Historical Similarity In Previous Pay Scales Can Be Considered To Allow Same Pay Scale For Similar Posts : Supreme Court
Historical similarity in previous pay scales can be taken into consideration by the Courts to interfere with pay scale fixation which has created anomalies, observed the Supreme Court.Holding thus, the Court upheld a Delhi High Court judgment which held that Assistant and Personal Assistants of Ordnance Factory Board, Headquarters are entitled to same pay scale as similarly placed employees...
Historical similarity in previous pay scales can be taken into consideration by the Courts to interfere with pay scale fixation which has created anomalies, observed the Supreme Court.
Holding thus, the Court upheld a Delhi High Court judgment which held that Assistant and Personal Assistants of Ordnance Factory Board, Headquarters are entitled to same pay scale as similarly placed employees of Central Secretariat Service (CSS) and equivalent posts in Armed Force Headquarters Civil Service (AFHCS) Cadre, New Delhi and other similar cadres
A bench comprising Justices AS Bopanna and PS Narasimha observed :
“... though the Courts would not undertake the exercise of determining the pay scale keeping in view the nature of the work by comparing employees who are not similarly placed in cases where the exercise of determining such complex issues would arise, at the same time, relief cannot be denied to the employees when the entitlement is denied due to irrational consideration without application of mind to the facts involved in the case by the employer, thereby denying the benefits to the employees“ the bench of Justice AS Bopanna and Justice PS Narasimha said.
The Respondent in the said case was an Association of Employees in the Headquarters of Ordnance Factory Board. The employees sought for upgradation of the pay scales of Assistant and Personal Assistants of Ordnance Factory Board, Headquarters as had been given to similarly placed employees of Central Secretariat Service (CSS) and equivalent posts in Armed Force Headquarters Civil Service (AFHCS) Cadre, New Delhi and other similar cadres. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) had denied them the relief of parity in pay scales. The High Court however, set aside the order of the CAT and held that the respondents would be entitled to pay parity in terms of paragraph 3.1.9 of the recommendations contained in the VIth Central Pay Commission (CPC).
The Union (Appellant) approached the Apex Court against this order, contending that judicial review in matters pertaining to pay scale can only be exercised if there is arbitrariness or discrimination. It was also argued that fixation of pay scale is in the realm of the employer and the Court should exercise restraint in interfering in it.
The Appellant relied on para 3.1.14 of the 6th CPC which recommends replacement pay scale, while the respondents relied on para 3.1.9 of the 6th CPC. The Union also cited the judgment in Union of India vs. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association and Another 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 129 which held that different pay scales for seemingly similar posts are justified if there is a reasonable classification. Reliance was also placed on Union of India and Others vs. Manoj Kumar and Others.
The Supreme Court noted that the reliance was placed by the High Court on para 3.1.9 because the employees of the headquarters were similarly placed as the employees of the headquarters in CSS/CSSS. The High Court had also taken into consideration the historical similarity in pay scales prior to the recommendations in the 6th CPC. The HC had concluded that the employees in the headquarters of the Ordnance Factories being similarly placed cannot be discriminated hence rectified the pay anomaly. The High Court had also noted that parity of pay scales for LDCs, UDCs, Assistants/PAs and Stenographers, was maintained under the 3rd, 4th and 5th Central Pay Commission recommendations.
The Apex Court thus agreed with the view taken by the High Court and refused to interfere with the impugned order:
“..the High Court having kept in view the legal, as well as the factual aspects, has not proceeded in a manner so as to equate two sets of employees in different organizations. But, keeping in view the recommendation of the Pay Commission and the applicability of the pay scales recommended to similarly placed employees employed in the headquarters and on noticing discrimination despite historical similarity has merely rectified the error, which does not call for interference “ the Apex Court said.
Case Title: Union of India Vs. D.G.O.F. Employees Association, Civil Appeal No.1663 of 2016
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 977