Officer Given Higher Pay Than Others In Same Cadre : Supreme Court Slams Favouritism, Directs Recovery

The Supreme Court recently rebuked the authorities involved in granting a higher pay scale to an employee(respondent No. 4) at the Commission for Scientific and Technical Terminology (CSTT). The Court questioned the apparent collusion between authorities and the employee who received special treatment from the authorities, leading to the unjustifiable grant of a higher pay scale.

The Court emphasized that, given the same set of rules governing the cadre, isolating a single post for preferential treatment was a clear violation of established norms.

It observed “In our opinion, the authorities were hand in glove with the respondent No. 4 to somehow grant him a higher pay scale, and repeatedly action was taken in that direction. If governed by the same set of Rules, a single post of the same cadre could not have been isolated and granted a higher pay scale by merely considering the qualifications prescribed for the post.”

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Rajesh Bindal and Justice Hima Kohli was hearing an appeal against the division bench judgment of the Delhi High Court which upheld the tribunal's order. The tribunal had dismissed the appellant's claim for the grant of the same pay scale and perquisites as had been granted to respondent No.4 because they were governed by the same set of Rules and discharging the same duties.

The present case dates back to 1990 when appellant No.1 joined CSTT as a Research Assistant, later becoming an Assistant Scientific Officer. The recruitment was made in terms of the Central Hindi Directorate (Research Assistant) Recruitment Rules, 1980 which were later amended in 1993. In 1994, Appellants No.2 to 6 joined CSTT as Research Assistants. Appellant No.1 was promoted to Scientific Officer in 1997. A common seniority list was circulated in 1999, with appellants No.2 to 6 placed at various positions and respondent No.4 at Serial No.13.

Then, respondent No.4 sought a pay-scale upgrade in 2000, but the request was rejected in 2001. Subsequently, appellants No.2 to 6 were promoted as Assistant Scientific Officers from 2002 to 2006. In 2005, respondent No.4 left CSTT and pursued a career in Ayurvedic medicine, joining various organizations.

In 2006, an order was issued by the Directorate upgrading his payscale from ₹6500-10500 to ₹8000-13500 referencing a Commission report which dealt with the pay scales of doctors. The post of Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) was equated with that of a doctor. Even though respondent No.4 was not practicing as a doctor in CSTT, he was granted a higher pay scale. An order in 2007 declared the post of Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) as ex-cadre, causing unrest among appellants.

Seeking parity, appellants submitted representations for the grant of the same pay-scale and perquisites as had been granted to respondent No.4, because they were governed by the same set of Rules and discharging the same duties and filed an Original Application in 2009, which was rejected in 2010 and a review was also dismissed. Representations were made by the appellants. The appellants filed a Writ Petition before the High Court, but it was dismissed by the Division Bench.

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

The Court noted that Upon joining as a Research Assistant, respondent No. 4 strategically pursued deputations to various organizations. The Court opined that the respondent was not interested in serving his parent organisation but was more interested in getting a higher pay scale while going on deputation.

The Court acknowledged the favoritism which was evident in the reliance on recommendations related to the Indian System of Medicines and Homeopathy, even though respondent No. 4 was not appointed as a Medical Officer. The court noted a lack of application of mind by the authorities, by an improper grant of Non-Practising Allowance (NPA) to someone not practicing as a doctor. To cover up these mistakes, authorities declared the post of Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) as an ex-cadre post on 20.04.2007. However, the court questioned the legality of this action, as there was no corresponding amendment in the rules governing the post.

The judgment highlighted the ongoing favoritism and strategic moves made by respondent No. 4 and the authorities.

It observed “Apparently, the authorities and the respondent No. 4 together were not able to achieve the objective of granting a higher status and pay scale to him. By every action, the respondent No. 4 generated litigation and planned new devices to steal a march over other similarly situated as him.”

The Court critically examined the sequence of events when the government re-designated the post from Research Assistant to Assistant Scientific Officer. Subsequent changes, including the re-designation of the post as Senior Scientific Officer (Medicine) on 26.08.2013, prompted the authorities to frame separate rules in 2014 for Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) and Senior Scientific Officer (Medicine). The Court raised questions about the applicability of the newly framed rules and the intention behind creating a separate set of rules for respondent No. 4

The Court observed “How a single person in the same cadre on the same post governed by the same set of Rules was granted a higher pay scale solely by relying upon the recommendations made by the Commission, which were not applicable.”

The Court finally noted that respondent No. 4, who accepted his appointment under the 1980 Rules, did not challenge the rules at any point. It expressed its disapproval of the comparison made between respondent No. 4 and a Medical Officer working in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, stating that even that scale was wrongly granted.

Therefore, the court held that the order dated 13.12.2006, which granted the higher pay scale with retrospective effect, as illegal and unsustainable. The order dated 04.01.2010 justifying the benefits granted to respondent No. 4 was set aside and the orders passed by the Tribunal and the High Court were quashed. The appellants, seeking parity in pay scale, were also not held entitled to the higher pay scales granted to respondent No. 4.

The Court also directed the recovery of the excess amount paid to respondent No. 4, acknowledging the deliberate nature of the infraction.

Case title: Dr PN Shukla v. Union of India

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 1044

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment