Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 15
PETITIONER:
SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT AND ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
WEST BENGAL REGISTRATION SERVICE ASSOCIATION ANDORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT20/02/1992
BENCH:
AHMADI, A.M. (J)
BENCH:
AHMADI, A.M. (J)
PUNCHHI, M.M.
CITATION:
1992 AIR 1203 1992 SCR (1) 897
1993 SCC Supl. (1) 153 JT 1992 (2) 27
1992 SCALE (1)437
ACT:
Service Law-Determination of pay scale. Powers of
Court-Determination of pay scales and equation of posts is
executive function-But Court can interfere if employees are
treated arbitrarily-Necessary and relevant factors for
determination of pay scale discussed-Relevance of
educational qualification in determination of pay scale-What
is.
West Bengal Registration Service-Post of Sub-Registrar-
Conferment of gazetted status-Government notification-
Inclusion of registration service in State Service-
Entitlement of Sub-Registrars to pay scale equivalent to
State Level Officers-Held pay scale must reflect nature of
duties and responsibilities-Mere conferment of gazetted
status and inclusion in State Service does not justify
higher scale-Sub-Registrars and Munsiffs held not equal as
their duties are different in nature-Grant of scale of Sub-
Registrar not equivalent to that payable to State Level
Officers held not arbitrary-Supreme Court’s direction to
State Government to determine appropriate pay scale for Sub-
Registrars and posts above them.
HEADNOTE:
The West Bengal Registration Service comprised the post
of Sub-Registrars and other posts above the level of sub-
Registrars. By a resolution dated May 22, 1952 the post of
Sub-Registrar was directed to be regarded as gazetted w.e.f.
1st April, 1952. Thereafter by a Notification dated 17th
July, 1953 the Registration Service was, with effect from
the date of its constitution i.e. 30th January, 1953
included in the West Bengal State Service.
The respondents alleged that notwithstanding the
commitment made by the 1953 Notification that they would be
accorded all the privileges admissible to officers belonging
to State Service, their pay scale was not revised equivalent
to the minimum pay scale admissible to State Service
Officers. Even when pursuant to the recommendations of the
Pay Com-
898
mittee the pay-scales were revised they were placed on a
scale which was lower than the minimum scale payable to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 15
State Service Employees. Further though the First State Pay
Commission recommended a Scale of Rs. 425-825 for Sub-
Registrars yet the recommendation did not find favour with
State Government and their pay scale was fixed at Rs. 300-
600. Also pursuant to the recommendations of the Second
State Pay Commission their pay scale was revised to Rs. 425-
1050 i.e. scale No. 11, although the minimum scale fixed fog
the State Service Officers was Rs. 660-1600 i.e. Scale No.
17.
Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the State Govt.
the respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court of
Calcutta under Article 226 of the constitution for a
mandamus to award scale No. 17 of Rs. 660-1600 as admissible
to State Service Officers . During the pendency of the writ
petition the Third State Pay Commission submitted its
report. This Commission also rejected their claim of pay
scale of Rs. 660-1600, the minimum scale for State service,
on the ground that their duties and responsibilities did not
justify the higher pay scale.
By its judgment dated 28th June, 1989, a Division
Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition and
awarded revised scale No. 17 by holding that the Government
had acted arbitrarily and in violation of Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution in not awarding scale No. 17 to the Sub-
Registrars. The High Court based its decision on the facts
that (i) the post of Sub-Registrar was a gazetted post
belonging to the State Service; (ii) the first State Pay
Commission recommended a higher pay scale which was turned
down by Finance; and (iii) the revised educational
qualification for Sub-Registrar, a law degree, was the same
as required for Munsiffs.
Subsequently the respondents filed an application for
interim relief seeking permission to exercise option for the
corresponding scale No. 17 of Rs. 2200-4000 equivalent to
the old scale of Rs. 660-1600 which was allowed by the High
Court by its order dated 16th March, 1990. They also filed
an application seeking clarification of the Court’s order
dated March 16, 1990 and by its order dated 30th March, 1990
the High Court permitted the officers belonging to the posts
above the level of Sub-Registrars to opt for corresponding
scales Nos. 18 and 19.
899
In appeals to this court against the judgment of the
High Court dated 28th June, 1989 and orders dates 16th and
19th March, 1990 it was contended on behalf of the appellant
that (i) the High Court committed a serious error in
revising the pay-scale of sub-Registrars in exercise of its
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution because pay fixation was essentially an
executive function ordinarily undertaken by an expert body
like a Pay Commission whose recommendations are not
justiciable; (ii) there being no scheme as ‘Constituted
State Service’ the employees have been categorised as Group
‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘D’ on the basis of evaluation of their
work and the recruitment policy. For examination purposes
the State Public Service Commission has placed the Sub-
Registrars in Group ‘D’ whereas those in scale No. 17 fall
in Group ‘A’. Therefore, they are not comparable and cannot
be placed in same pay scale.
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that
since after 1981 the qualification of a degree in law, as
required in the case of Munsiffs, was also added to their
eligibility criterion, they should be equated with Munsiffs
in the matter of pay-scale.
Allowing the appeals and setting aside the orders of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 15
the High Court, this Court,
HELD : 1. The High Court committed a serious error in
law in holding that the Government’s action in not granting
the scale No. 17 to Sub-Registrars was violative of Article
14 of the Constitution. [915G]
2. Equation of posts 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 expert
bodies like the Pay Commissions etc. But that is not to say
that the Court has no jurisdiction and the aggrieved
employees have no remedy if they are unjustly treated by
arbitrary state action or inaction. [912E-F]
Parbat Kiran Maithani & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr.,
AIR 1977 SC 1553; State of U.P. & Ors. v. J.P. Chaurasia &
Ors., AIR 1989 SC 19, cited.
3. Ordinarily a pay structure is evolved keeping in
mind several factors, e.g. (i) method of recruitment, (ii)
level at which recruitment is made, (iii) the hierarchy of
service in a given cadre, (iv) minimum educa-
900
tion/technical qualifications required, (v) avenues of
promotion, (vi) the nature of duties and responsibilities,
(vii) the horizontal and verticle relativities with similar
jobs, (viii) public dealings, (ix) satisfaction level; (x)
employers’ capacity to pay etc. These factors have to be
kept in view while evolving a pay structure and the
horizontal and verticle relativities have to be carefully
balanced keeping in mind the hierarchial arrangements,
avenues for promotion etc. Such a carefully evolved pay
structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed as it may
upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other
cadres as well. [913C-E]
4. One of the basic principles for pay fixation is that
the salary must reflect the nature of duties and
responsibilities attached to the post, meaning thereby that
the pay scale must be commensurate with the task to be
performed and the responsibility to be undertaken by the
holder of the post. Merely because the Sub-Registrars were
conferred gazetted status and the Registration Service was
included in State Service did not entitle the Sub-Registrars
to be placed in the higher scale if their duties and
responsibilities did not justify the same. By conferment of
gazetted status or placement in State Service, no
qualitative change was brought about in the job performance
of the Sub-Registrars and their superiors. [914E-G]
4.1 The High Court failed to evaluate the difference in
the nature of duties and responsibilities of a Munsiff and a
Sub-Registrar. The duties and responsibilities of a Munsiff
and a Judicial Magistrate are far more onerous than those of
a Sub-Registrar. The Sub-Registrar’s duties are relatively
simple - namely to receive, examine and register the
document - whereas the duties of a Judicial Officer at the
floor level are to hear cases, examine witnesses, interpret
and construe different laws, hear oral arguments and deliver
reasoned judgments. He has to keep abreast with a host of
laws unlike a Sub-Registrar who is expected to study only a
couple of laws connected with the registration of documents
like the Registration Act, the Stamp Act etc. The
responsibilities of a Judicial Officer are therefore far
greater than those of Sub-Registrars. Therefore, to compare
the Sub-Registrars with Judicial Magistrates-Munsiffs is to
compare unequals. It would, therefore, be wholly arbitrary
to place them in the same pay scale. [915D-g]
5. One of the inputs for pay determination is
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 15
educational requirement for the post. The higher the
educational qualification the better
901
would be the quality of service rendered and the end result
would in the ultimate be far more satisfactory. That indeed
cannot be disputed. But educational qualification is only
one of the many factors which has relevance to pay fixation.
The complexity of the job to be performed and the
responsibilities attached thereto are entitled to great
weight in determining the appropriate pay scale for the job.
Prima facie there appears substance in the grievance of the
Sub- Registrars that while the minimum educational
qualification for direct entry into the post has been
periodically raised, the level of pay scale, for the post
has not undergone any change, whatsoever. [916A-C]
6. The State Government is directed to re-examine the
question of the appropriate pay scale for Sub-Registrars by
a speaking order after hearing the representatives of the
respondent association. If the State Government decides on
the upward revision of the salary of the Sub-Registrars, it
will simultaneously consider the question of upward revision
of the pay scales of higher posts in the department. [916E-
F]
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2023,
2024 & 2025 of 1990.
With
I.A. Nos. 7-9 of 1991.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.6.89 & 16.3.90 of
the Calcutta High Court in Appeal No. 498 of 1988.
A.K. Mitra, P.K. Chatterjee, Jaydip Kar and Ms. Radha
Rangaswamy for the Appellants.
Narayan Shetty, Gopal Subramaniam, Atin Benerjee and
D.P. Mukherjee for the respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
AHMADI, J. These three appeals by special leave arise
out of the Judgments & Order dated 28the June, 1989 passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta and from
the subsequent orders dated March 16, 1990 and March 30,
1990 made in pursuance thereof. The brief facts
902
giving rise to these three appeals may be stated as under.
The West Bengal Registration Service comprising the
Sub-Registrar’s post was administered by the Judicial
Department of the State. Under the West Bengal (Revision of
Pay & Allowances) Rules, 1951 (hereinafter called ‘the ROPA
Rules’) the scale of pay for the said post was fixed at Rs.
100-250. By a resolution dated May 22, 1952 the said post
of Sub-Registrar was directed to be regarded as Gazetted
with effect from April 1, 1952 and thereafter by
notification dated July 17, 1953 the governor, in exercise
of powers conferred by Rule 188 of the Civil Service
(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules read with Articles
313 and 372 of the Adoption of Laws Order, 1950 and all
other related powers, declared that the West Bengal
Registration Service comprising (1) Registrar of Assurances,
Calcutta, (ii) Inspector of Registration Offices, (iii)
Departmental District Sub-Registrars, (iv) Sub-Registrar of
Assurances, Calcutta (v) District Sub-Registrars, and (vi)
Sub-Registrars shall, with effect from January 30, 1953, the
date of constitution of the said service, be deemed to be
included in the State Service. The respondents who belong
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 15
to the said service contend that after the issuance of the
said notifiction a commitment was made by the State
Government that sub-Registrars would be accorded all the
privileges admissible to officers belonging to the State
Service. Notwithstanding the said commitment the
respondents contend that their pay scale was not revised to
Rs.200-400 which was the lowest pay-scale admissible to
State service officers. Thereafter pursuant to the
recommendation of the Pay Committee, the pay scale underwent
an upward revision but the Sub-Registrars were placed in the
revised scale of Rs. 200-400 which corresponded to the old
scale of Rs. 100-250, even though the minimum scale for
State service employees was raised to Rs. 250-550 under the
ROPA Rules, 1961. The First (State) Pay Commission was then
constituted in 1967. That body examined the grievance of
this service and observed that it was an extremely ill-paid
service. After evaluating the job requirements, recruitment
standard and responsibilities attached to the post belonging
to the said service it recommended a scale of Rs. 425-825
for Sub-Registrars and corresponding higher scales for the
posts, the highest being Rs. 850-1600 for Registrar of
Assurances, Calcutta and inspectors of Registration
Officers. It appears that this recommendation did not find
favour with the State Government. This is obvious from the
fact that under the ROPA Rules, 1970, the pay scale for the
post of Sub-Registrar was fixed at Rs. 300-600 only.
Pursuant
903
to the recommendations of Second (State) Pay Commission the
pay scale for the post was revised to Rs. 425-1050 under
RUPA Rules, 1981. This was Scale No. 11. According to the
respondents they ought to have been placed in scale No. 17
which carried a pay scale of Rs. 660-1600 but, contend the
respondents, grave injustice was done to them because of the
biased and negative attitude of the Finance Department of
the State Government. It was contended that since the basic
minimum pay scale for State Service officers was fixed at
Rs. 660-1600, there was no valid reason to deny the same to
the Sub-Registrars and to deny higher pay scales to officers
above the level of Sub-Registrars in the West Bengal
Registration Service. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of
the State Government the respondents, therefore, filed a
Writ Petition No. 1993 of 1987 in the High Court of Calcutta
under Article 226 of the Constitution for a Mandamus to
award to the Sub-Registrars the pay scale No. 17 of Rs. 660-
1600 with all other privileges admissible to State service
officers. In the said writ petition the learned Single
Judge of the High Court passed certain interim orders
against which an appeal No. 498 of 1988 was preferred before
a Division Bench of the High Court. At the hearing of the
said appeal the Division Bench felt that it would be proper
to dispose of the writ petition itself on merits and
accordingly it heard the writ petition by consent of parties
instead of disposing of the appeal against the interim order
and leaving the hearing of the writ petition to the learned
Single Judge. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed
the writ petition and directed that the Sub-Registrars
should be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 660-1600 with
effect from April 1, 1981 and their pay scales should be
fixed nationally on that basis without paying the difference
in salary up to January 1, 1986. The arrears of salary for
the subsequent period was, however, directed to be paid
within 8 weeks from the date of the judgment. Certain other
directions were also given but it is not necessary to notice
them.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 15
It may here be mentioned that during the pendency of
the writ petition the Third (State) Pay Commission
constituted by the State Government had submitted its report
sometime in December, 1988. Before the said body it was
represented on behalf of the Sub-Registrars that they should
have been placed in the pay scale of Rs. 600-1600 instead of
Rs. 425-1050 as that was the basic minimum scale for State
service and the scale for higher posts in the West Bengal
Registration Service should be correspondingly raised. The
Commission spurned this request as in its opinion the duties
and responsibilities of the Sub-Registrars did not justify
904
the higher pay scale. Pursuant to the recommendations of
the Pay commission the ROPA Rules, 1990 came to be issued
whereunder the Sub-Registrars were placed in the revised
scale No. 11 of Rs. 1390-2970. The High Court took notice
of the recommendations of the Pay Commission as well as the
ROPA Rules, 1990 while disposing of the writ petition by its
judgment dated 28th June, 1989.
After the High Court’s Judgment awarding Scale No. 17
to the Sub-Registrars, the respondents took out an
application for interim relief seeking permission to
exercise option for the corresponding Scale No. 17 of Rs.
2200-4000 and for granting an option to officers above the
level of Sub-Registrars for placement in the corresponding
Scales Nos. 18 and 19 with effect from April 1, 1981. The
Division Bench of the High Court passed an ad-interim order
dated March 16, 1990 permitting the Sub-Registrars to opt
for the revised Scale No. 17. The Civil Appeal No. 2023 of
1990 is against the main judgment of the High Court dated
June 28, 1989. Civil Appeal No. 2024 of 1990 is against the
interim order dated March 16, 1990 by which the Sub-
Registrars were permitted to opt for the revised Scale No.
17. On March 19, 1990 the respondents took out an
application for clarification of the order dated March 16,
1990. The High Court while disposing of this application
permitted the officers belonging to the posts above the
level of Sub-Registrars to opt for corresponding Scales Nos.
18 and 19. Civil Appeal No. 2025 of 1990 is against that
order. Since the subsequent two appeals Nos. 2024 and 2025
of 1990 also flow from the main judgment dated June 28,
1989, which has given rise to Civil Appeal No. 2023 of 1990
we have thought it proper to dispose of all the three
appeals by this common judgment.
The history of the West Bengal Registration Service has
been traced by the High Court right from 1826 but it is
unnecessary to re-state the same. Suffice it to say that
except the top post of the Registrar of Assurances,
Calcutta, the remaining cadres in the said service belonged
to the Subordinate Services of the State. Generally
speaking the West Bengal Services were divided into (i)
Provincial Service and (ii) Subordinate Services leaving out
certain special categories of posts. Subordinate Services
comprised certain minor administrative, executive and
ministerial posts to which appointment could be made by the
Local Government or by an authority subordinate thereto,
specially empowered. The other cadres and posts belonged to
the Provincial Service. By a notification dated Novem-
905
ber 25, 1949 recruitment rules were framed which provided
that recruitment of Sub-Registrars shall be made though West
Bengal Civil Service examination. The minimum educational
qualification for Sub-Registrars was prescribed as
‘graduate of a recognised University’. Subsequently, by a
resolution dated May 22, 1952 it was provided that Sub-
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 15
Registrars shall be regarded as Gazetted Officers with
effect from April 1, 1952. Soon thereafter by a notifiction
dated July 17, 1953 the West Bengal Registration Service was
included in the State Service. Thus according to the
respondents the position that emerged after the notification
of 1953 can be summed up as under :
(i) The West Bengal Registration Service was
expressly declared to be in the West Bengal State
Service (the former Provincial Service);
(ii) The recruitment rules of the State Service
were identical to the recruitment rules of the
other State Services.
(iii) Gazetted status and concomitant privileges
of State Services were conferred on the Sub-
Registrars belonging to the West Bengal
Registration Service; and
(iv) The powers relating to the recruitment,
conditions of service and disciplinary matters in
regard to members belonging to the West Bengal
Service including the Sub-Registrars were to be
exercised by the State Government.
By a notification dated July 6, 1966, the West Bengal
Registration Service was declared as the West Bengal Junior
Registration service and subsequently by a notification
dated October 17, 1966 rules were framed under Article 309
of the Constitution which superseded all previous rules on
the subject and provided that appointment to the post of
Sub-Registrar shall be made by the Government through the
West Bengal Civil Service (Executive) and Allied Services
Examination. The educational qualification for appointment
to the post of Sub-Registrar was stated to be a graduate of
a recognised University and the age criteria was fixed as
not below 21 years and not exceeding 24 years. The system
of classification of Government employees into Gazetted and
Non-Gazetted and Classes I, II, III, & IV adopted hitherto
was done away with by the notification dated September, 25,
1978 and Government employees were placed in Groups A,
906
B,C, and D according to pay and scale of pay. The new
grouping of services was not expected to cause any immediate
disturbance in the existing framework of job charts,
responsibilities and facilities. Rule 5 (4) of the West
Bengal Service Rules, 1971, Part I, was amended and read as
under :
"5(4) - West Bengal State Services means those
services and posts under the Administrative control
of the Government which have been classified as
Group A, Group B, Group C and Group D."
A note at the foot thereof provided as under :
"Note 1(a) - Subject to the provisions of paragraph
(b) services or posts under Group a, Group B, Group
C and Group D shall consist of the services or
posts specified respectively against them in the
table below :
S. No Classification of Classification of the
Post and Services Services and posts
1. Group ‘A’ All Government employees
drawing a pay or a scale
of pay with the maximum
above Rs. 1,170.
2. Group ‘B’ All Government Employees
drawing a pay or a scale
of pay with a maximum of
Rs. 1170 or below, but
above Rs. 700.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 15
3. Group ‘C’ All Government employees
drawing a pay or a scale
of pay with a maximum
of Rs. 700 or below,
but above Rs. 415.
4. Group ‘D’ All Government employees
drawing a pay or a scale
of pay with a maximum or
Rs. 415 or below.
(a) Government may, be special order include any
other class or posts carrying any pay or scale of
pay in a class of service
907
consisting of posts or services carrying a higher
pay or scale of pay.
(b) If a service consists of posts with more than
one time scale or if there be a Selection Grade,
pay attached to a service or post, post carrying
the different time-scales or the Selection Grade
pay may be classified in different services
according to the pay or the maximum scale of pay of
the post.
Provided further that the aforesaid classification
of posts and services shall not interfere with
other existing framework of duties, functions
responsibilities and facilities of Government
employees on the basis of the existing
classification."
This classification had an impact on the
recommendations made by the Pay Commission which were
finally approved under the ROPA Rules, 1981. This, in
brief, is the history of the West Bengal Registration
Service.
The grievance of the respondents was that even after
the Sub-Registrars were placed in the Gazetted category and
their service was declared to be included in the State
Service and entry into service was through a competitive
examination with the minimum qualification for appointment
being graduation, the pay scale for sub-Registrars was fixed
at Rs. 100-250 notwithstanding the Government notification
of 1953 providing that the said officers belonging to the
Registration Service will enjoy the benefits and privileges
admissible to State Service officers. On the representation
made by the officers of the Registration Service. the then
Chief Minister granted the relief of Rs. 50 at the minimum
and maximum of the pay scale thereby virtually enhancing the
pay scale from Rs. 100-250 to Rs. 150-300. Thus after the
report of the Pay Committee when the scale of pay of Sub-
Registrar was revised to Rs. 200-400 in effect the pay at
the minimum got reduced by Rs. 10 as the Sub-Registrars were
drawing Rs. 5 as DA and Rs. 5 as CCA besides Rs. 50 granted
pursuant to the orders of the then Chief Minister. This was
totally overlooked by the Finance Department while drawing
up the ROPA Rules, 1961. Subsequent representations for
upward revision of the scale were ignored by the Finance
Department till the First (State) Pay Commission came to be
constituted. That body observed as under :
"This is an extremely ill-paid service. The work
that the
908
Registration Officers have to do is not negligible
in importance. The work involves the
interpretation of documents and the assessment of
stamp duties and registration fees with reference
to the value of the subject matter involved. The
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 15
scale of pay should be improved. The following
scales are recommended :
(a) Registrar of Assurances and Inspectors of
Registration Offices Rs. 850-50-1000-60-1600.
(b) District Registrars and Sub-Registrars of
Assurance, Calcutta - Rs. 475-35-825-EB-50-1325.
(c) District Sub-Registrars - Rs. 450-15-600- EB-
25-825.
(d) Sub-Registrars - Rs. 425-10-475-15-700.
The majority members however, recommended the
higher scale of Rs. 450-15-600-25-825 for Sub-
Registrars."
Notwithstanding the said recommendation the pay scale
for Sub-Registrars was fixed at Rs. 300-600 under ROPA
Rules, 1961. The respondents contend that the injustice
done to them in ignoring the above extracted recommendation
of the Pay Commission resulted in their being placed in the
equivalent Scale No. 11 throughout by the subsequent pay
Commissions also. A strong letter of protest written by
the Head of the Department also did not yield the desired
result thereby necessitating the filing of a writ petition
in which the impugned order came to be passed. It is in
this background that we must examine the correctness or
otherwise of the impugned judgment and the subsequent
impugned interim orders made by the High Court.
The partition of Bengal in the wake of independence
necessitated grant of relief to millions of persons who were
uprooted and their rehabilitation. This brought into
existence new departments and organizations increasing the
number and categories of employees required to handle the
enormous task. The history of pay revision in the State of
West Bengal would show that under the ROPA Rules, 1950 the
total number of pay scales was reduced from 500 to 78 but by
the time the Pay Committee was appointed in 1959 the number
had once again gone up to 143 but was reduced to 39 by the
Pay Committee. The number of pay scales again proliferated
from 39 to 81 but the First (State) Pay Commission brought
it
909
down to 34. The second (State) Pay Commission appointed in
1977 found 36 standard scales, 19 new intermediate selection
grade scales and 20 non-standard pay scales besides a few
pay scales introduced on different dates for non-Governments
employees. That body reduced the number of pay scales to
29. The Third (State) Pay Commission found the total number
of pay scales to be 29 primary pay scales and brought it
down to 24 pay scales. The situation thus created on
account of the increase in the stratification of
administrative hierarchy and the consequential fragmentation
of duties and responsibilities on the one hand and the
reduction in the number of pay scales on the other
necessitated higher initial pay and attaching of special pay
to a increasing number of posts to avoid anomalies in the
pay structure thereby throwing an increased financial burden
on the State Government. The minimum pay fixed for State
employees has always been higher than that prescribed for
Central Government employees. When the pay structure was
related to the index average 200 (1960 : 100) the minimum
pay of Central Government employees was Rs. 196 per month
while that of the State Government employees was Rs. 220; a
weightage of Rs. 24 recommended by the Second (State) Pay
Commission on account of dietary habits of State employees.
At the index average of 608 the minimum pay for Central
Government employees has been fixed by the Fourth Central
Pay Commission at Rs. 750 per month whereas the Third
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 15
(State) Pay Commission has fixed the same at Rs. 800 per
month. The maximum pay for State Government employees has
been fixed in the scale of Rs. 5900-200-7300. For the old
scale 11 (Rs. 425-1050) the new scale prescribed is Rs.
1360-2800. The revised equivalent for the old scale No. 17
(Rs.660-1600) is Rs. 2200-4000. With regard to the demand
for higher pay scales for officers belonging to the
Registration Service, the Pay Commission observed:
"It has been represented to us that the scale of
pay for the post of Sub-Registrar should have been
Rs. 660-1600 which is the basic scale for the State
Services and that the scales of pay for the higher
posts in the Registration Directorate as mentioned
earlier should have been correspondingly higher.
In view of the duties and responsibilities of the
posts we are of the opinion that upgradation of the
scales of pay of these posts will not be justified.
The posts should carry the proposed scales of pay
and special pay corresponding to their existing
scales and special pay."
910
As pointed out earlier the High Court took notice of
the revised scales fixed by this body and by subsequent
orders directed that the Sub-Registrars should be placed in
revised scale No. 17, ie. Rs. 2200-4000, and the officers
above them should be placed in the revised scales Nos. 18
and 19. In taking the view that the Registration Service
was underpaid, the High Court was greatly impressed by the
fact that the Sub-Registrars were conferred gazetted status
and the entire service was designated as State Service and
being the head of office and the drawing and disbursing
officer as well, he exercised administrative and financial
power and now that the recruitment rule had been brought on
par with the educational qualification as prescribed for
Munsiffs, the pay-scales of Sub-Registrars ought to be the
same and cannot be less than that of Munsiffs. Strong
reliance was also placed by the High Court on the
observations of the First (State) Pay Commission, extracted
earlier, in support of its conclusion that the State
Government had arbitrarily brushed aside the demand to the
Sub-Registrars for higher wages. Holding that the position
of a Sub-Registrar was equivalent to others in State
Services, the High Court ruled that they were victims of
hostile discrimination and the Government decision not to
accept the weighty recommendations of the Pay Commission was
wholly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. In that view that it took it allowed the Writ
Petition and awarded scale No. 17 (Rs. 660-1600 now revised
to Rs. 2200-4000) to them and scales Nos. 18 and 19 to
higher level officers in the same department. It is against
these orders that the present appeals are preferred.
From the resume of facts set out hereinabove it clearly
emerges that prior to 1953 the post of Sub-Registrars
belonged to the Subordinate Service but by the notification
dated July 17, 1953 it was placed in the State Service
w.e.f. January 30, 1953. Being the head of office, a
drawing and disbursing officer with certain administrative
and financial powers, and also required to perform certain
quasi-judicial functions, such as, interpreting recitals
contained in the documents and provisions of concerned
statutes and rules, counsel for the respondents contended
that till 1981 when the educational qualification for entry
into that post was graduation of any discipline, the Sub-
Registrars were entitled to be treated above members
belonging to Junior Service and pay-scale so determined but
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 15
the State authority failed to do so. Counsel further
contended that after 1981 the additional qualification of a
degree in law was added to the eligibility criterion and
thus the same was brought on par with Munsiffs and hence
911
they should have been equated with Munsiffs in the matter
of pay-scale, since officers in all services recruited from
practicing advocates were given the same scale. Accepting
this line of reasoning the Division Bench of the High Court
concluded that the Government had acted arbitrarily and in
violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in not
awarding scale No. 17 (Rs. 660-1600) earmarked for State
Services by the Second (State) Pay Commission (which the
Government had accepted and implemented) to the Sub-
Registrars. It is thus manifest that the decision of the
High Court was based on the facts (i) the post of the Sub-
Registrar was a gazetted post belonging to the State Service
(ii) the First (State) Pay Commission had recommended a
higher scale (which was still lower than the one demanded by
the Sub-Registrars) for Sub-Registrars observing that it was
an extremely ill-paid service (a recommendation which was
turned down by the Finance Department) and (iii) the
eligibility criterion for entry into service was graduation
up to 1981 and thereafter the requirement of a law degree
was added to it, thus bringing the required educational
criterion to that of a Munsiff.
The appellant contend that the High Court committed a
serious error in revising the pay-scale of Sub-Registrars in
exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution in total ignorance of the settled legal
position that pay fixation is essentially an executive
function ordinarily undertaken by an expert body like a Pay
Commission whose recommendations are entitled to great
weight though not binding on the Government and ar not
justiciable in a court of law since the court of law is not
well equipped to take upon itself the task of job evaluation
which is a complex exercise. In support of this contention
a catena of decisions beginning with the case of Parbat
Kiran Maithani & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1977 SC
1553 and ending with the case of State of U.P. & Ors. v.
J.P. Chaurasia & Ors., AIR 1989 SC 19 at 29 was relied on.
The appellants also contest the contention that the Sub-
Registrars are a part of the constituted State Service which
is awarded scale No. 17. They contend that there is no such
service as ‘Constituted State Service’ and therefore, the
question of granting them scale No. 17 never arose. On the
contrary they point out that the employees are categorised
as belonging to Group A, Group B, Group C, and Group D and
are placed in one group or the other on the basis of
evaluation of their work and the recruitment policy adopted
by the Government. By placing the Sub-Registrars in scale
No. 17 the High Court has given them a jump which is likely
to give a severe
912
jolt to the pay structure and would destroy the verticle
heirarchial relativities carefully built-up by the Pay
Commission. The appellants, therefore, contend that the
High Court had acted in haste in placing the Sub-Registrars
in Scale No. 17 without realising its impact on the pay
structure. For examination purposes the State Public
Service Commission has placed the Sub-Registrars in Group D
whereas those in scale No. 17 fall in Group A. Those
belonging to Group A are required to sit for six papers
whereas those belonging to Group D are required to answer
four papers only. While those belonging to Group A are
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 15
allowed to take one or more optional papers not exceeding
three and have to appear for a compulsory personality test
of 200 marks, those belonging to Group D are allowed only
one optional paper and have not to appear for the
personality test. Thus the examination for Group A
employees is far more stringent than for those belonging to
Group D employees and, therefore, contend the appellants,
they are not comparable and cannot be placed in the same
pay-scale invoking the equality clause in Article 14 of the
Constitution. Lastly, it is said that the financial burden
which will fall on the State Government on the
implementation of the impugned judgment will be in the
vicinity of Rs. 1.45 crores which is not justified since the
High Court has failed to appreciate the issues in their
proper perspectives. We find considerable force in the
submissions made on behalf of the appellants.
We do not consider it necessary to traverse the case
law on which reliance has been placed by counsel for the
appellants as it is well-settled that equation of posts 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 expert bodies like the Pay Commission,
etc. But that is not to say that the Court has no
jurisdiction and the aggrieved employees have no remedy if
they are unjustly treated by arbitrary state action or
inaction. Courts must, however, realise that job evaluation
is both a difficult and time consuming task which even
expert bodies having the assistance of staff with
requistite expertise have found difficult to undertake
sometimes on account of want of relevant data and scales for
evaluating performances of different groups of employees.
This would call for a constant study of the external
comparisons and internal relativities on account of the
changing nature of job requirements. The factors which may
have to be kept in view for job evaluation may include (i)
the work programme of his department (ii) the nature of
contribution expected of him (iii) the extent of his
913
responsibility and accountability in the discharge of his
diverse duties and functions (iv) the extent and nature of
freedoms/limitations available or imposed on him in the
discharges of his duties (v) the extent of powers vested in
him (vi) the extent of his dependence on superiors for the
exercise of his powers (vii) the need to co-ordinate with
other departments, etc. We have also referred to the
history of the service and the effort of various bodies to
reduce the total number of pay-scales to a reasonable
number. Such reduction in the number of pay-scales has to
be achieved by resorting to broadbanding of posts by placing
different posts having comparable job-charts in a common
scale. Substantial reduction in the number of pay-scales
must inevitably lead to clubbing of posts and grades which
were earlier different and unequal. While doing so care must
be taken to ensure that such rationalisation of the pay
structure does not throw up anomalies. Ordinarily a pay
structure is evolved keeping in mind several factors, e.g.,
(i) method of recruitment, (ii) level at which recruitment
is made, (iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre,
(iv) minimum educational/technical qualification required,
(v) avenues of promotion, (vi) the nature of duties and
responsibilities, (vii) the horizontal and verticle
relativities with similar jobs, (viii) public dealings, (ix)
satisfaction level, (x) employer’s capacity to pay, etc. We
have referred to these matters in some detail only to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 15
emphasise that several factors have to be kept in view while
evolving a pay structure and the horizontal and verticle
relativities have to be carefully balanced keeping in mind
the hierarchial arrangements, avenues for promotion, etc.
Such a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be
ordinarily disturbed as it may upset the balance and cause
avoidable ripples in other cadres as well. It is presumably
for this reason that the Judicial Secretary who had strongly
recommended a substantial hike in the salary of the Sub-
Registrars to the Second (State) Pay Commission found it
difficult to concede the demand made by the registration
service before him in his capacity as the Chairman of the
Third (State) Pay Commission. There can, therefore, be no
doubt that 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 Court’s interference is
absolutely necessary to undo the injustice.
There can be no dispute that by Government Resolution
No. 226 dated 22nd May, 1952 gazetted status was conferred
on Sub-Registrars w.e.f. 1st April, 1952. So also there is
no dispute that by notification dated
914
17th July, 1953 the Registration Service was, with effect
from the date of its constitution, i.e, 30th January, 1953,
included in the West Bengal State Services. Subsequently, by
a notification dated 10th October, 1953, all the entries in
column I of the Schedule under the heading ‘Registration
Department’ of the Bengal Subordinate Service (Discipline &
Appeal) Rules, 1936 were omitted along with the
corresponding entries in columns 2 to 5 thereof. Thus,
contend the respondents, the West Bengal Registration
Service, including the Sub-Registrars was brought on par
with other Constituted State Services’, with effect from
30th January, 1953. Chapter 18 of the Third (State) Pay
Commission would show that the Constituted Service may
comprise of tiers, such as, Subordinate Service, Junior
Service and State Service with or without corresponding
higher or senior service. Paragraph 18.5 of that chapter
shows: ‘There are 4 tiers of constituted service in some of
the Government Departments viz., Higher or Senior Service,
State service, Junior Service and Subordinate Service’.
Paragraph 18.6 recites that the State Services are generally
in scale No. 17 (Rs. 660-1600). The Junior Services are
generally in scales Nos. 11 to 16 and the pay scales for
Subordinate Services range from scale No. 4 to scale No. 13.
It would, therefore, appear that the contention of the
respondents that the State Service employees were generally
placed in scale No. 17 is prima facie accurate. Yet that
body turned down the plea of the Sub-Registrars to be placed
in scale No. 17 on the ground that the duties and
responsibilities of the post did not justify upgradation of
the scale as is evident from the observation extracted
earlier. This clearly shows that the Commission determined
the pay scale for Sub-Registrars keeping in view their
duties and responsibilities. Therefore, merely because the
Sub-Registrars were conferred gazetted status and the
Registration Service was included in State Service did not
entitle the Sub-Registrars to be placed in the higher scale
if their duties and responsibilities did not justify the
same. One of the basic principles for pay fixation is that
the salary must reflect the nature of duties and
responsibilities attached to the post, meaning thereby that
the scale must be commensurate with the task to be performed
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 15
and the responsibility to be undertaken by the holder of the
post. Merely because of conferment of gazetted status or
placement in State Service, no qualitative change was
brought about in the job performance of the Sub-Registrars
and their superiors.
Before November, 1949 appointments to the posts of Sub-
Registrars was made by nomination of candidates who were
undergraduates or even
915
of lower academic qualification. By the notification dated
25th November, 1949, made under section 211(2)(b) of the
Government of India Act, 1935, the recruitment rules framed
in supersession of all previous rules, the minimum
educational requirement for Sub-Registrars was raised to
graduation. The revised recruitment rules for Sub-Registrars
framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution
dated 17th October 1966 also prescribed the minimum
educational requirement as graduate of a recognised
university. By the subsequent notification dated 4th
November, 1981 issued under the proviso to Article 309 of
the Constitution, the recruitment rules of 17th October,
1966 were amended whereby rules 3 and 4 were replaced. The
newly inserted rule provided for recruitment to the posts of
Sub-Registrars on the basis of West Bengal Civil Service
(Executive) and Allied Service Examination conducted by the
State Public Service Commission and the selection was to be
made in consultation with that body. For direct recruitment
the educational qualification was raised to a degree in law
from a recognised University/Institute or equivalent
qualification and experience of 3 years at the Bar. Since
this revised educational requirement is the same as required
for Munsiffs, the High Court has thought it proper to place
them in the scale of the latter i.e. scale No. 17 (Rs. 660-
1600). But in doing so the High Court has, with respect,
failed to evaluate the difference in the nature of duties
and responsibilities of a Munsiff and a Sub-Registrar. The
duties and responsibilities of a Munsiff and a Judicial
Magistrate are far more onerous than those of a Sub-
Registrar. The Sub-Registrar’s duties are relatively simple
- namely to receive, examine and register the document -
whereas the duties of a Judicial Officer at the floor level
are to hear cases, examine witnesses, interpret and construe
different laws, hear oral arguments and deliver reasoned
judgments. He has to keep abreast with a host of laws
unlike a Sub-Registrar who is expected to study only a
couple of laws connected with the registration of documents
like the Registration Act, the Stamp Act, etc. The
responsibilities of a Judicial Officer are also far greater
than those of Sub-Registrars. Therefore, to compare the Sub-
Registrars with Judicial Magistrates - Munsiffs is to
compare unequals. It would, therefore, be wholly arbitrary
to place them in the same pay scale. In our view, therefore,
the High Court, with respect, committed a serious error in
law in holding that the Government’s action in not granting
the same pay scale to Sub-Registrars was violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution. In fact to put them on par
is wholly unjustified.
916
It was then submitted that the Third (State) Pay
Commission had failed to notice the upward revision of the
educational requirement for direct recruitment as Sub-
Registrars. It was rightly pointed out that one of the
inputs for pay determination is educational requirement for
the post. The higher the educational qualification the
better would be the quality of service rendered and the end
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 15
result would in the ultimate be far more satisfactory. That
indeed cannot be disputed. But educational qualification is
only one of the many factors which has relevance to pay
fixation. The complexity of the job to be performed and the
responsibilities attached thereto are entitled to great
weight in determining the appropriate pay scale for the job.
Prima facie there appears substance in the grievance of the
Sub-Registrars that while the minimum educational
qualification for direct entry into the post has been
periodically raised, the level of pay scale for the post has
not undergone any change, whatsoever. We think the State
Government ought to re-examine the question of the
appropriate pay scale for Sub-Registrars in the light of the
above and if it decides to upgrade the pay scale it may also
consider if the pay scales of their superiors in the
hierarchy need an upward revision.
In the result we allow these appeals and set aside the
judgement and orders of the High Court impugned herein but
make no order as to costs throughout. We, however, direct
the State Government to re-examine the question of the
appropriate pay scale for Sub-Registrars within three months
by a speaking order after giving a hearing to the
representative of the respondent association and
communicate the decision so taken to the association. If the
State Government decides on the upward revision of the
salary of the Sub-Registrars, it will simultaneously
consider the question of upward revision of the pay scales
of higher posts in the department. I.A. Nos. 7-9 of 1991
will also stand disposed of.
T.N.A. Appeals allowed.
917