Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 3518 of 1997
PETITIONER:
STATE OF HARYAKA AND ANR.
RESPONDENT:
HARYANA CIVIL SECRETARIAT PERSONAL STAFF ASSOCIATION
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/07/2002
BENCH:
S. KAJENDRA BABU & D.P. MOHAPATRA
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
2002 Supp(1)SCR 118
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D.P. MOHAPATRA. J. This appeal filed by the State of Haryana, represented
by the Chief Secretary and the Secretary to Government of Haryana,
Department of Finance, is directed against the judgment of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court dated 13.8.1996 in CWP No. 4206/95 filed by the Haryana
Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association through its General Secretary
Shri Ram Mehar Sharma. In the Writ petition the petitioner prayed for a
writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the
Personal Assistants (for short ’P.A.s’) the pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3500
plus Rs. 150/- as special pay which have been given to the P.A.s working in
the Central Secretariat for the reason that the State of Haryana had
accepted the recommendations made by the Fourth Central Pay Commission with
regard to revision of pay scales with effect from 1.1.1986 with all
consequential benefits like fixation of pay arrears and other benefits.
The case of the Writ petitioner sans unnecessary details was that prior to
l986 the P.A.s in the Civil Secretariat, Haryana were enjoying higher scale
of pay than the P.A.s of the Central Secretariat. On receipt of the Fourth
Central Pay Commission Report the Central Government revised the pay scale
of P.A.s to Rs.200Q-3500 with effect from 1.1.1986. Though the Government
of Haryana accepted the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay
Commission and implemented the same in respect of certain categories of
employees but in respect of P.A.s in the Civil Secretariat the revised
scale of pay was fixed at Rs. 1640-2900 + Rs. 350 as special pay, instead
of Rs, 2000-3500. The further case of the petitioner was that in respect of
certain categories of employees of different departments of State of
Haryana like Education, Police, Transport, Health and Engineering and
Technical staff, the State Government revised the scale of pay exactly
according to recommendation of the Fourth Central Pay Commission and
granted them the scale of Rs, 2000-3500 but in case of the P.A.s the State
Government fixed the lower revised scale of Pay denying them parity of pay
scale with their counterparts in the Central Government. The Petitioner
alleged that the post of P.A. in Civil Secretarial of the State of Haryana
is comparable with the post of P.A. in Central Secretarial; they discharge
similar duties and responsibilities as those of their counterparts in the
Central Sercetariat. The petitioner contended that employees like Police
Inspectors and some others who were borne on the same scale of pay as P.A.
prior to implementation of the Fourth Central Pay Commission Report i.e.
Rs. 700-1250, were granted the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200 whereas the P.A.s
were placed in the scale of Rs. 1640-2900 only. Such action on the part of
the State Government, the petitioner contended, was arbitrary,
discriminatory and irrational. The further case of the petitioner was that
on receipt of several representations from the petitioner- association and
its members, the State Government referred the matter to the Pay Anomalies
Commission headed by the Chief Secretary, which did not accept the claim of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
the petitioner but only recommended the Selection Grade of Rs.2000-3200 to
the 20% of the posts of P.A.s with the condition of 12 years of service. It
was asserted by the petitioner that the P.A.s working in the Civil
Secretatriat were entitled to get the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 with effect
from 1.1.1986 and the decision taken by the State Government granting the
Selection Grade of Rs. 2000-3200 and that too only to those P.A.s who have
completed J2 years of services and maximum up to 20% of the posts in cadre
is wholly illegal and unjust.
Refuting the allegations made in the writ petition the respondents in
their counter affidavit questioned the very basis of the claim laid by the
petitioner which was based on the assumption that P.A.s in the State Civil
Secretariat were entitled to the same scale of pay granted by the Central
Government to P.A.s working in the Central Secretariat. Such comparison for
the purpose of claim of parity of pay, the respondents contended, was
conceived and was of no avail to the petitioner in the case. According to
ndents, though the State Government on principle accepted the report
th Central Pav Commission it did not entitle the members of the petitioner
to claim post to post and scale parity of pay The respondents asserted that
considering various relevant aspects which were required to be taken into
account for fixation of pay scale the State Government decided to fix the
revised scale of Rs, 1640-2900 for P.A.s working in the Civil Secretariat
and subsequently on recommendation of Pay Anomalies Commission the State
Government decided to grant the Selection Grade pay of Rs. 2000-3200 plus
Rs. 150 special pay to P.A.s with 12 years of service and up to 20% of the
posts in the cadre. Such administrative decision, the respondents
contended, was within the power of the State Government; therefore the
decision cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational. The High Court in
the judgment dated 13.8.19% allowed the writ petition, declared that the
P.A.s were entitled to the scale of Rs. 2000-3500 from 1.1.1986 and
directed that arrears would be restricted to 38 months from the date of
filing of the writ petition i.e. 21st March, 1995 but after fixing the pay
notionally from 1.1.1986. The High Court further directed that the
selection grade would merge with the revised scale of Rs. 2000-3500 and the
State may consider if it would like to grant the special pay to the P.A.s
or not. The State Government, feeling aggrieved by the judgment rendered by
the High Court, has filed this appeal assailing the judgment.
In the judgment the High Court placed reliance on the principle of ’equal
pay for equal work’. It also took note of the principle of law that
ordinarily the matter of fixation of pay would be left to be determined by
the executive authorities and court would only interfere when it finds that
classification is improper or discriminatory. Then the High Court proceeded
to consider facts of the case particularly taking note of the position that
in case of certain other category of employees the State Government had
granted exactly the revised scale of pay, Rs.2000-3500 sanctioned by the
Central Government whereas in the case of P.A.s a lower scale was fixed.
The High Court appears to have proceeded on the assumption that P.A.s
serving in the Civil Secretariat are discharging the duties and
responsibilities similar to those of P.A.s in the Central Secretariat for
the simple reason that the averment to the effect in the writ petition was
not rebutted by the respondents. The High Court observed: "It is true that
it is for the government to fix the scales but the same cannot be done by
ignoring the equities and the principles of equality". Referring to certain
decisions of this Court like State of West Bengal v. Anwar All Sarkar.
[1952] SCR 284, Randhir Singh v. Union of India and Ors, [1982J 1 SCC 618,
P. Savita and Ors. v. Union of india Ors,, [1985] 3 SCR 29, State of Madhya
Pradesh and Anr. v. Pramotion and Ors., (1993) 1 Recent Services Judgments
618, purushotam Ors. v. Union of India and Anr, AIR (1973) SC 1988, Haryana
State Biologists Association v. The State of Haryana, (1994) 4 Recent
Services Judgments 444, the High Court accepted the case of the writ
petitioner, allowed the writ petition and issued the directions as noted
earlier.
Shri P.C, Jain, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
contended that the High Court has ignored the settled principles ,of law in
a claim relating to parity of pay and fixation of revised scale of pay; the
judgment of the High Court is patently erroneous and should be set aside.
On the other hand, Shri Anup G. Choudhary, learned senior counsel appearing
for the respondent supporting the judgment urged that in the context of
facts and circumstances of the case the High Court rightly accepted the
claim of parity of scale of pay pleaded by the respondent and no
interference with the judgment is called for.
From the discussions in the impugned judgment it is clear to us that the
High Court has ignored certain settled principles of law for d ’termination
of the claim on parity of pay scale by a section of government employees.
While making copious reference to the principle of equal pay for equal work
and equality in the matter of pay, the High Court overlooked the position
that the parity sought by the petitioner in the case was with employees
having only the same designation under the Central Government. Such
comparison by a section of employees of State Government with employees of
Central Government based merely on designation of the posts was
misconceived. The High Court also fell into error in assuming that the
averment regarding similarity of duties and responsibilities made in the
writ petition was unrebutted. The appellants in their counter affidavit
have taken the specific stand that no comparison between the two sections
of employees is possible since the qualifications prescribed for the P.A.s
in the Central Secretariat are different from the P.A.s in the State Civil
Secretariat. Even assuming that there was no specific rebuttal of the
averment in the writ petition that could not form the basis for grant of
parity of scale of pay as claimed by the respondent. The High Court has not
made any comparison of the nature of duties and responsibilities, the
qualifications for recruitment to the posts of P.A,.s in the State Civil
Secretariat with those of P.A,s of the Central Secretariat.
This Court in the case of Secretary, Finance Department v. West Bengal
Registration Service Association and Ors., [1993] Supp I SCC 153, dealing
with the question of equation of posts and equation of salaries of
government employees, made the following observations :
"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 ask 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. Courts
must, however, realize that job evaluation is both a difficult and time
consuming task which even expert bodies having the assistance of staff with
requisite 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
responsibility and accountability of the discharge of his diverse duties
and functions (iv) the extent and nature of freedoms/ limitations
available or imposed on him in the discharge 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 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
grades which were earlier different and unequal. While doing so care must
be taken to ensure that such rationalization 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 qualifications required, (v) avenues of
promotion, (vi) the nature of the duties and responsibilities, (vii) the
horizontal and vertical 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 emphasise that
several factors have to be kept in view while evolving a pay structure and
the horizontal and vertical relativities have to be carefully balanced
keeping in mind the hierarchical 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.
(emphasis supplied)
It is to be kept in mind that the claim of equal pay for equal work is not
a fundamental right vested in any employee though it is a constitutional
goal to be achieved by the Government. Fixation of pay and determination of
parity in duties and responsibilities is a complex matter which is for the
executive to discharge. While taking a decision in the matter several
relevant factors, some of which have been noted by this Court in the
decided case, are to be considered keeping in view the prevailing financial
position and capacity of the State Government to bear the additional
liability of a revised scale of pay, It is also to be kept in mind that the
priority given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of
the State Government is also a relevant factor for consideration by the
State Government. In the context of complex nature of issues involved, the
far reaching consequences of a decision in the matter and its impact on the
administration :of the State Government courts have taken the view that
ordinarily courts should not try to delve deep into administrative
decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity. That is not to say
that the matter is not justiciable or that the courts cannot entertain any
proceeding against such administrative decision taken by the government.
The courts should approach such matters with restraint and interfere only
when they are satisfied that the decision of the government is patently
irrational unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and the
government while taking the decision has ignored factors which are material
and relevant for a decision in the matter. Even in a case where the court
holds the order passed by the government to be unsustainable then
ordinarily a direction should be given to the State Government or the
authority taking the decision to reconsider the matter and pass a proper
order. The court should avoid giving a declaration granting a particular
scale of pay and compelling the government to implement the same. As noted
earlier, in the present case ’the High Court has not even made any attempt
to compare the nature of duties and responsibilities of the two sections of
the employees, one in the State Secretariat and the other in the Central
Secretariat. It has also ignored the basic principle that there are certain
rules, regulations and executive instructions issued by the employers which
govern the administration of the cadre,
On the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, we have no hesitation to
hold that the High Court was in error in allowing the writ petition and
directing the appellants to grant the scale of Rs. 2000-3500 to the P.A.s
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
of the State Civil Secretariat with effect from 1,1.1986, The judgment of
the High Court is unsustainable, Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the
judgment under challenge is set aside. The writ petition filed by the
respondent herein is dismissed. There will, however, be no order for costs.
We make it clear that if any of the Personal Assistant(s) serving in the
Haryana State Civil Secretariat has/have received any additional emolument
in pursuance of the judgment of the High Court under challenge such amount
will not be recovered from him/them.