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 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. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
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.