Implementation Of Pay Scales Involves Executive Discretion, Courts Can't Intervene Unless There Is Illegality Or Glaring Irregularity: Delhi High Court

The case involved allegations against the Municipal Corporation of Delhi for failure to implement an enhanced pay scale for its technicians, as recommended by the 5th Pay Commission. It was held that the petitioners (technicians) were not entitled to the enhanced pay scale since it couldn't be construed as a legally vested right.

Brief Facts:

The Petitioners served as ECG technicians under the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (“MCD”), receiving a pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000/- per month initially. Later, the 5th Pay Commission recommended an enhanced pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- for ECG technicians, effective from January 1st, 1996. While the Government of NCT of Delhi implemented this recommendation, the MCD failed to do so despite multiple representations from the Petitioners, including a demand notice in 2002. This led to conciliation proceedings and eventually, the appropriate government referred the dispute to the Industrial Adjudicator for adjudication. The Industrial Adjudicator held that the Petitioners were not entitled to the enhanced pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/-.

The Petitioners contended that the Industrial Adjudicator erred in denying them the enhanced pay scale, arguing that the MCD adopted the 5th Pay Commission's recommendations, hence entitling them to the revised pay scale. It emphasized the lack of substance in the MCD's reasons for not implementing the upgraded pay scale.

Observations by the High Court:

The High Court concurred with the Industrial Adjudicator's determination that the decision to implement the recommended pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000/- was within the discretion of the executive, namely the MCD. The High Court held that such decisions involve executive discretion, which courts typically refrain from intervening unless there is evidence of illegality or a glaring irregularity.

The High Court further held that the Petitioners' demand for an enhanced pay scale couldn't be construed as a legally vested right. It supported the Industrial Adjudicator's ruling that the Petitioners were not entitled to the enhanced pay scale since it was a discretionary matter under the purview of the executive.

Therefore, the High Court held that the award did not suffer from any legal flaws or irregularities that would warrant intervention. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition.

Case Title: Shri Sita Ram & Others vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Del) 533

Case Number:W.P.(C) 2940/2010

Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Chirayu Jain, Advocate.

Advocate for the MCD: Ms Mansi Gupta, Advocate.

Click Here To Read/Download Order