRC. [Para 18] [1027-D-E; 1028-B]
6. It is clarified that regardless of the decision to be taken by the PGRC, any amount paid by way of financial benefit extended to and enjoyed by the concerned employees shall not be recovered i.e. to say that in case the decision in pursuance of the recommendations of the PGRC results in reduction in pay-scales or emoluments as were granted pursuant to GOs dated 26.08.2010, such reduction shall be prospective in application from the day the recommendations of the PGRC come into effect. [Para 19] [1028-F-G]
7. The affected categories shall not be permitted to migrate to 7th Central Pay Commission scales on the basis of the higher scales till such time as the final decision is taken. [Para 20] [1029-B]
Dy. Director General of Geological Survey of India and Another v. R.Yadaiah and Others (2001) 10 SCC 563; State of Bihar and Others v. Bihar Veterinary Association and Others (2008) 11 SCC 60 : [2008] 3 SCR 222 ; Hukumchand Gupta v. ICAR (2012) 12 SCC
666 : [2012] 8 SCR 831 – relied on.
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.