Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 9244 of 2003
PETITIONER:
Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation & Ors
RESPONDENT:
G. S. Uppal & Ors
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/04/2008
BENCH:
R. V. Raveendran & Lokeshwar Singh Panta
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
REPORTABLE
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9244 OF 2003
W I T H
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9239 OF 2003
Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells
Corporation & Ors. ..... Appellants
Versus
Chakrawarti Garg ..... Respondent
W I T H
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9248 OF 2003
Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells
Corporation & Ors. ..... Appellants
Versus
A. S. Dhir ..... Responde
nt
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.
1. These appeals, by special leave, filed by Haryana State
Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation & Others are directed
against the common judgment dated August 22, 2001 passed
by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana in Letters Patent Appeal No. 725/1993 and Civil Writ
Petition No. 5946/1994 and Civil Writ Petition No. 834/1996.
2. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the
High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the
appellants against the judgment and order dated May, 18,
1993 of the learned Single Judge passed in C.W.P.
No.14200/1993 and allowed C.W.P. No. 5946/1994 filed by
Chakrawarti Garg and C.W.P. No. 834/1996 of A.S. Dhir,
respondents herein.
3. These appeals are similar in nature and they involve
identical questions of law and facts and, therefore, they are
being decided by this common judgment.
4. The facts giving rise to the filing of these appeals are that
the respondents in Civil Appeal Nos. 9244/2003 and 9248/
2003, at the time of filing of the writ petitions, were working
on the post of Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Sub-Divisional
Engineer (SDE) and Assistant Engineer (AE) with the Haryana
State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation Ltd. (for short
’the Corporation’) \026 appellant No. 1, which is a Government
company, within the meaning of that expression under the
Companies Act, 1956. The respondent in C.A. No. 9239/2003
was working as Law Officer with the Corporation. State of
Haryana exercises deep and pervasive control over the
Corporation. Secretary, Irrigation Department; Secretary,
Agricultural Department; Secretary, Finance Department, to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10
the Government of Haryana; Chairman, Haryana State
Electricity Board and Chief Engineer (Canals), Irrigation
Works, Haryana, were the exclusive shareholders in the
Corporation at the time of its formation in the year 1970. The
Corporation was carved out of the Irrigation Wing of the Public
Works Department and since its inception in the year 1970, a
number of officers have been appointed to different posts by
way of deputation. There were about 27 SDOs on deputation
from the Irrigation Department working in Corporation whose
nature of duties and responsibilities were similar and identical
to the nature and duties of the SDOs working in the equivalent
post of Corporation. Their duties were inter-changeable and
as such it was the case of the respondents before the High
Court that there was no difference whatsoever between the
duties and responsibilities expected to be shouldered by a
deputationist and by an employee of the Corporation. The
respondents pleaded before the High Court that there was no
qualitative difference between the duties and responsibilities of
persons employed on the posts of SDOs, SDEs, AEs in various
departments of Haryana Government, such as Public Works
Department (Buildings and Roads), Public Health
Departments, various Corporations, Haryana State Electricity
Board, Haryana Urban Development Authority and several
other Boards. Rule 5.1 of Part V of the Service Bye-Laws of
the Corporation reads as under:-
"1) Each post in the Corporation will carry a
time scale of pay, the present pay scale being
indicated in Appendix II.
2) The pay scale is subject to revision by the
Board, which will, however, generally follow
the pattern adopted by the Government of
Haryana from time to time."
5. The Corporation ever since its inception in the year 1970
has been following the pay scales of the employees of the
Haryana Government as revised from time to time in respect of
all categories of its employees. As noticed earlier, initially,
when the Corporation was formed, almost the entire
Engineering staff right from the rank of Chief Engineer to the
rank of AEs/SDOs/SDEs was taken on deputation from the
Irrigation Department of the State Government till the
Corporation recruited its own cadre of AEs. Qualifications and
experience for recruitment and promotion to the ranks of AEs,
SDOs, Executive Engineers, Superintending Engineers and
Chief Engineers are the same as in the Irrigation Department.
All those employees who came on deputation on whatever
post, were granted pay scales as revised by the Haryana
Government from time to time for the Engineers in the
Government Departments, like PWD (B & R), Public Health
and Irrigation Department. Keeping in view these facts, pay
scales of employees of the Corporation including those of
Engineers were revised with effect from 01.04.1979 and
01.01.1986 on the pattern of revision of pay scales approved
by the Haryana Government for its employees. The revision of
pay scales with effect from 01.01.1986 was also approved by
the Pay Revision Committee (PRC) constituted by the Haryana
Government for revision of pay scales of the employees of
various public Undertakings/Boards/Corporations in its
meeting held on 21.09.1988. Revision of pay scales were
made applicable to the Engineers in the Corporation w.e.f.
01.01.1986, but thereafter the Haryana Government, while
removing certain anomalies in the pay scale of the
Superintending Engineers, further revised the pay scales of
SEs of PWD (B & R), Public Health and Irrigation Department
from Rs.3700-5000/- to Rs. 4100-5300/- vide Finance
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10
Department letter No.6/38/3PR(FD) -27 dated 16.05.1989. By
another letter of the said Department No. 6/38/PR dated
02.06.1989, salaries of other Engineers, such as
AEEs/AEs/SDOs/SDEs (Class-I and Class-II) were also
revised with effect from 01.05.1989 by way of removal of
anomalies. The Board of Directors of the Corporation in its
94th meeting held on 18.08.1989 decided that in view of the
parity in pay scales that had been maintained in the past
between the Corporation and their counter parts in the
Haryana Government Departments, which was approved by
the Finance Department, may be recommended to the Public
Enterprises and Investment Cell of the Finance Department,
Haryana, for their concurrence. The names of the posts, their
existing and revised pay scales are tabulated as below:-
Name of the Post
Existing Scales
of pay
Revised Scales of Pay
Superintending
Engineer
Rs. 3700-5000
Rs. 4100-5300
Engineers
AEE/AE/SDO/SDE
(Class I & II)
Rs.2200-4000
Rs.2000-3500
Rs.2200-4000
Rs.3000-4500
(After 5 years of
regular service)
Rs.4100-5300
(After 12 years of
regular service)
6. The Haryana Government once again modified pay scales
of the Engineers vide letter dated 16.05.1990 with effect from
01.05.1989 as under:-
Name of the Post
Existing Scales
of pay
Revised Scales of Pay
Engineers
AEE/AE/SDO/SDE
(Class I & II)
Rs.2200-4000
Rs.2000-3500
(After 5 years of
regular service
Rs.4100-5300
(After 12 years
of regular
service)
Rs.2200-4000
Rs.3000-4500
(After 5 years of
regular satisfactory
service)
Selection Grade
Rs.4100-5300
(After 12 years of
regular satisfactory
service) limited to 20%
of the cadre posts.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10
7. The Board of Directors of the Corporation considered and
approved the adoption of the above modified scales of pay
w.e.f. 01.05.1989 in respect of the Engineers of the
Corporation in 97th meeting held on 25.06.1990, subject to the
concurrence of the Finance Department. It was further
resolved that any further amendment/modification made by
the Haryana Government in the pay scales of the Engineers
may also be made applicable in respect of the Corporation
employees, subject to the concurrence of the Finance
Department. The proposal of the Board of Directors of the
Corporation for revision of pay scales of the Corporation
Engineers was sent to the Finance Department and in the said
proposal, it was brought to the notice of the Standing
Committee that the revised pay scales had already been
granted to the Engineers of the Haryana Urban Development
Authority and that of the Haryana State Electricity Board. The
proposal was placed before the Standing Committee in its
meeting that was held on 28.05.1992, which approved the pay
scales in a selective manner. The revision in the pay scales of
the Superintending Engineers, Accounts Officers, Circle Head
Draftsmen, Divisional Head Draftsmen, etc. were approved,
whereas the revision of pay scales of the AEs/SDOs/SDEs was
postponed and it was decided that the matter would be
examined separately by the Finance Department. The claim of
the respondents with regard to the revision of pay scales,
however, was not taken up by the Standing Committee. The
respondents submitted repeated representations but they
could not get any relief and the respondents were left with no
option but to file the writ petitions before the High Court.
8. The Corporation contested the claim of the respondents
before the High Court by filing written statement wherein it
has been pleaded that the respondents are seeking revised pay
scales on the pattern of Engineers of three wings of PWD of the
State Government. The proposal of the Corporation for
revision of pay scales of engineering staff was placed for
consideration of the Standing Committee in its meeting held
on 15.11.1991. The decision taken in the aforesaid meeting
reads thus:
"It was decided to constitute a Sub-
Committee comprising of Member
Secretary, Haryana Bureau of Public
Enterprises; Managing Director, Haryana
State Minor Irrigation Tubewell
Corporation and Joint Secretary Finance
(Pay Revision) to review the entire staffing
pattern along with pay scale of
CORPORATION. Based on the
recommendations of the Sub-Committee,
the Corporation could submit a fresh
proposal for consideration of the
Standing Committee, if need be."
The meetings aforesaid of the Sub-Committee were held on
16.01.1992 and 6.02.1992. Minutes of these meetings
containing recommendations of the Sub-Committee were
placed for consideration of the Standing Committee in its
meeting held on 28.05.1992 wherein it was decided as under:-
"The revision of pay scales of posts of
AEE/AE/SDO/SDEs was postponed and
it was decided that the matter will be
examined separately by the Finance
Department."
It has further been stated that as the matter was under active
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10
consideration and had not been finally decided by the Finance
Department, no cause of action arose to the respondents and,
therefore, the writ petition being premature was liable to be
dismissed on that sole ground. The main defence of the
Corporation in its written statement before the High Court
was that there has been a revision of pay scales of Engineers
of three wings of Public Works Department only of the State
Government who have to carry out more arduous duties under
different conditions and constraints because of the
development activities undertaken by the State under its
phased programme and time-bound schedule, whereas the
Engineers employed by the Corporation have been discharging
normal routine duties. It was contended that the Corporation
is running under loss and because of its financial position, the
Corporation is not in a position to equate the pay scales of its
Engineers, Law Officers and other employees equivalent to the
Engineers of the three wings of PWD and other employees
working on the equivalent posts of the State Government.
9. The learned Single Judge, allowed the Writ Petition No.
14200/1993 which was the subject-matter of LPA No.
7525/1993 before the Division Bench of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court and held as under:
"In view of the above, it is held that the
action of the respondents in not granting
the revised scale of pay to the petitioners
with effect from May 1, 1989 suffers from
the vice of discrimination and is violative
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
of India. The next contentions raised by
the learned counsel for the petitioners
related to the jurisdiction of the
Government to interfere in the affairs of
the Corporation. The contention is not
wholly without merit. However, in view of
my decision on the first question, it does
not appear to be necessary to examine
this matter in detail.
Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed.
It is held that the petitioners will be
entitled to the revised scales of pay with
effect from May 1, 1989 as has been
granted to the persons working in the
Corporation by way of deputation or in
the Public Works Department of the
Government. The needful shall be done
within 4 months from the date of receipt
of a copy of this order. They will be
entitled to all consequential benefits. In
case, the needful is not done within the
aforesaid time, the petitioners shall be
entitled to the payment of arrears, etc.
along with interest @ 12% per annum
from the date of accrual to the date of
actual payment. However, in the
circumstances of the case, there will be
no order as to costs."
10. Being aggrieved, the Corporation carried the matter in
intra-court appeal before the Division Bench. During the
hearing of Letters Patent Appeal, a copy of the final decision
taken by the Government had been handed over to the Bench
vide which the Finance Committee of the Government decided
that pay scales of the Engineers along with the doctors of
Health Department and Deputy Superintendents of Police were
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10
further revised. It has also been clarified that the revised pay
scales, so far as engineers were concerned, were applicable to
the Engineers of PWD (three wings) only. Shri Chakrawarti
Garg, Law Officer working with the Corporation, filed Civil Writ
Petition No. 5946/1994 and Shri A.S. Dhir, SDO of the
Corporation filed Civil Writ Petition No. 834/1996 before the
Division Bench of the High Court claiming revision of pay
scales at par with the other employees discharging same and
similar duties and responsibilities at equivalent posts with the
State Government, Boards and Corporations. The Division
Bench by impugned order dated August 22, 2001 dismissed
the Letters Patent Appeal of the Corporation and allowed the
Civil Writ Petitions filed by Shri Chakrawarti Garg and Shri
A.S. Dhir respondents herein. Hence, the Corporation and
others have filed these appeals questioning the correctness
and validity of the common judgment of the Division Bench of
the High Court.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr.
Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned Additional Advocate General
appearing for the appellants, vehemently contended that the
pay scales of the respondents could not be compared and
equated with the Engineers and other employees of the three
wings of the PWD and other employees of the State
Government. He submitted that there is apparent difference
between the duties, responsibilities and reliability of the
Engineers working in the three wings of Public Works
Department as they have to work under difficult conditions
and constraints because of the developmental activities as
compared to those Engineers working in the Corporation. As
such, the findings of the High Court granting different pay
scales to the engineers and other employees of the Corporation
in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India
cannot be justified and sustained. It was also urged that mere
fact that on two earlier occasions, pay hike to the engineers of
the Government Departments attracted an equal pay hike for
the Engineers employed with the Corporation is no guide that
may conclusively show that nature and duties of the two sets
of employees were the same. The weak financial position of
the Corporation is also being pressed into service during the
course of arguments for denying the relief that has been
granted to the respondents by the High Court.
12. The learned Additional Advocate General, in support of
his submissions, placed reliance on the judgments of this
Court in State Bank of India & Anr. v. M.R. Ganesh Babu
& Ors. [2002] 4 SCC 556; State of Haryana v. Haryana
Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association [2002] 6 SCC
72 and Union of India v. S.B. Vohra [2004] 2 SCC 150.
13. We have gone through these decisions of this Court. In
State Bank of India’s case (supra), this Court held that
equal pay must depend upon the nature of work done. It
cannot be judged by the mere volume of work; there may be
qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility.
Functions may be same but the responsibilities make a
difference. Often the difference is a matter of degree and there
is an element of value judgment by those who are charged
with the administration in fixing the scales of pay and other
conditions of service. So long as such value judgment is made
bona fide, reasonably on an intelligible criterion which has a
rational nexus with the object of differentiation, such
differentiation will not amount to discrimination. The
judgment of administrative authorities concerning the
responsibilities which attach to the post, and the degree of
reliability expected of an incumbent, would be a value
judgment of the authorities concerned which, if arrived at
bona fide, reasonably and rationally, is not open to
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10
interference by the court.
14. In S.B. Vohra’s case [supra], this Court dealing with the
fixation of pay scales of officers of the High Court of Delhi
(Assistant Registrars) held that the fixation of pay scales is
within the exclusive domain of Chief Justice, subject to
approval of President/Governor of the State and the matter
should either be examined by an Expert Body or in its absence
by the Chief Justice and the Central or State Government
should attend to the suggestions of the Chief Justice with
reasonable promptitude so as to satisfy the test of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India. Further, it was observed that
financial implications vis-a-vis effect of grant of a particular
scale of pay may not always be a sufficient reason and
differences should be mutually discussed and tried to be
solved.
15. In State of Haryana’s case (supra), this Court held that
the High Court was in error in allowing the parity in pay scale
to State Civil Secretariat PAs with Central Secretariat PAs
merely because the designation was same, without comparing
the nature of their duties and responsibilities and
qualifications for recruitment and without considering the
relevant rules, regulations and executive instructions issued
by the employer and governing the cadre concerned.
16. There is no dispute nor can there be any to the principle
as settled in the above-cited decisions of this Court that
fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties is the
function of the Executive and the scope of judicial review of
administrative decision in this regard is very limited. However,
it is also equally well-settled that the courts should interfere
with the administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation
and pay parity when they find such a decision to be
unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees
and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors. [see
K.T. Veerappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2006)
9 SCC 406].
17. Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel assisted
by Shri Raj Kumar Gupta and Shri A.N.Bardiyar appearing for
respondents in C.A. Nos. 9244/03 and 9248/03; Mr. Rishi
Malhotra, Advocate appearing for respondents in C.A.
9239/2003, in support of the judgment of the Division Bench,
contended that no exceptions can be taken to the well-
reasoned judgment recorded by the Division Bench of the High
Court. They submitted that the Division Bench has analysed
in great detail the factual situation and legal proposition
covering the field of controversy, therefore, there is apparently
no infirmity or perversity in the judgment impugned in these
appeals inviting interference by this Court.
18. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the learned
counsel for the parties, we have scrutinized the judgment of
the Division Bench of the High Court in the backdrop of the
factual situation of the case as well as in the light of the
principle enunciated in the above-cited decisions.
19. It is well-settled that the State can make reasonable
classification if it has a nexus with the object sought to be
achieved. It is admitted position in the present case that posts
of SDOs/SDEs/AEs can be filled up by the Corporation by any
one of the three known methods, namely, direct recruitment,
on promotion or by transfer/deputation. Once a person is
appointed to a post in a particular cadre, the source of his
recruitment or the method of his appointment becomes
irrelevant. The Corporation has framed its Service Bye-Laws
and by virtue of Rule 5.1 of Part-V of the Service Bye-Laws,
each post in the Corporation will carry a time scale of pay; the
present pay scale being indicated in Appendix-II and further
that the pay scale is subject to revision by the Board, which
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10
will, however, generally follow the pattern adopted by the
Government of Haryana from time to time. The employees of
the Corporation, since its inception in 1970, had been getting
the same pay scales as that of the employees of the Haryana
Government and the Board of Directors having already
equated the pay scales of the Engineers of the Corporation
commensurate to the pay scales of the Government employees,
but the State Government has not concurred with the decision
of the Board of Directors. By virtue of Clause 81(v) of the
Memorandum of Association of the Corporation, the Directors
of the Corporation in their discretion have powers to appoint,
remove or suspend such Managers, Secretaries, Officers,
Clerks, Agents and Servants of permanent, temporary or
special services, as they may from time to time think fit, and to
determine their powers and duties and fix their salaries or
emoluments and to require security of such amount as they
think fit in such instances. The power to fix the salaries or
emoluments of the employees of the Corporation, thus,
specifically rests with the Directors of the Corporation and by
virtue of Rule 5.1 of Part-V of the Service Bye-Laws, as
mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, the Corporation
had favourably considered the claim of the respondents by
recommending the same scales for them, as were being given
to their counterparts in the service of the Government
Departments. The proposal of the Board of Directors of the
Corporation for revision of pay scales to its employees came up
before the Standing Committee in its meeting held on
28.05.1992 and the Standing Committee approved the pay
scales in a selective manner. The revision in pay scales of the
Superintending Engineers, Accounts Officers, Circle Head
Draftsmen, Divisional Head Draftsmen, etc. were approved,
whereas the revision of pay scales of the respondents, who are
AEs/SDOs/SDEs, was postponed and it was decided that the
matter would be examined separately by the Finance
Department.
20. The State of Haryana in its written statement filed before
the High Court admitted that although the technical
qualifications of incumbents on the posts of AEs/SDOs/SDEs
in various Government Departments, Boards and Corporations
are identical, yet the nature of duties and responsibilities,
quantum of workload and level of technical expertise involved
do vary from organization to organization depending upon the
nature of activities undertaken by the respective organizations.
It is further contended that the salary and allowances of the
deputationists of the Corporation are governed by the terms
and conditions of their deputation as decided by the
Government from time to time. Therefore, the respondents
cannot be treated and equated at par with the similar
categories of employees of the State Government.
21. The learned Single Judge of the High Court as also the
learned Judges of the Division Bench have considered the
controversy in detail in their judgments holding the
respondents entitled for the revision of pay scales at par with
their counter-parts working in the State of Haryana.
22. It is not in dispute that a deputationist holds the post in
a particular cadre office for the duration he remains on
deputation and is a part of that cadre. No material has been
placed on record by the appellants to show that the
deputationists are appointed against only certain particular
posts or that they cannot be posted or transferred to the posts
held by the respondents. In fact, it is an admitted position
that the posts are mutually inter-changeable. In this
situation, it is reasonable to infer that a deputationist
performs the same duties as those performed by other persons
working in the cadre. It is also an admitted position that the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10
qualifications laid down for recruitment in the Corporation are
identical to those prescribed in the Departments of the
Government. It is further clear that the respondents have
continued to work in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 w.e.f.
01.01.1986. As against this, their counter-parts in the
Government and also the persons, who are posted in the
Corporation by way of deputation, would get the scale of
Rs.3000-4500 on completion of five years of service and are
placed in the scale of Rs.4100-5300 (to the extent of 20% of
the posts) on completion of 20 years of service. The
respondents were obviously placed at a disadvantageous
position. The decision of the Government in rejecting the
proposal of the Board of Directors suffers from the vice of
invidious discrimination and cannot be sustained because the
very same decision of the Board with regard to all other
employees has since been accepted and approved by the State
Government. On the scrutiny of the material on record, it is
clear that the appellants did not produce any evidence on
record to establish that the working conditions,
responsibilities and nature of duties, etc. of the respondents
are different to their counter-parts working in the same
categories in the State Government, Boards and other
Corporations, etc. and also the persons who are working with
the Corporation on deputation.
23. A careful examination shows that the issue was not really
about grant of pay scales to Corporation Engineers on par with
PWD Engineers. When the pay revision took place, the revised
pay scales that were given to the Engineers of the State
Government were also given to the engineers of the
Corporation with effect from 1.1.1986 thereby maintaining the
parity. What was not extended to the Corporation employees,
which is the subject matter of the grievance, is the further
revision by way of ’removal of anomaly in pay scales’ given to
AEE/AE/SDO/SDE of the State Government with effect from
1.5.1989 vide circular dated 2.6.1989 of the Finance
Commissioner. The real question would be whether what is
given by way of anomaly removal in the case of Engineers of
State Government, should automatically be extended to the
corresponding categories of engineers of the Corporation.
When, after a pay revision, an anomaly is found in the pay
scale given to a class of Government servants and such
anomaly is rectified, it is not a new pay revision but a
correction of the original pay revision, or an amendment to the
pay scale that has already been granted. Therefore, where the
pay revision extended to the government servants has already
been extended to the employees of the Corporation also, it
follows that any correction of anomaly in the revised pay scale
given to the government servants should also be made in the
case of those who were earlier given parity by extending the
pay scale which is the subject matter of the correction. It
should be borne in mind that the question whether
Corporation engineers were on par with PWD Engineers and
should be given parity in pay scales was already decided when
the pay scale revision granted to Government (PWD) engineers
was extended to the corporation Engineers also with effect
from 1.1.1986. That question did not again arise when the
anomaly in the pay revision was rectified with reference to the
Government engineers. When the anomaly in the pay scale of
Government engineers was rectified, the rectification should
apply to Corporation engineers also to maintain the parity.
24. The plea of the appellants that the Corporation is
running under losses and it cannot meet the financial burden
on account of revision of scales of pay has been rejected by the
High Court and, in our view, rightly so. Whatever may be the
factual position, there appears to be no basis for the action of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10
the appellants in denying the claim of revision of pay scales to
the respondents. If the Government feels that the Corporation
is running into losses, measures of economy, avoidance of
frequent writing off of dues, reduction of posts or repatriating
deputationists may provide the possible solution to the
problem. Be that as it may, such a contention may not be
available to the appellants in the light of the principle
enunciated by this Court in M.M.R. Khan v. Union of India
[1990 Supp. SCC 191] and Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B.
Staff Canteen Workers’ Union [(2000) 4 SCC 245]. However,
so long as the posts do exist and are manned, there appears to
be no justification for granting the respondents a scale of pay
lower than that sanctioned for those employees who are
brought on deputation. In fact, the sequence of events,
discussed above, clearly shows that the employees of the
Corporation have been treated at par with those in
Government at the time of revision of scales of pay on every
occasion. It is an admitted position that the scales of pay were
initially revised w.e.f. April 1, 1979 and thereafter on January
1, 1986. On both these occasions, the pay scales of the
employees of the Corporation were treated and equated at par
with those in Government. It is thus an established fact that
both were similarly situated. Thereafter, nothing appears to
have happened which may justify the differential treatment.
Thus, the Corporation cannot put forth financial loss as a
ground only with regard to a limited category of employees. It
cannot be said that the Corporation is financially sound
insofar granting of revised pay scales to other employees, but
finds financial constraints only when it comes to dealing with
the respondents, who are similarly placed in the same
category. Having regard to the well reasoned judgment of the
Division Bench upholding the judgment and order of the
learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the impugned
judgment warrants no interference inasmuch as no illegality,
infirmity or error of jurisdiction could be shown before us.
25. In the result, for the reasons stated above, we find no
merit in these appeals. The appeals are dismissed
accordingly. However, the parties are left to bear their own
costs.