Different Pay Scale For Seemingly Similar Posts Justifiable If There Is A Reasonable Classification : Supreme Court

A Bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi made the aforesaid observation while setting aside orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Delhi High Court granting parity of pay scale of Junior Design Officers (JDOs) in the Navy with that of the Civilian Technical Officers (CTOs). While doing so the Bench emphasised that equal pay can be granted, but only if it is for equal work with equal value. It opined that the duties and responsibilities of JDOs and CTOs are distinct; their promotional avenues were also based on different criteria.

Factual Background

The Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers association approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking parity in payment for Junior Design Officers with that of the Civilian Technical Officers consequent to the Fifth Central Pay Commission. The cadre of design officers was created in 1965 and comprises drawing staff belonging to diverse disciplines. The Group ‘B’ gazetted posts in Construction, Electrical and Engineering were designated as Junior Design Officers (JDOs), and those in Armament were designated as Civilian Technical Officers (CTOs) (Design). Upto the Fifth Central Pay Commission the pay scales of all the disciplines and grades were the same. Pursuant to the implementation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission, the pay scale of CTOs was Rs. 7500-12000 whereas that of the JDOs was Rs. 7450-11500. The CAT asked the Ministry of Finance, Government of India to reconsider the representation of the officers. Upon reconsideration the Ministry rejected the request for parity in pay. Once again, the Association approached the CAT, which allowed the application. On appeal, the Union Government filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. The High Court dismissed the Union Government’s appeal.

Analysis by the Supreme Court

The Court was to determine whether the Tribunal and the High Court was justified in awarding parity in payment. It noted that the power of judicial review in matters of classification of posts and determination of pay scale is limited. The same being complex matters, the Court thought, it is best left to an expert body. Relying on precedents on the scope of judicial review it inferred that courts should only interfere if there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post and the interference of the Court was absolutely necessary to undo the injustice.

The Court noted that though the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” can be enforced in a court of law, the equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. It further observed that the equation of pots and the determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and expert body like the Pay Commission should be granted the liberty to evaluate the same after considering the various aspects. It was of the view that there can be more than one grade in a particular service

“The classification of posts and the determination of pay structure, thus falls within the exclusive domain of the Executive, and the Courts or Tribunals cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service.”

Case details

Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association And Anr. |Civil Appeal No. 8329 of 2011 | LiveLaw 2023 (SC) 129 | 22nd February, 2023 | Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi

For Appellant(s) Mr. R Bala, Sr. Adv. Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Adv. Mrs. Indira Bhakar, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Varun Chugh, Adv. Mr. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Chitransh Sharma, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Naghma Imtiaz, Adv. Mr. Zargham Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Saif Naseem, Adv. Mrs. Arushi Jain, Adv. Mrs. Shama Usmani, Adv. Mr. Ishu Dixit, Adv. M/S. Equity Lex Associates, AOR

Equal Pay For Equal Work - The doctrine “equal pay for equal work” is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of Law, the equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the Executive and not of the Judiciary. The Courts therefore should not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions - Para 14

Equal Pay for Equal Work- It may be true that the nature of work involved in two posts may sometimes appear to be more or less similar, however, if the classification of posts and determination of pay scale have reasonable nexus with the objective or purpose sought to be achieved, namely, the efficiency in the administration, the Pay Commissions would be justified in recommending and the State would be justified in prescribing different pay scales for the seemingly similar posts. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues or frustration due to longer duration of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. It is also a well-accepted position that there could be more than one grade in a particular service. The classification of posts and the determination of pay structure, thus falls within the exclusive domain of the Executive, and the Courts or Tribunals cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service - Para 14

Judicial Review - The powers of judicial review in the matters involving financial implications are also very limited. The wisdom and advisability of the Courts in the matters concerning the finance, are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless a gross case of arbitrariness or unfairness is established by the aggrieved party - Para 17