Union of India & ANR Vs. P.V.Hariharan
& ANR [1997] INSC 287 (12 March 1997)
B.P.
JEEVAN REDDY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
B.P.
JEEVAN REDDY, J.
This
appeal is preferred against the judgement of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, allowing O.A. No 391 of 1991 filed by the
respondents herein.
The
respondents are Tool Room Assistants in the Integrated Fisheries Project
[I.F.P.] which is a wing of the Fisheries department, the other wing being
Central Institute of Fisheries nautical and Engineering Training Department
[CIFNET]. The pay-scale of Tool Room Assistant in I.F.P. was initially Rs
85-128/- , revised to Rs. 210-290/-. The IVth Pay Commission prescribed a
uniform pay scales, viz., Rs. 210-270/- and Rs. 210-290/-. the respondents thus
came into the pay scale Rs. 800-1150/-.
The
Central Government issued a notification under Rule 6 of CCS [CC&A] Rules
classifying various posts into Groups A,B,C AND D. Group-C comprised Central
civil posts "carrying a pay or a scale of pay with a maximum of over Rs.
1150/- but less than Rs. 2900/-". Group-D comprised Civil posts
"carrying a pay or a scale of pay, the maximum of which is Rs. 1150/- or
less". It is stated by the respondents that their post comes under
"skilled" group and that as per the Notification aforesaid, this
category is placed in Group-C.
Reliance
is placed upon Annexure A-8 to the writ petition which was a list of names of
the posts in the integrated Fisheries department. Item 58 of the said List, it
was stated, includes the post carrying pay scale of Rs. 210- 290/- [which scale
was later revised to Rs 800-1150/-] in Group-C. The appellants, who were
respondents in the Original Application, opposed the respondents' claim. The
Tribunal held that inasmuch the post held by the respondents is included in
Group-C, They are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 1150-2900/-. The Original
application filed by the respondents was allowed accordingly.
We are
unable to appreciate the reasoning or approach of the Tribunal. The pay scale
of tool Room Assistant in I.F.P. is Rs 800-1150/-. In other words, the maximum
of the said pay scale is not "over Rs. 1150/-" so as to fall within
Group-C.
The
post properly fell under Group-D because it carried a pay, the maximum of which
was "Rs.1150/-or less". "Over Rs. 1150/-" means Rs.1151/-
and above. "Rs.1150/-" cannot be characterized as "over
Rs.1150/-". The said post, therefore, properly fell under Group-D and not
under Group-C. Assuming that the said post was mentioned under Group-C, it may
be - or may not - an error. What is material is that the classification cannot
result in change of pay scale from Rs 800-1150/- to rs 1150-2900/-. This is
simply unimaginable.
Pay
scales are what are prescribed for each post by the government which is very
often done on the basis of recommendations of a pay Commission or a similar
expert body. Classification of posts has nothing to do with fixation of Pay
scales; it only classifies posts into several grounds based upon the pay Scales
already fixed.
Classification
and prescribing pay scales for several posts are two different and distinct
functions. The Tribunal's order is, in our opinion, wholly unsustainable in
law. The reasons given in support of the impugned order are ambiguous and
vague. The impugned order of the Tribunal is accordingly set aside., Sri Nambiar,
learned counsel for the respondents. however, submitted that the respondents
had also raised the plea of "equal pay for equal work" on the basis
of the pay scale granted to Tool Room Assistants in the CIFNET, but that the
Tribunal has not dealt with it.
We,
therefore, remit the matter to deal with the said ground according to law and
pass final orders in the Original Application.
Before
parting with appeal, we feel impelled to make a few observations. Over the past
few weeks, we have come across several matters decided by Administrative
Tribunals on the question of pay scales. We have noticed that quite often the
Tribunals are interfering with pay scales without proper reasons and without
being conscious of the fact that fixation of pay is not their function. It is
the function of the Government which normally acts on the recommendations of a
pay Commission. Change of Pay scale of a category has cascading effect. Several
other categories similarly situated, as well as those situated above the below,
put forward their claims on the basis of such change. The Tribunal should realises
that interfering with the prescribed pay scales is a serious matter. the pay
Commission, which goes into the problem at great depth and happens to have a
full picture before it, is the proper authority to decide upon this issue. Very
often, the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is all being mis-
understood and mis-applied, freely revising and enhancing the pay scales across
the board. We hope and trust that the Tribunals will exercise due restraint in
the matter.
Unless
a clear case of hostile discrimination is made out, there would be no
justification for interfering with the fixation of pay scales. We have come
across orders passed by single Members and that too quite often Administrative
Members, allowing such claims. These orders have a serious impact on the public
exchequer too. it would be in the fitness of the things if all matters relating
to pay Scales, I.E. matters asking for a higher pay scale or an enhanced pay
scale, as the case may be n one or the other ground, are heard by a Bench
comprising at least one Judicial Member.
The
Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Chairmen of the State
Administrative Tribunals shall consider issuing appropriate instructions in the
matter.
Back
Pages: 1 2