Pay scale determination and job evaluation are executive functions generally beyond the scope of judicial review.

The applicants, employees of the Port Department, Government of Puducherry, sought a review of the technical cadre in the Light House/Port Section and the grant of higher pay scales for the posts of Light Keeper and Wharf Supervisor

Applicant No. 1, currently a Wharf Supervisor, and Applicant No. 2, a Light Keeper, argued that despite their long service and technical qualifications, they were placed in lower pay scales compared to ministerial departments and counterparts in other states and Union Territories such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Andaman and Nicobar

The respondents contended that the pay scales were structured according to the 4th, 5th, and 6th Central Pay Commission (CPC) recommendations and that the recruitment rules, qualifications, and hierarchies were distinct for the technical cadre in Puducherry

1. Whether the Tribunal can direct the executive to review the technical cadre and refix pay scales based on the principle of pay parity with other departments or states.

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to the Grade Pay of Rs. 2400/- for Light Keeper and Rs. 2800/- for Wharf Supervisor with retrospective effect.

The court applied the principle of judicial restraint, holding that job evaluation and pay fixation are complex executive functions that should be left to expert bodies like Pay Commissions

It relied on Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. v. Rajesh Kumar Jindal (2019), which holds that courts should not tinker with pay equivalence unless the determination was made with extraneous considerations

The court further cited S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand (2007) and Steel Authority of India Limited v. Dibyendu Bhattacharya (2011), establishing that "equal pay for equal work" requires "wholesale identity" between posts, including eligibility, recruitment mode, and nature of responsibilities, and cannot be adjudicated solely on the basis of affidavits

The Tribunal reasoned that the determination of salary and post classification is an expert function beyond the typical purview of the judiciary

It noted that for a claim of "equal pay for equal work" to succeed, the applicants must prove a complete identity in duties, qualifications, and reliability with the comparison group, which was not established in this case

The court observed that the respondents had followed the recommendations of successive Pay Commissions and established Recruitment Rules

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the judgment of administrative authorities regarding the value of a post, if arrived at bona fide, is not open to interference

Specifically, the Tribunal held that it could not intervene at a stage where the 7th CPC recommendations had already been implemented

It held that it could not issue directions to the respondents to review the cadre or grant pay parity with retrospective effect, particularly in light of the implementation of the 7th CPC

No order was made as to costs