Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that the courts would not undertake the exercise of determining the pay scale keeping in view the nature of the work by comparing employees who are not similarly placed in cases where the exercise of determining such complex issues would arise.

However, at the same time, relief cannot be denied to the employees when the entitlement is refused due to irrational consideration without application of mind to the facts involved in the case by the employer, it said.

A bench of Justices A S Bopanna and P S Narasimha upheld the Delhi High Court's order declaring that pay scales of Assistant and Personal Assistants of Ordnance Factory Board, Headquarters would be in parity with similarly placed employees of Central Secretariat Service and equivalent posts in Armed Force Headquarters Civil Service Cadre, New Delhi and similar other cadres. 

The top court said that the high court's decision was unexceptionable as it had just rectified the error for the employees who were discriminated, despite historical similarity.

The Ministry of Defence through its order of April 20, 2010 did not approve of the demand of the respondent employees. The high court had set aside the order by the Central Administrative Tribunal, denying the DGOF Employees Association and another any relief. It had held that the employees would be entitled to the benefit in terms of paragraph 3.1.9 of the recommendations contained in the VIth Central Pay Commission. 

In appeal, the Union government led by senior advocate R Bala Subramanian, submitted that the power of judicial review in matters pertaining to pay scale is limited, unless arbitrariness can be demonstrated or there is palpable discrimination.

It said that the fixation of pay scale was in the realm of the employer and the court should exercise restraint.

The employees represented by senior advocate Kiran Suri cited the Supreme Court's decision in 'Union of India vs Dineshan K K' (2008), to contend that merely because determination and granting of pay scales is the prerogative of the executive, the court has no jurisdiction to examine any pay structure and an aggrieved employee cannot be left with no remedy if he is unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction, except to go on knocking at the doors of the executive or the legislature. 

After hearing the parties, the bench said that the high court was justified in arriving at the conclusion that the provision contained in para 3.1.9 of the Sixth CPC would apply to the fact situation and it had rightly rejected the contention that the appellant ought to have been guided by para 3.1.14 of the recommendations. 

"It is necessary to clarify that the conclusion as reached with regard to the parity in pay scale in the case of the employees who are members of the first respondent is basically due to the fact that they are employees in the headquarters of the Ordnance Factory and therefore they are similarly placed as that of the Assistants in CSS/CSSS Army Headquarters as well as such other similarly placed organisations referred to in the recommendations. If that be the position, the conclusion as reached by the High Court is unexceptionable," the bench said.

The court further pointed out that what was also taken into consideration by the high court was the historical similarity in pay scales which existed prior to the recommendations in the Sixth CPC. 

"Such historical similarity which had existed was taken note and, in that light, the pay scale which was applicable was taken into consideration and had accordingly arrived at the conclusion that the employees in the headquarters of the Ordnance Factories being similarly placed cannot be discriminated. Therefore, such consideration in the instant case would fall within the parameters as permitted by this Court," the bench said.

The court said, "In the present circumstance, the high court has adverted to the fact situation and has thereby rectified the pay anomaly".

The bench said that it was evident that parity of pay scales vis-à-vis LDCs, UDCs, Assistants/PAs and Stenographers, was maintained even prior to January 01, 1986 under the Third Central Pay Commission recommendations (for the period of January 01, 1973 to March 31, 1985). This parity was continued in the Fourth Central Pay Commission recommendations (with effect from January 01, 1986 to December 31, 1995) and the Fifth Central Pay Commission recommendations (for the period January 01, 1996 to September 14, 2006). The post of Assistants, PAs and Stenographers was governed by Director General Ordnance Factories Headquarters Civil Service Rules, 1977. 

"The HC has not proceeded in a manner so as to equate two sets of employees in different organisations. But, keeping in view the recommendation of the Pay Commission and the applicability of the pay scales recommended to similarly placed employees employed in the headquarters and on noticing discrimination despite historical similarity has merely rectified the error, which does not call for interference," the bench said.

The court, thus, dismissed the Union government's appeal as devoid of merits.

Case Title: Union of India Vs DGOF Employees Association And Anr