Union of India & Ors Vs. Makhan
Chandra Roy  INSC 451 (23 April 1997)
MAJMUDAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO
Civil Appeal No.10609/95
two civil appeals on special leave have been moved by the Union of India and
its officers challenging the orders passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Cuttack Bench at Cuttack by
which each of the respondents in these appeals was given a higher pay-scale. We
shall first deal with Civil Appeal No.10608 of 1995.
respondent herein was working as a Laboratory Assistant under Dandakaranya
Development Authority. He was granted Pay-scale of Rs.260-400. After the
recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commissions the Central Government
promulgated Central Civil Service Revised Pay Rules. 1986, As per these Pay
Rules, respondent's pay scale got a hike.
revised pay-scale with effect from 1.1.1986 worked us to 950-1500. According to
the respondent he was entitled to a still higher pay-scale and as that was not
granted to him.
moved the Tribunal by Original Application. The Tribunal after hearing the
contesting parties took the view that the respondent was not entitled to any
higher pay-scale only on the ground of equal pay for equal work. That a higher
pay- scale given to Laboratory Assistant both in the Ministry of Defence and
Railways could not automatically be given to the respondent as he was a mere
matriculate having only 5 weeks' training in the Central Laboratory of Indor,.
While those Laboratory Assistants in the aforesaid Ministries of Defence and
Railways were having better educational qualifications.
aforesaid finding reached by the Tribunal on facts, the O.A. should have been
dismissed. Instead. the Tribunal perhaps thinking that because the petitioner
had moved the Tribunal, he should not go empty handed and must be given some
relief from somewhere, took the view that because the Auxiliary Nurses and Miswife
who were also earlier getting two scales of pay of Rs.260-350/- and Rs.
260-400/- were given a revised pay-scale of Rs. 975-1540/- under the same Pay
Rules, the respondent should also be granted the said pay scale of Rs.
975-1540/- instead of Rs. 950-1500/-. In our view the aforesaid reasoning
adopted by the Tribunal is totally misconceived and cannot be sustained. When
we turn to the Central Civil Services Revised Pay Rules, 1986. we find in the
First Schedule to the said Rules framed in the light of Rules 3 and 4, item 6
of Part `A' dealing with all Posts carrying present pay-scales and pay-scales
of Rs.260- 400/- which were revised to Rs. 950-1500/-. The respondent
admittedly got the benefit of those revised pay-scales. But the Tribunal
thought it fit to award to the respondent still higher Pay-scale which was made
available under the Rules to the Auxiliary Nurses and Miswife. Their pay-scale
is mentioned in Part B of the Schedule at item No.4 in paragraph IX dealing
with Paramedical Staff. The Auxiliary Nurses and Miswife who were getting the
Pay-scale of Rs.260- 350/- and Rs. 260-400/- were given a uniform higher pay-
scale of Rs.975-1540/-. The Tribunal compared the earlier pay-scales of
Auxiliary Nurses and Miswife with the earlier pay-scales of the respondent and
thought it fit to grant the same hike in the pay-scale which was made available
under the Revised Pay Rules to Auxiliary Nurses and Miswife to respondent also.
In our view that exercise was totally unauthorised as it amounted to taking a
policy decision which was within the domain of the authorities themselves who
are the authors of the Revised Pay-scales. The Tribunal having come to the
conclusion that on merits the respondent had no case on the ground of equal pay
for equal work the O.A. ought to have been dismissed. Our attention was also
drawn by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant to a decision of this
Court reported in (1989) 1 SCC 121 (State of U.P. and others vs. J.P. Chaurasia & others). In that
judgment the following observations are made :- "The first question
regarding entitlement to the pay scale admissible to Section Officers should
not detain us longer. The answer to the question depends upon several factors.
It does not just depend upon either the nature of work or volume of work done
by Bench Secretaries. Primarily it requires among others, evaluation of duties
and responsibilities of the respective post. More often functions of two posts
may appear to be the same or similar, but there may be difference in degrees in
the performance. The Quantity of work may be the same. but quality may be
different that cannot be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits of
interested parties. The equation of posts or equation of Pay must be left to
the Executive Government.
must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission. They would be the best
judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts. If there
is any such determination by a Commission or Committee, the court should
normally accept it. The Court should not try to tinker with such equivalence
unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration."
Consequently, it must be held that the Tribunal had committed patent error of
law in passing the impugned order.
result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the Tribunal are
quashed and set aside and the Original Application filed by the respondent is
in the facts and circumstance of the case there will be no order as to costs.
takes us to the Civil Appeal No. 10609/95.
this case the respondent was a Malaria Technician working with the Dandakarnaya
Development Authority. His earlier pay-scale was Rs.380-560/-. As per the
Revised Pay Rules. 1986 his pay scale was raised to Rs. 1320-2040/- with effect
from 1.1.1986. The respondent felt aggrieved by the said hike as in his view he
first deserved to be placed in selection grade by the authorities and then the
increased pay scale for selection grade employees should have been made
available to him. With that grievance he approached the same Tribunal. The
Tribunal rejected his contention that he was entitled to be placed in selection
grade as there was no vacancy in that grade. Once that conclusion is reached,
the respondent's O.A. should have been dismissed. Instead, following the same
logic which appealed to the Tribunal in the earlier case, the Tribunal thought
that some relief atleast should be given to the respondent who should not be
turned out empty handed. With the result, the Tribunal undertook a very curious
unauthorised exercise. The Tribunal considered the fact that Pharmacists
Radiographers and X-Ray Technicians who were earlier getting the pay scale of
Rs.330-560/- were granted a higher pay scale of Rs. 1350- 2200/-. The same pay
scale should be made available to the respondent also who was earlier getting
the pay scale of Rs.
It is difficult to appreciate this line of reasoning which appealed to the
Tribunal. When we turn to the Revised Pay Rules, we find in Schedule I, Part B
item No. 12 which deals with all posts carrying present say scales wherein the
pay scale of Rs. 380-560 which was earlier available to the respondent is
mentioned and the revised pay scale as per Revised Pay Rules is stated to be
Rs.1320-2040. This pay scale is admittedly made available to the respondent.
But the Tribunal found out another pay scale mentioned in part B of the
Schedule to the Rules wherein in paragraph IX dealing with Paramedical staff,
radiographers, X-ray Technician and Pharmacists are referred to. Their earlier
pay scale was Rs.330-560/- which was increased to Rs.1350-2200/-. According to
the Tribunal this pay scale should have been given to the respondent. It is
difficult to appreciate how the respondent who was a Malaria Technician should
be straightaway given pay scale of Radiographers or Pharmacists who are
admittedly working in a different department and were doing entirely different
type of work.
enhanced pay scale should given to a particular employee is within the domain
of the authorities themselves who appoint them and the Tribunal should not have
ventured in this forbidden field.
the decision of the Tribunal in this case also cannot be sustained. In the
result this appeal is also allowed. The judgment and order of the Tribunal are
set aside and the O.P. filed by the respondent is dismissed. In the
circumstance of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
Pages: 1 2