UNION OF INDIA VERSUS INDIAN NAVY CIVILIAN DESIGN OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ANR

UNION OF INDIA VERSUS INDIAN NAVY CIVILIAN DESIGN OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ANR 

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8329 OF 2011

UNION OF INDIA .....APPELLANT

VERSUS

INDIAN NAVY CIVILIAN DESIGN

OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ANR. .....RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

1. By way of present appeal, the appellant-Union of India has

challenged the judgment and order dated 02.08.2010 passed by

the High Court of Delhi, in WP(C)No. 1006 of 2008, whereby the

High Court had dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant

and confirmed the judgment and order dated 08.06.2007 passed

by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as

the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 2228 of 2006.

2. The respondent-Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association

had by way of filing the O.A. No.2223/2006 before the Tribunal,

challenged the decision of the appellant rejecting their

1

representation for the grant of pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 to the

Junior Design Officers as allowed to the Civilian Technical Officers

(Design), consequent to the implementation of the Fifth Central

Pay Commission. As per the case of the respondent-association,

the cadre of Design officers in the Indian Navy was created in the

year 1965 in order to meet with the functional requirements of

Navy regarding specific assignments to the Naval dockyards,

Training, Establishments, Directorate of Naval Design and other

Technical Directorates of Naval Headquarters. The drawing staff in

the Navy belonged to diverse disciplines such as Construction,

Electrical, Engineering and Armament. So far as the disciplines of

Construction, Electrical and Engineering were concerned, the

Group ‘B’ gazetted posts were designated as Junior Design

Officers (JDOs), and for Armament disciplines, the Group ‘B’

gazetted posts were designated as Civilian Technical Officers

(CTOs) (Design). The Recruitment Rules governing the JDOs

notified by SRO 367 dated 08.12.1996, were amended by SRO

246 dated 21.11.2002. The Recruitment Rules for the post of

CTOs (Design) were notified by SRO 132 dated 12.05.1982.

3. As per the further case of the respondent-Association, up to the

Fifth Central Pay Commission, all the pay scales of all the

disciplines and all grades were the same, however, after the

2

recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, the pay scale of

Rs.7500-12000 was fixed for the CTOs, whereas the pay scale of

Rs.7450-11500 was fixed for the JDOs. Since the pay scales of

the feeder cadre had remained the same in all the disciplines, the

respondent-Association had made representation to the appellant

for the grant of revised pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 to the JDOs

as allowed to the CTOs (Design) consequent upon the

implementation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission. The Ministry

of Finance having rejected the respondent’s proposal for

upgradation of the pay scale, the respondent-Association had filed

the O.A. No. 1730 of 2003 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide

the order dated 01.11.2004 disposed of the said O.A. with

direction to the appellant to consider the parity of pay scale of

JDOs along with CTOs by evaluating their duties and

responsibilities and to pass a detailed speaking order.

4. The Ministry of Finance reconsidered the said representation of

the respondent-Association, however, again rejected the same by

a speaking order on 07.04.2006. Being aggrieved by the said

order, the respondent-Association had preferred the O.A. No. 2228

of 2006 before the Tribunal, which came to be allowed vide the

order dated 08.06.2007. The Tribunal set aside the order dated

07.04.2006 passed by the appellant-UOI and directed the

3

appellant to grant to the JDOs, the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000 at

par with Group ‘B’ gazetted posts of CTOs (Design) from the same

date as it was given to the Group ‘B’ gazetted posts with all

consequential benefits. The appellant being aggrieved by the said

order passed by the Tribunal had filed W.P(C) No. 1006 of 2008,

which came to be dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned

order.

5. The main question that falls for consideration before this Court is

whether the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in equating

the posts of JDOs with CTOs, and in fixing the pay scales of JDOs

equivalent to that of CTOs, in utter disregard of the legal position

settled by this Court in catena of decisions to the effect that the

Courts should not interfere with the complex issues of evaluating

the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts, and of fixing the

pay scales, which task otherwise is best done by the expert bodies

like the Pay Commission.

6. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. R. Bala Subramanyam

appearing for the appellant placing heavy reliance upon the

decision of the Ministry of Finance dated 07.04.2006 submitted as

under:

(i) The posts of JDOs and CTOs are governed by two

different sets of Rules. Accordingly, the qualifications for

4

recruitment/promotion in the case of CTOs are higher

than that of the JDOs;

(ii) The probation period in case of CTOs is longer than that

of JDOs;

(iii) The duties and responsibilities attached to the posts of

CTOs are more onerous, varied and challenging as

compared to that of JDOs;

(iv) The post of CTOs also exists in other streams like R&D

in the revised pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000. These posts

could not be given the lower pay scale of Rs. 7450-

11500, as the feeder post of foreman exists in the said

pay scale.

(v) As the post of CTOs in different streams within the

Naval Armament Inspection Organizations were already

in the higher pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000, the same pay

scale had to be extended to the CTOs (Design) as well,

whereas no such exigency existed in case of the post of

JDOs.

(vi) The pay scales for the posts of the JDOs and CTOs

were fixed on the basis of the specific recommendations

of the Fifth Central Pay Commission, and therefore the

Tribunal as well as the High Court had committed gross

error in interfering with the same and in upgrading the

5

pay scale of JDOs to put them at par with CTOs

(Design).

7. Mr. R. Bala Subramanyam has also placed on record the chart

showing the promotional hierarchy of CTOs and JDOs in different

CPCs: -

Promotional hierarchy of CTO and JDO in different CPCs

S.

No

.

Promotional

hierarchy of

JDO

Promotional

hierarchy of

CTO (Design)

Pay Scale

 4

th

 CPC 5

th

 CPC 6

th

 CPC 7

th

CPC

1 Principal Design

Officer-I

-

- 14500-18300 37400-67000,

GP-8700

L-13

2 Principal Design

Officer

Principal

Technical

Officer (D)*

3700-5000 12000-16500 15600-39100,

GP-7600

L-12

3 Senior Design

Officer GD-I

Senior

Technical

Officer (D)

3000-4500 10000-15200 15600-39100,

GP-6600

L-11

4 Senior Design

Officer GD-II

-

2200-4000 8000-13500 15600-39100,

GP-5400

L-10

5

-

Civilian

Technical

Officer (D)

2000-3500

(upgraded

to 2500-

4000 in 5th

CPC)

7500-12000 9300-34800,

GP-4800

L-8

6 Junior Design

Officer -

2000-3500

(upgraded

to 2375-

3500 in 5th

CPC)

7450-11500 9300-34800,

GP-4600

L-7

7 Chief D’Man Chief D’Man 2000-3200 6500-10500 9300-34800,

GP-4600

L-7

8 Senior D’Man Senior D’Man 1400-2300 5000-8000 9300-34800,

GP-4200

L-6

9 D’Man D’Man# 1200-2040 4000-6000 5200-20200,

GP-2400

L-4

* New grade of PTO(D) created in the cadre restructuring on 29 Oct. 2020.

# The posts of D’Man in NAI cadre has been abolished in the cadre restricting

on 29 Oct. 2020.

- Grade/Posts doesn’t exists in cadre.

6

8. Per contra, learned senior advocate Mr. Salman Khurshid

appearing for the respondent-Association made the following

submissions-

(i) The Fifth Pay Commission had ignored the fact that from

the very beginning, the posts of JDOs and CTOs

(Design) carried the same pay scales, as they were

having the same duties and responsibilities.

(ii) The post of Senior Foreman was granted the pay scale

of Rs. 7450-11500, which was the pay scale granted to

the JDOs, though the JDOs in the course of their duties

had to supervise the work of Chief Draughtsman and

Senior Foreman.

(iii) The department itself had strongly supported the case of

JDOs by putting a note dated 16.02.2005 recorded by

the Joint Director who had recommended upgradation of

the pay scale of JDOs and for putting them at par with

CTOs (Design).

(iv) Up to the Fourth Pay Commission, both the posts were

carrying the same pay scale.

(v) There would not have been any cascading effect if the

pay scale of JDOs was upgraded, as the post of JDOs

did not exist in the other organizations like EME, MES,

and Air Force etc. and the financial implications were

also not very big.

7

(vi) The essential qualifications in the Recruitment Rules for

CTO (Design) and in the Recruitment Rules for JDO

were also more or less same and the promotional

avenues in both the cadres were also similar.

9. Before adverting to the rival contentions raised by the learned

counsels for the parties, it deserves to be noted that the power of

judicial review of the High Courts in the matter of classification of

posts and determination of pay scale is no more res integra. It has

been consistently held by this Court in plethora of decisions that

equation of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter

which is best left to an expert body unless 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.

10. In State of U.P. and Others Vs. J.P. Chaurasia and Others1

,

while answering the questions as to whether the Bench

Secretaries in the High Court of Allahabad were entitled to pay

scale admissible to the Section Officers and whether the creation

of two grades with different scales in the cadre of Bench

Secretaries who were doing the same and similar work was

violative of the right to have “equal pay for equal work”. This Court

observed as under: -

1 1989(1) SCC 121

8

“18. 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 posts. 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. It 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.”

11. The afore-stated ratio was followed by this Court in Union of India

and Others Vs. Makhan Chandra Roy2

. Again, in Secretary,

Finance Department and Others Vs. West Bengal Registration

Service Association and Others3

, the claim of Sub-Registrars of

West Bengal Registration Service claiming parity in pay scale with

Munsiffs on the basis that Sub-Registrars were conferred gazetted

status, was examined by this Court. It was elaborately observed in

para 12 as under: -

“12. We do not consider it necessary to traverse the case

law on which reliance has been placed by counsel for the

appellants as it is well settled that equation of posts and

determination of pay scales is the primary function of the

executive and not the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily

courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which

is generally left to expert bodies like the Pay Commissions,

etc. But that is not to say that the Court has no jurisdiction

and the aggrieved employees have no remedy if they are

unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction. Courts

2 1997 (11) SCC 182

3 1993 Suppl. (1) SCC 153

9

must, however, realise that job evaluation is both a difficult

and time-consuming task which even expert bodies having

the assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found

difficult to undertake sometimes on account of want of

relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of

different groups of employees. This would call for a

constant study of the external comparisons and internal

relativities on account of the changing nature of job

requirements. The factors which may have to be kept in

view for job evaluation may include (i) the work programme

of his department (ii) the nature of contribution expected of

him (iii) the extent of his responsibility and accountability in

the discharge of his diverse duties and functions (iv) the

extent and nature of freedoms/limitations available or

imposed on him in the discharge of his duties (v) the extent

of powers vested in him (vi) the extent of his dependence

on superiors for the exercise of his powers (vii) the need to

co-ordinate with other departments, etc. We have also

referred to the history of the service and the effort of

various bodies to reduce the total number of pay scales to

a reasonable number. Such reduction in the number of pay

scales has to be achieved by resorting to broad banding of

posts by placing different posts having comparable job

charts in a common scale. Substantial reduction in the

number of pay scales must inevitably lead to clubbing of

posts and grades which were earlier different and unequal.

While doing so care must be taken to ensure that such

rationalisation of the pay structure does not throw up

anomalies. Ordinarily a pay structure is evolved keeping in

mind several factors, e.g., (i) method of recruitment, (ii)

level at which recruitment is made, (iii) the hierarchy of

service in a given cadre, (iv) minimum

educational/technical qualifications required, (v) avenues

of promotion, (vi) the nature of duties and responsibilities,

(vii) the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs,

(viii) public dealings, (ix) satisfaction level, (x) employer's

capacity to pay, etc. We have referred to these matters in

some detail only to emphasise that several factors have to

be kept in view while evolving a pay structure and the

horizontal and vertical relativities have to be carefully

balanced keeping in mind the hierarchical arrangements,

avenues for promotion, etc. Such a carefully evolved pay

structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed as it may

upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other

cadres as well. It is presumably for this reason that the

Judicial Secretary who had strongly recommended a

substantial hike in the salary of the Sub-Registrars to the

Second (State) Pay Commission found it difficult to

concede the demand made by the Registration Service

before him in his capacity as the Chairman of the Third

(State) Pay Commission. There can, therefore, be no

doubt that equation of posts and equation of salaries is a

complex matter which is best left to an expert body unless

there is cogent material on record to come to a firm

conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the

10

pay scale for a given post and Court's interference is

absolutely necessary to undo the injustice.”

12. In State of Haryana and Others Vs. Charanjit Singh and

Others4

, a three-judge Bench in a referred matter considered

whether the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work”, was an abstract

doctrine, and observed thus: -

“19. Having considered the authorities and the

submissions we are of the view that the authorities in the

cases of Jasmer Singh [(1996) 11 SCC 77 : 1997 SCC

(L&S) 210 : AIR 1997 SC 1788 : (1997) 2 LLJ 667] , Tilak

Raj [(2003) 6 SCC 123 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 828] , Orissa

University of Agriculture & Technology [(2003) 5 SCC 188 :

2003 SCC (L&S) 645 : (2003) 2 LLJ 968] and Tarun K.

Roy [(2004) 1 SCC 347 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 225] lay down

the correct law. Undoubtedly, the doctrine of “equal pay for

equal work” is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of

being enforced in a court of law. But equal pay must be for

equal work of equal value. The principle of “equal pay for

equal work” has no mechanical application in every case.

Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on

qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and

grouped together, as against those who were left out. Of

course, the qualities or characteristics must have a

reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In

service matters, merit or experience can be a proper basis

for classification for the purposes of pay in order to

promote efficiency in administration. A higher pay scale to

avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of

promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay

differentiation. The very fact that the person has not gone

through the process of recruitment may itself, in certain

cases, make a difference. If the educational qualifications

are different, then also the doctrine may have no

application. Even though persons may do the same work,

their quality of work may differ. Where persons are

selected by a Selection Committee on the basis of merit

with due regard to seniority a higher pay scale granted to

such persons who are evaluated by the competent

authority cannot be challenged. A classification based on

difference in educational qualifications justifies a difference

in pay scales. A mere nomenclature designating a person

as say a carpenter or a craftsman is not enough to come to

the conclusion that he is doing the same work as another

carpenter or craftsman in regular service. The quality of

work which is produced may be different and even the

nature of work assigned may be different. It is not just a

comparison of physical activity. The application of the

4 2006 (9) SCC 321

11

principle of “equal pay for equal work” requires

consideration of various dimensions of a given job. The

accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail

may differ from job to job. It cannot be judged by the mere

volume of work. There may be qualitative difference as

regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the

same but the responsibilities make a difference. Thus

normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be

evaluated and determined by an expert body. These are

not matters where a writ court can lightly interfere.

Normally a party claiming equal pay for equal work should

be required to raise a dispute in this regard. In any event,

the party who claims equal pay for equal work has to make

necessary averments and prove that all things are equal.

Thus, before any direction can be issued by a court, the

court must first see that there are necessary averments

and there is a proof. If the High Court is, on basis of

material placed before it, convinced that there was equal

work of equal quality and all other relevant factors are

fulfilled it may direct payment of equal pay from the date of

the filing of the respective writ petition. In all these cases,

we find that the High Court has blindly proceeded on the

basis that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work applies

without examining any relevant factors.”

13. In Union of India through Secretary, Department of Personnel,

Public Grievances and Pensions and Anr. Vs. T.V.L.N

Mallikarjuna Rao5

, this Court reiterated the said position: -

“26. The classification of posts and determination of pay

structure comes within the exclusive domain of the

executive and the Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the

wisdom of the executive in prescribing certain pay

structure and grade in a particular service. There may be

more grades than one in a particular service.”

14. In view of the afore-stated legal position, it clearly emerges that

though 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

5 (2015) 3 SCC 653

12

not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to

the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions which undertake

rigorous exercise for job evaluation after taking into consideration

several factors like the nature of work, the duties, accountability

and responsibilities attached to the posts, the extent of powers

conferred on the persons holding a particular post, the promotional

avenues, the Statutory rules governing the conditions of service,

the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs etc. 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,

13

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.

15. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, it is not

disputed that the Recruitment Rules governing the JDOs are as

per the SRO 367 dated 08.12.1996, as amended by SRO 246

dated 21.11.2002, whereas the Recruitment Rules governing the

CTOs (Design) are as per the SRO 132 dated 12.05.1982. The

probation period in case of CTOs is longer than that of JDOs. The

duties and responsibilities of both the posts are different and the

promotional avenues also have different duration and different

criteria. There was not a single error, much less grave error

pointed out by learned Senior Advocate. Mr. Khurshid, in the

fixation of the pay scales for the JDOs and CTOs, which would

have justified the interference of the Tribunal.

16. Much emphasis was placed by the learned senior advocate Mr.

Khurshid on the noting made by the Officer of the Naval

Department in the file recommending pay scale of JDOs

equivalent to that of CTOs, however, it may be noted that a noting

recorded in the file is merely an expression of opinion by a

14

particular officer, and by no-stretch of imagination such noting

could be treated as a decision of the Government6

.

17. 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.

18. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal

and the High Court had committed gross error in interfering with

the pay scales recommended by the Fifth Central Pay Commission

and accepted by the appellant for the posts of JDOs and CTOs,

and in upgrading the pay scale of JDOs making it equivalent to the

pay scale of CTOs.

19. Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the High Court and

the Tribunal are quashed and set aside. The appeal stands

allowed accordingly.

..………………………. J.

[AJAY RASTOGI]

 …..................................J.

 [BELA M. TRIVEDI]

NEW DELHI;

22.02.2023

6 (2009) 15 SCC 705

15