Service Law : Pay scale – Grant of – Respondent association seeking pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 to the Junior Design Officers as allowed to the Civilian Technical Officers (Design), consequent to the implementation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission – Allowed by the tribunal and the High Court, by equating the posts of JDOs with CTOs, and in fixing the pay scales of JDOs equivalent to that of CTOs – Justification of – Held: Equation and classification of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the Executive and not of the Judiciary – Courts should not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions – Wisdom and advisability of the Courts in the matters concerning the finance, are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless a gross case of arbitrariness or unfairness is established by the aggrieved party –Though the doctrine equal pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of Law, the equal pay must be for equal work of equal value – On facts, the probation period in case of CTOs is longer than that of JDOs –Duties and responsibilities of both the posts are different and the promotional avenues also have different duration and different criteria – Tribunal and the High Court erred in interfering with the pay scales recommended by the Fifth Central Pay Commission and accepted by the appellant for the posts of JDOs and CTOs, and in upgrading the pay scale of JDOs making it equivalent to the pay scale of CTOs – Thus, the orders passed by the High Court and the tribunal quashed and set aside – Doctrine of equal pay for equal work.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The power of judicial review of the High Courts in the matter of classification of posts and determination of pay scale is no more res integra. Equation of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter which is 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 the interference of the Court was absolutely necessary to undo the injustice. [Para 9][536-G-H; 537A]
1.2 Though the doctrine “equal pay for equal work” is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of Law, the equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the Executive and not of the Judiciary. 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. It may be true that the nature of work involved in two posts may sometimes appear to be more or less similar, however, if the classification of posts and determination of pay scale have reasonable nexus with the objective or purpose sought to be achieved, namely, the efficiency in the administration, the Pay Commissions would be justified in recommending and the State would be justified in prescribing different pay scales for the seemingly similar posts. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues or frustration due to longer duration of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. There could be more than one grade in a particular service. The classification of posts and the determination of pay structure, thus falls within the exclusive domain of the Executive, and the Courts or Tribunals cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service. [Para 14][541-C-G; 542-A]
1.3 The Recruitment Rules governing the JDOs are as per the SRO 367 dated 08.12.1996, as amended by SRO 246 dated 21.11.2002, whereas the Recruitment Rules governing the CTOs (Design) are as per the SRO 132 dated 12.05.1982. The probation period in case of CTOs is longer than that of JDOs. The duties and responsibilities of both the posts are different and the promotional avenues also have different duration and different criteria. There was not a single error, much less grave error in the fixation of the pay scales for the JDOs and CTOs, which would have justified the interference of the Tribunal. [Para 15][542-BC]
1.4 Much emphasis was placed on the noting made by the Officer of the Naval Department in the file recommending pay scale of JDOs equivalent to that of CTOs, however, it may be noted that a noting recorded in the file is merely an expression of opinion by a particular officer, and by no-stretch of imagination such noting could be treated as a decision of the Government. [Para 16][542-D]
1.5 The powers of judicial review in the matters involving financial implications are also very limited. The wisdom and advisability of the Courts in the matters concerning the finance, are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless a gross case of arbitrariness or unfairness is established by the aggrieved party. [Para 17][542-E]
1.6 The tribunal and the High Court had committed gross error in interfering with the pay scales recommended by the Fifth Central Pay Commission and accepted by the appellant for the posts of JDOs and CTOs, and in upgrading the pay scale of JDOs making it equivalent to the pay scale of CTOs. The impugned orders passed by the High Court and the tribunal are quashed and set aside. [Para 18, 19][542-F-G]
State of U.P. and Others vs. J.P. Chaurasia and Others 1989(1) SCC 121 : [1988] 3 Suppl. SCR 288; Union of India and Others vs. Makhan Chandra Roy 1997
(11) SCC 182 : [1997] 2 SCR 1167; Secretary, Finance Department and Others vs. West Bengal Registration Service Association and Others 1993 Suppl. (1) SCC
153 : [1992] 1 SCR 897; State of Haryana and Others vs. Charanjit Singh and Others 2006 (9) SCC 321 : [2005] 4 Suppl. SCR 57; Union of India through Secretary, Department of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and Anr. vs. T.V.L.N Mallikarjuna Rao (2015) 3 SCC 653 : [2014] 13 SCR 149 – 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.