Functional and Hierarchical Distinctions Justify Differential Pay Scales and Negate Claims of Grade-Level Parity.

The petitioners, retired Superintending Engineers (SEs) of the State of Gujarat, sought pay parity with SEs in the Central Government and a higher pay scale than their subordinates, Executive Engineers (EEs).

Historically, SEs were at par with Central SEs until the 4th Pay Commission.

Following the 5th and 6th Pay Commissions, the State deviated from central scales and rejected a recommendation by the Justice N.B. Patel Commission to rectify perceived anomalies.

An earlier writ petition (SCA No. 1779/2012) challenging this was rejected in 2014, though liberty was granted to file a representation.

The State rejected the representation on 09.12.2014, leading to the current petition.

The matter was remanded to the High Court by the Supreme Court in 2025 after earlier dismissals were quashed.

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to pay parity with Superintending Engineers working under the Central Government.

2. Whether the petitioners are being paid the same salary as their subordinates (Executive Engineers), creating a grade anomaly.

3. Whether the Superintending Engineers qualify as "Heads of Department" entitled to pay scales equivalent to other departmental heads under Articles 14 and 16.

The court applied the principle that pay parity cannot be claimed solely based on designation or historical scale-to-scale basis if the nature of work and jurisdiction differs.

It relied on the constitutional principles of Articles 14 and 16, noting that "equal pay for equal work" requires identity in duties, responsibilities, and recruitment modes.

The court underscored that the State has the power to classify posts based on promotional hierarchy, scope of work, and jurisdictional area.

It also used the definitions of "pay in pay band" and "grade pay" under Rule 3 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2009 to distinguish between total remuneration packages.

The court found that the prayer for parity with Central Government SEs was barred by res judicata as it was rejected in the 2014 litigation.

Regarding the subordinate pay anomaly, the court analyzed the 6th and 7th Pay Commission structures; it noted that while the "Pay Band" (15600-39100) was identical for SEs and EEs in the 6th Commission, the "Grade Pay" for SEs (7600) was higher than EEs (6600), thus maintaining a hierarchical distinction.

For the 7th Commission, the pay levels (Level-12 vs Level-11) were distinctly different.

On the "Head of Department" (HoD) claim, the court accepted the State's hierarchy showing SEs are "Circle Heads" reporting to "Technical Heads" (Chief Engineers) and "Administrative Heads" (Secretaries), unlike solitary HoD posts in other departments.

The court concluded that selective comparison with isolated posts like the Charity Commissioner or Director of Fisheries was misplaced as those functions and recruitment modes were fundamentally different.

It further held that Superintending Engineers are not "Heads of Department" in the legal sense that would entitle them to higher pay scales.

The State’s decision was found to be neither arbitrary nor discriminatory under Article 14. The Rule was discharged, and no costs were ordered.