Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Of Ex-Vigilance Commissioner For Chief Secretary's Pay Scale

A bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that the appellant voluntarily accepted the offered pay scale, and he was not obliged to join the post if the pay scale being offered was not acceptable to him.

“The only argument advanced on behalf of the appellant in support of the plea for being accorded the pay scale equivalent to that of the Chief Secretary of State is that some predecessor State Vigilance Commissioners were paid the same pay scale as the Chief Secretary. We feel that merely because at some point in time, the State Vigilance Commissioners appointed before the appellant were getting the pay scale as the Chief Secretary, that by itself would not form a precedent so as to entitle the appellant to claim the same pay scale”, the Court stated.

The appellant was appointed as the State Vigilance Commissioner by the Nagaland government on June 21, 2006 after his retirement as an IAS officer. The appellant accepted the position, which offered a salary equivalent to the last pay he received as an IAS officer, minus his pension. He served in this role for five years, with a subsequent one-year extension.

The appellant claimed that the salary offered to him was arbitrary and illegal, arguing that he should have been paid the same as the Chief Secretary of the State. He claimed that some of his predecessors in the same position were paid at the Chief Secretary's scale. He filed a writ petition in the Gauhati High Court, seeking parity in pay with the Chief Secretary.

A Single Judge of the HC ruled in favor of the appellant and directed that he be paid the salary of the Chief Secretary from March 12, 2008, the date on which the pay scale for the State Vigilance Commissioner was fixed by the government. However, the Division Bench in appeal by the state overturned the Single Judge's ruling.

The appellant then approached the Supreme Court in the present appeal.

The Supreme Court observed that the appellant had accepted the terms of his appointment, including the salary, without any reservation. The Court noted that the appellant was not obliged to accept the position if the offered pay scale was unsatisfactory.

The appellant argued that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" should apply, but the Court rejected this, stating that this principle was not applicable since there was only one State Vigilance Commissioner post in Nagaland, and no other person held the position at the same time with a higher pay scale.

The Supreme Court concluded that the decision of the Division Bench of the Gauhati HC did not warrant interference and dismissed the appeal.

Case No. – Civil Appeal No. 10034/2011

Case Title – Metongmeren Ao v. State of Nagaland

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 657