REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 648 OF 2002

Ramesh Singh    ...Petitioner

Versus

Union of India & Ors.    ...Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J

1. Grievance  in  the  writ  petition  under  Article  32  of  the

Constitution of India, 1950 (in short ‘the Constitution’) is that

there should be parity in the matter of service benefits so far

as  the  army personnel  and  officers  working  in  the  General

Reserve  Engineering  Force  (in  short  ‘GREF’).   Stand of  the

petitioner  that  he  and  other  employees  are  serving  in  the

Border  Road  Organisation  and  the  Government  of  India  is

bound to treat equally with the members of the Armed Force

and  there  should  not  be  any  distinction  pertaining  to

extending the facilities and benefits  in the service including

allowance  pay  etc.  Reference  is  made  to  a  decision  of  this

Court in R. Viswan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1983

(3) SCC 401) to contend that this Court had, in fact, directed

such  a  course  to  be  adopted.   It  is  pointed  out  under  a

misconception the 4th and the 5th Central  Pay Commissions

have  not  considered  the  connected  issue  in  the  proper

perspective.

2. Mr. B. Dutta, learned Additional Solicitor General, on the

contrary submitted that in R. Viswan’s case (supra) there was

no  direction  to  give  parity  as  is  being  contended  by  the

petitioner.  On the contrary in  Sukhdev Singh Gill v. State of

Punjab and Ors. (2000 (8) SCC 492), this Court had, inter alia,

held that such a course is not permissible.              

3. In  R.  Viswan’s  (supra)  it  was,  inter-alia,  observed  as

follows:   

2

“11. Before  we part  with this  point,  we  may point  out  that  an  anguished  complaint  was made  before  us  on  behalf  of  the  petitioners that  there  is  considerable  disparity  between the Army personnel posted in GREF units and the other officers and men of GREF insofar as the terms and conditions of service, such as, salary, allowances and rations are concerned. It is not necessary for us to consider whether this complaint is justified; it is possible that it may  not  be  wholly  unjustified  but  we  may point  out  that  in  any  event  it  has  no  real bearing  at  all  on  the  question  whether  the members of GREF can be said to be members of Armed Forces. Since the members of GREF are  drawn  from  two  different  sources,  it  is possible  that  the  terms  and  conditions  of service of the personnel coming from the two sources may be different. The Army personnel posted  in  GREF  units  naturally  carry  their own terms and conditions of service while the other officers and men in GREF are governed by their own distinctive terms and conditions. It  is difficult to appreciate how differences in terms and conditions of service between GREF personnel  coming from two different  streams can possibly have any impact on the character of  GREF  as  a  force  integral  to  the  Armed Forces.  It  is  immaterial  for  the  purpose  of determining  whether  the  members  of  GREF are members of the Armed Forces as to what are the terms and conditions of service of the members  of  GREF  and  whether  they  are identical  with  those  of  Armed  personnel appointed on the same or equivalent posts in GREF units. But, we may observe that in case it  is  found that  the  terms and conditions  of service  of  officers  and men in GREF directly recruited  or  taken  on  deputation  are  in  any way  less  favourable  than  those  of  Army personnel appointed to the same or equivalent posts in GREF, the Central Government might well  consider  the  advisability  of  taking  steps for ensuring that the disparity, if any, between the terms and conditions of service, such as, salary,  allowances,  rations  etc.  of  Army personnel  posted  in  GREF  units  and  other officers and men in GREF is removed.”

3

4. Subsequently, in Union of India v.  Dineshan K.K. (2008

(1) SCC 586) at para 10 it was observed as under:  

“10. Mr. B. Dutta, learned Additional Solicitor General,  appearing  for  the  Union  of  India contended that the direction given by the High Court is manifestly contrary to the settled legal position, enunciated by this Court  in several decisions  that  pay  fixation  is  essentially  an executive  function,  ordinarily  undertaken  by an  expert  body  like  the  Pay  Commission, whose recommendations are entitled to a great weight  through  not  binding  on  the Government.   It  was  argued  that  the recommendations  of  an  expert  body  are  not justiciable since the Court is not equipped to take  upon  itself  the  task  of  job  evaluation, which is a complex exercise.  In support of the proposition,  reliance  is  placed  on  two decisions  of  this  Court  in  S.C.  Chandra  v. State  of  Jharkhand (2007  (8)  SCC 279)  and Union of  India v. Hiranmoy Sen (2008 (1) SCC 630).”          

5. We  find  from  the  extract  of  the  4th Central  Pay

Commission’s  Report  in  para  10.472  the  Commission  had

with reference to this Court’s  judgment in  R. Viswan’s case

(supra)  held  that  there  was  no  scope  for  any  parity  as

4

contended.   Similar  is  the  position  in  the  5th  Central  Pay

Commission report.    

6. In view of what has been stated in Sukhdev Singh Gill’s

case  (supra)  and the  fact  that  the  4th and 5th  Central  Pay

Commissions considered the relevant aspects,  we are of the

view  that  the  prayers  as  made  cannot  be  accepted;  more

particularly,  when  there  is  no  challenge  to  the

recommendations of the 4th and 5th  Central Pay Commissions.

It needs no emphasis that even if such a challenge is made,

the  scope  for  interference  is  extremely  limited  because  the

Court  does  not  normally  substitute  its  views  for  those  of

expert  bodies  like  Pay  Commission  unless  some  glaring

infirmities are established.      

7. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.

.........................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

…......................................J. (P. SATHASIVAM)

5

………….............................J. (AFTAB ALAM)

New Delhi, March 11, 2008  

6

7