http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 15  

PETITIONER: SECRETARY, FINANCE DEPARTMENT AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: WEST BENGAL REGISTRATION SERVICE ASSOCIATION ANDORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/02/1992

BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) BENCH: AHMADI, A.M. (J) PUNCHHI, M.M.

CITATION:  1992 AIR 1203            1992 SCR  (1) 897  1993 SCC  Supl.  (1) 153 JT 1992 (2)    27  1992 SCALE  (1)437

ACT:      Service  Law-Determination  of pay  scale.   Powers  of Court-Determination  of pay scales and equation of posts  is executive function-But Court can interfere if employees  are treated  arbitrarily-Necessary  and  relevant  factors   for determination   of   pay   scale   discussed-Relevance    of educational qualification in determination of pay scale-What is.      West Bengal Registration Service-Post of Sub-Registrar- Conferment   of  gazetted  status-Government   notification- Inclusion   of  registration  service  in   State   Service- Entitlement  of  Sub-Registrars to pay scale  equivalent  to State  Level Officers-Held pay scale must reflect nature  of duties  and  responsibilities-Mere  conferment  of  gazetted status  and  inclusion  in State Service  does  not  justify higher  scale-Sub-Registrars and Munsiffs held not equal  as their duties are different in nature-Grant of scale of  Sub- Registrar  not  equivalent to that payable  to  State  Level Officers  held  not arbitrary-Supreme Court’s  direction  to State Government to determine appropriate pay scale for Sub- Registrars and posts above them.

HEADNOTE:      The West Bengal Registration Service comprised the post of  Sub-Registrars and other posts above the level  of  sub- Registrars.  By a resolution dated May 22, 1952 the post  of Sub-Registrar was directed to be regarded as gazetted w.e.f. 1st  April, 1952.  Thereafter by a Notification  dated  17th July,  1953  the Registration Service was, with effect  from the  date  of  its  constitution  i.e.  30th  January,  1953 included in the West Bengal State Service.      The  respondents  alleged  that   notwithstanding   the commitment made by the 1953 Notification that they would  be accorded all the privileges admissible to officers belonging to State Service, their pay scale was not revised equivalent to  the  minimum  pay  scale  admissible  to  State  Service Officers.  Even when pursuant to the recommendations of  the Pay Com-                                              898 mittee  the  pay-scales were revised they were placed  on  a scale  which  was lower than the minimum  scale  payable  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 15  

State Service Employees.  Further though the First State Pay Commission  recommended  a  Scale of Rs.  425-825  for  Sub- Registrars  yet the recommendation did not find favour  with State  Government and their pay scale was fixed at Rs.  300- 600.   Also  pursuant to the recommendations of  the  Second State Pay Commission their pay scale was revised to Rs. 425- 1050 i.e. scale No. 11, although the minimum scale fixed fog the  State Service Officers was Rs. 660-1600 i.e. Scale  No. 17.      Feeling  aggrieved by the decision of the  State  Govt. the  respondents filed a writ petition in the High Court  of Calcutta  under  Article  226  of  the  constitution  for  a mandamus to award scale No. 17 of Rs. 660-1600 as admissible to State Service Officers .  During the pendency of the writ petition  the  Third  State  Pay  Commission  submitted  its report.   This Commission also rejected their claim  of  pay scale of Rs. 660-1600, the minimum scale for State  service, on the ground that their duties and responsibilities did not justify the higher pay scale.      By  its  judgment dated 28th June,  1989,   a  Division Bench  of  the  High Court allowed  the  writ  petition  and awarded revised scale  No. 17 by holding that the Government had acted arbitrarily and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in not awarding scale No. 17 to the Sub- Registrars.  The High Court based its decision on the  facts that  (i)  the  post of Sub-Registrar was  a  gazetted  post belonging  to  the State Service; (ii) the first  State  Pay Commission  recommended a higher pay scale which was  turned down   by  Finance;  and  (iii)  the   revised   educational qualification for Sub-Registrar,  a law degree, was the same as required for Munsiffs.      Subsequently  the respondents filed an application  for interim relief seeking permission to exercise option for the corresponding  scale No. 17 of Rs. 2200-4000  equivalent  to the old scale of Rs. 660-1600 which was allowed by the  High Court by its order dated 16th March, 1990.  They also  filed an  application seeking clarification of the  Court’s  order dated March 16, 1990 and by its order dated 30th March, 1990 the High Court permitted the officers belonging to the posts above  the level of Sub-Registrars to opt for  corresponding scales Nos. 18 and 19.                                                   899      In  appeals to this court against the judgment  of  the High  Court dated 28th June, 1989 and orders dates 16th  and 19th March, 1990 it was contended on behalf of the appellant that  (i)  the  High  Court committed  a  serious  error  in revising the pay-scale of sub-Registrars in exercise of  its extraordinary   jurisdiction  under  Article  226   of   the Constitution   because  pay  fixation  was  essentially   an executive  function ordinarily undertaken by an expert  body like   a  Pay  Commission  whose  recommendations  are   not justiciable;  (ii)  there being no  scheme  as  ‘Constituted State Service’ the employees have been categorised as  Group ‘A’,  ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘D’ on the basis of evaluation of  their work  and the recruitment policy.  For examination  purposes the  State  Public Service Commission has  placed  the  Sub- Registrars  in Group ‘D’ whereas those in scale No. 17  fall in Group ‘A’.  Therefore, they are not comparable and cannot be placed in same pay scale.      On  behalf  of the respondents it  was  contended  that since  after  1981 the qualification of a degree in law,  as required  in the case of Munsiffs, was also added  to  their eligibility criterion, they should be equated with  Munsiffs in the matter of pay-scale.      Allowing  the appeals and setting aside the  orders  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 15  

the High Court, this Court,      HELD  : 1. The High Court committed a serious error  in law in holding that the Government’s action in not  granting the scale No. 17 to Sub-Registrars was violative of  Article 14 of the Constitution. [915G]      2. 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. [912E-F]      Parbat Kiran Maithani & Ors. v. Union of India &  Anr., AIR  1977 SC 1553; State of U.P. & Ors. v. J.P. Chaurasia  & Ors., AIR 1989 SC 19, cited.      3.   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 educa-                                              900 tion/technical  qualifications  required,  (v)  avenues   of promotion,  (vi) the nature of duties and  responsibilities, (vii) the horizontal and verticle relativities with  similar jobs,  (viii) public dealings, (ix) satisfaction level;  (x) employers’  capacity to pay etc.  These factors have  to  be kept  in  view  while  evolving  a  pay  structure  and  the horizontal  and verticle relativities have to  be  carefully balanced  keeping  in  mind  the  hierarchial  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. [913C-E]      4. One of the basic principles for pay fixation is that the   salary   must  reflect  the  nature  of   duties   and responsibilities attached to the post, meaning thereby  that the  pay  scale  must be commensurate with the  task  to  be performed  and  the responsibility to be undertaken  by  the holder of the post.  Merely because the Sub-Registrars  were conferred  gazetted status and the Registration Service  was included in State Service did not entitle the Sub-Registrars to  be  placed  in the  higher scale  if  their  duties  and responsibilities did not justify the same.  By conferment of gazetted   status   or  placement  in  State   Service,   no qualitative change was brought about in the job  performance of the Sub-Registrars and their superiors. [914E-G]      4.1 The High Court failed to evaluate the difference in the nature of duties and responsibilities of a Munsiff and a Sub-Registrar.  The duties and responsibilities of a Munsiff and a Judicial Magistrate are far more onerous than those of a Sub-Registrar.  The Sub-Registrar’s duties are  relatively simple  -  namely  to  receive,  examine  and  register  the document  - whereas the duties of a Judicial Officer at  the floor level are to hear cases, examine witnesses,  interpret and construe different laws, hear oral arguments and deliver reasoned judgments.   He has to keep abreast with a host  of laws unlike a Sub-Registrar who is expected to study only  a couple of laws connected with the registration of  documents like   the  Registration  Act,  the  Stamp  Act  etc.    The responsibilities  of  a Judicial Officer are  therefore  far greater than those of Sub-Registrars.  Therefore, to compare the Sub-Registrars with Judicial Magistrates-Munsiffs is  to compare unequals.  It would, therefore, be wholly  arbitrary to place them in the same pay scale.  [915D-g]      5.   One  of  the  inputs  for  pay  determination   is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 15  

educational  requirement  for  the  post.   The  higher  the educational qualification the better                                                   901 would be the quality of service rendered and the end  result would in the ultimate be far more satisfactory.  That indeed cannot  be disputed.  But educational qualification is  only one of the many factors which has relevance to pay fixation. The   complexity  of  the  job  to  be  performed  and   the responsibilities  attached  thereto are  entitled  to  great weight in determining the appropriate pay scale for the job. Prima facie there appears substance in the grievance of  the Sub-   Registrars   that  while  the   minimum   educational qualification  for  direct  entry into  the  post  has  been periodically  raised, the level of pay scale, for  the  post has not undergone any change, whatsoever. [916A-C]      6.  The State Government is directed to re-examine  the question of the appropriate pay scale for Sub-Registrars  by a  speaking order after hearing the representatives  of  the respondent  association. If the State Government decides  on the upward revision of the salary of the Sub-Registrars,  it will simultaneously consider the question of upward revision of the pay scales of higher posts in the department.  [916E- F]

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos.  2023, 2024 & 2025 of 1990.          With      I.A. Nos. 7-9 of 1991.      From the Judgment and Order dated 28.6.89 & 16.3.90  of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal No. 498 of 1988.      A.K.  Mitra, P.K. Chatterjee, Jaydip Kar and Ms.  Radha Rangaswamy for the Appellants.      Narayan  Shetty, Gopal Subramaniam, Atin  Benerjee  and D.P. Mukherjee for the respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      AHMADI, J.  These three appeals by special leave  arise out  of the Judgments & Order dated 28the June, 1989  passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta and from the  subsequent  orders dated March 16, 1990 and  March  30, 1990 made in pursuance thereof.  The brief facts                                                   902 giving rise to these three appeals may be stated as under.      The  West  Bengal Registration Service  comprising  the Sub-Registrar’s  post  was  administered  by  the   Judicial Department of the State.  Under the West Bengal (Revision of Pay & Allowances) Rules, 1951 (hereinafter called ‘the  ROPA Rules’) the scale of pay for the said post was fixed at  Rs. 100-250.   By a resolution dated May 22, 1952 the said  post of  Sub-Registrar  was directed to be regarded  as  Gazetted with   effect   from  April  1,  1952  and   thereafter   by notification  dated July 17, 1953 the governor, in  exercise of  powers  conferred  by  Rule 188  of  the  Civil  Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules read with  Articles 313  and  372 of the Adoption of Laws Order,  1950  and  all other   related  powers,  declared  that  the  West   Bengal Registration Service comprising (1) Registrar of Assurances, Calcutta,  (ii)  Inspector of  Registration  Offices,  (iii) Departmental District Sub-Registrars, (iv) Sub-Registrar  of Assurances,  Calcutta (v) District Sub-Registrars, and  (vi) Sub-Registrars shall, with effect from January 30, 1953, the date  of constitution of the said service, be deemed  to  be included  in the State Service.  The respondents who  belong

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 15  

to  the said service contend that after the issuance of  the said  notifiction  a  commitment  was  made  by  the   State Government  that  sub-Registrars would be accorded  all  the privileges  admissible  to officers belonging to  the  State Service.    Notwithstanding   the   said   commitment    the respondents contend that their pay scale was not revised  to Rs.200-400  which  was the lowest  pay-scale  admissible  to State   service  officers.   Thereafter  pursuant   to   the recommendation of the Pay Committee, the pay scale underwent an upward revision but the Sub-Registrars were placed in the revised  scale of Rs. 200-400 which corresponded to the  old scale  of  Rs. 100-250, even though the  minimum  scale  for State service employees was raised to Rs. 250-550 under  the ROPA Rules, 1961.  The First (State) Pay Commission was then constituted  in 1967.  That body examined the  grievance  of this service and observed that it was an extremely  ill-paid service.  After evaluating the job requirements, recruitment standard and responsibilities attached to the post belonging to  the said service it recommended a scale of  Rs.  425-825 for  Sub-Registrars and corresponding higher scales for  the posts,  the  highest  being Rs. 850-1600  for  Registrar  of Assurances,   Calcutta   and  inspectors   of   Registration Officers.   It appears that this recommendation did not find favour with the State Government.  This is obvious from  the fact that under the ROPA Rules, 1970,  the pay scale for the post  of  Sub-Registrar  was  fixed  at  Rs.  300-600  only. Pursuant                                                        903 to the recommendations of Second (State) Pay Commission  the pay  scale  for the post was revised to Rs.  425-1050  under RUPA  Rules, 1981.  This was Scale No. 11.  According to the respondents  they ought to have been placed in scale No.  17 which  carried a pay scale of Rs. 660-1600 but, contend  the respondents, grave injustice was done to them because of the biased  and negative attitude of the Finance  Department  of the State Government.  It was contended that since the basic minimum  pay scale for State Service officers was  fixed  at Rs. 660-1600, there was no valid reason to deny the same  to the Sub-Registrars and to deny higher pay scales to officers above  the  level  of  Sub-Registrars  in  the  West  Bengal Registration Service.  Feeling aggrieved by the decision  of the  State  Government the respondents, therefore,  filed  a Writ Petition No. 1993 of 1987 in the High Court of Calcutta under  Article  226 of the Constitution for  a  Mandamus  to award to the Sub-Registrars the pay scale No. 17 of Rs. 660- 1600  with all other privileges admissible to State  service officers.   In  the said writ petition  the  learned  Single Judge  of  the  High Court  passed  certain  interim  orders against which an appeal No. 498 of 1988 was preferred before a  Division Bench of the High Court.  At the hearing of  the said appeal the Division Bench felt that it would be  proper to  dispose  of  the  writ petition  itself  on  merits  and accordingly it heard the writ petition by consent of parties instead of disposing of the appeal against the interim order and leaving the hearing of the writ petition to the  learned Single Judge.  The Division Bench of the High Court  allowed the  writ  petition  and directed  that  the  Sub-Registrars should  be  placed  in the pay scale of  Rs.  660-1600  with effect  from  April 1, 1981 and their pay scales  should  be fixed nationally on that basis without paying the difference in salary up to January 1, 1986.  The arrears of salary  for the  subsequent  period was, however, directed  to  be  paid within 8 weeks from the date of the judgment.  Certain other directions were also given but it is not necessary to notice them.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 15  

    It  may here be mentioned that during the  pendency  of the   writ  petition  the  Third  (State)   Pay   Commission constituted by the State Government had submitted its report sometime  in  December, 1988.  Before the said body  it  was represented on behalf of the Sub-Registrars that they should have been placed in the pay scale of Rs. 600-1600 instead of Rs.  425-1050 as that was the basic minimum scale for  State service   and the scale for higher posts in the West  Bengal Registration Service should be correspondingly raised.   The Commission spurned this request as in its opinion the duties and responsibilities of the Sub-Registrars did not justify                                                   904 the  higher pay scale.  Pursuant to the  recommendations  of the  Pay commission the ROPA Rules, 1990 came to  be  issued whereunder  the  Sub-Registrars were placed in  the  revised scale  No. 11 of Rs. 1390-2970.  The High Court took  notice of the recommendations of the Pay Commission as well as  the ROPA Rules, 1990 while disposing of the writ petition by its judgment dated 28th June, 1989.      After  the High Court’s Judgment awarding Scale No.  17 to   the  Sub-Registrars,  the  respondents  took   out   an application   for  interim  relief  seeking  permission   to exercise  option for the corresponding Scale No. 17  of  Rs. 2200-4000  and for granting an option to officers above  the level  of Sub-Registrars for placement in the  corresponding Scales  Nos. 18 and 19 with effect from April 1, 1981.   The Division Bench of the High Court passed an ad-interim  order dated  March 16, 1990 permitting the Sub-Registrars  to  opt for the revised Scale No. 17.  The Civil Appeal No. 2023  of 1990  is against the main judgment of the High  Court  dated June 28, 1989.  Civil Appeal No. 2024 of 1990 is against the interim  order  dated  March  16, 1990  by  which  the  Sub- Registrars  were permitted to opt for the revised Scale  No. 17.   On  March  19,  1990  the  respondents  took  out   an application  for clarification of the order dated March  16, 1990.   The High Court while disposing of  this  application permitted  the  officers belonging to the  posts  above  the level of Sub-Registrars to opt for corresponding Scales Nos. 18  and 19.  Civil Appeal No. 2025 of 1990 is  against  that order.  Since the subsequent two appeals Nos.  2024 and 2025 of  1990  also flow from the main judgment  dated  June  28, 1989, which has given rise to Civil Appeal No. 2023 of  1990 we  have  thought  it proper to dispose  of  all  the  three appeals by this common judgment.      The history of the West Bengal Registration Service has been  traced  by the High Court right from 1826  but  it  is unnecessary  to re-state the same.  Suffice it to  say  that except  the  top  post  of  the  Registrar  of   Assurances, Calcutta, the remaining cadres in the said service  belonged to  the  Subordinate  Services  of  the  State.    Generally speaking  the  West Bengal Services were  divided  into  (i) Provincial Service and (ii) Subordinate Services leaving out certain  special categories of posts.  Subordinate  Services comprised   certain  minor  administrative,  executive   and ministerial posts to which appointment could be made by  the Local  Government  or by an authority  subordinate  thereto, specially empowered.  The other cadres and posts belonged to the Provincial Service.  By a notification dated Novem-                                                   905 ber  25, 1949 recruitment rules were framed  which  provided that recruitment of Sub-Registrars shall be made though West Bengal  Civil Service examination.  The minimum  educational qualification   for   Sub-Registrars  was   prescribed    as ‘graduate  of a recognised University’.  Subsequently, by  a resolution  dated  May 22, 1952 it was  provided  that  Sub-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 15  

Registrars  shall  be  regarded as  Gazetted  Officers  with effect from April 1, 1952.  Soon thereafter by a notifiction dated July 17, 1953 the West Bengal Registration Service was included  in  the  State Service.   Thus  according  to  the respondents the position that emerged after the notification of 1953 can be summed up as under :          (i)    The  West Bengal  Registration  Service  was          expressly  declared to be in the West Bengal  State          Service (the former Provincial Service);          (ii)   The  recruitment rules of the State  Service          were  identical  to the recruitment  rules  of  the          other State Services.          (iii)   Gazetted status and concomitant  privileges          of  State  Services  were  conferred  on  the  Sub-          Registrars    belonging   to   the   West    Bengal          Registration Service; and          (iv)   The  powers  relating  to  the  recruitment,          conditions  of service and disciplinary matters  in          regard  to  members belonging to  the  West  Bengal          Service  including  the Sub-Registrars were  to  be          exercised by the State Government.      By  a notification dated July 6, 1966, the West  Bengal Registration Service was declared as the West Bengal  Junior Registration  service  and subsequently  by  a  notification dated  October 17, 1966 rules were framed under Article  309 of  the Constitution which superseded all previous rules  on the  subject and provided that appointment  to the  post  of Sub-Registrar  shall be made by the Government  through  the West  Bengal  Civil Service (Executive) and Allied  Services Examination.  The educational qualification for  appointment to the post of Sub-Registrar was stated to be a graduate  of a  recognised University and the age criteria was  fixed  as not  below 21 years and not exceeding 24 years.  The  system of classification of Government employees into Gazetted  and Non-Gazetted  and Classes I, II, III, & IV adopted  hitherto was done away with by the notification dated September,  25, 1978 and Government employees were placed in Groups A,                                              906 B,C,  and  D  according to pay and scale of  pay.   The  new grouping of services was not expected to cause any immediate disturbance  in  the  existing  framework  of  job   charts, responsibilities  and  facilities.  Rule 5 (4) of  the  West Bengal Service Rules, 1971, Part I, was amended and read  as under :          "5(4)  -  West Bengal State  Services  means  those          services and posts under the Administrative control          of  the  Government which have been  classified  as          Group A, Group B, Group C and Group D."          A note at the foot thereof provided as under :          "Note 1(a) - Subject to the provisions of paragraph          (b) services or posts under Group a, Group B, Group          C  and  Group D shall consist of  the  services  or          posts  specified respectively against them  in  the          table below :          S. No Classification of      Classification of  the          Post and Services        Services and posts          1.    Group ‘A’            All Government employees                                     drawing a pay or a scale                                     of pay with the  maximum                                     above Rs. 1,170.          2.    Group ‘B’            All Government Employees                                     drawing a pay or a scale                                     of pay with a maximum of                                     Rs. 1170 or below, but                                     above Rs. 700.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 15  

        3.    Group   ‘C’          All Government employees                                     drawing a pay or a scale                                     of  pay with  a  maximum                                     of  Rs.   700 or  below,                                     but above Rs. 415.          4.    Group ‘D’            All Government employees                                     drawing a pay or a scale                                     of pay with a maximum or                                     Rs. 415 or below.          (a)  Government may, be special order  include  any          other  class or posts carrying any pay or scale  of          pay in a class of service                                                   907          consisting  of posts or services carrying a  higher          pay or scale of pay.          (b)  If a service consists of posts with more  than          one  time scale or if there be a  Selection  Grade,          pay  attached to a service or post,  post  carrying          the  different time-scales or the  Selection  Grade          pay   may  be  classified  in  different   services          according to the pay or the maximum scale of pay of          the post.          Provided further that the aforesaid  classification          of  posts  and services shall  not  interfere  with          other  existing  framework  of  duties,   functions          responsibilities   and  facilities  of   Government          employees   on   the   basis   of   the    existing          classification."      This    classification   had   an   impact    on    the recommendations  made  by  the  Pay  Commission  which  were finally  approved  under  the ROPA Rules,  1981.   This,  in brief,  is  the  history of  the  West  Bengal  Registration Service.      The  grievance of the respondents was that  even  after the Sub-Registrars were placed in the Gazetted category  and their  service  was  declared to be included  in  the  State Service  and  entry into service was through  a  competitive examination  with the minimum qualification for  appointment being graduation, the pay scale for sub-Registrars was fixed at  Rs. 100-250 notwithstanding the Government  notification of  1953 providing that the said officers belonging  to  the Registration Service will enjoy the benefits and  privileges admissible to State Service officers.  On the representation made by the officers of the Registration Service.  the  then Chief  Minister granted the relief of Rs. 50 at the  minimum and maximum of the pay scale thereby virtually enhancing the pay  scale from Rs. 100-250 to Rs. 150-300.  Thus after  the report  of the Pay Committee when the scale of pay  of  Sub- Registrar  was revised to Rs. 200-400 in effect the  pay  at the minimum got reduced by Rs. 10 as the Sub-Registrars were drawing Rs. 5 as DA and Rs. 5 as CCA besides Rs. 50  granted pursuant to the orders of the then Chief Minister.  This was totally  overlooked by the Finance Department while  drawing up  the  ROPA Rules, 1961.  Subsequent  representations  for upward  revision  of the scale were ignored by  the  Finance Department till the First (State) Pay Commission came to  be constituted.  That body observed as under :          "This  is an extremely ill-paid service.  The  work          that  the                                                        908           Registration Officers have to do is not negligible          in    importance.     The   work    involves    the          interpretation  of documents and the assessment  of          stamp  duties and registration fees with  reference          to  the value of the subject matter involved.   The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 15  

        scale  of  pay should be improved.   The  following          scales are recommended :          (a)   Registrar  of Assurances  and  Inspectors  of          Registration Offices Rs. 850-50-1000-60-1600.          (b)  District  Registrars  and  Sub-Registrars   of          Assurance, Calcutta - Rs. 475-35-825-EB-50-1325.          (c)  District Sub-Registrars - Rs. 450-15-600-  EB-          25-825.          (d)  Sub-Registrars - Rs. 425-10-475-15-700.          The  majority  members  however,  recommended   the          higher  scale  of Rs.  450-15-600-25-825  for  Sub-          Registrars."      Notwithstanding  the said recommendation the pay  scale for  Sub-Registrars  was  fixed at Rs.  300-600  under  ROPA Rules,  1961.   The respondents contend that  the  injustice done to them in ignoring the above extracted  recommendation of the Pay Commission resulted in their being placed in  the equivalent  Scale  No. 11 throughout by the  subsequent  pay Commissions  also.   A strong letter of protest  written  by the  Head of the Department also did not yield  the  desired result  thereby necessitating the filing of a writ  petition in  which  the impugned order came to be passed.  It  is  in this  background  that we must examine  the  correctness  or otherwise  of  the  impugned  judgment  and  the  subsequent impugned interim orders made by the High Court.      The  partition  of Bengal in the wake  of  independence necessitated grant of relief to millions of persons who were uprooted  and  their  rehabilitation.   This   brought  into existence  new departments and organizations increasing  the number  and categories of employees required to  handle  the enormous task.   The history of pay revision in the State of West  Bengal would show that under the ROPA Rules, 1950  the total number of pay scales was reduced from 500 to 78 but by the time the Pay Committee was appointed in 1959 the  number had  once again gone up to 143 but was reduced to 39 by  the Pay Committee.  The number of pay scales again  proliferated from  39 to 81 but the First (State) Pay Commission  brought it                                                   909 down to 34.  The second (State) Pay Commission appointed  in 1977 found 36 standard scales, 19 new intermediate selection grade  scales and 20 non-standard pay scales besides  a  few pay scales introduced on different dates for non-Governments employees.   That body reduced the number of pay  scales  to 29.  The Third (State) Pay Commission found the total number of  pay  scales to be 29 primary pay scales and  brought  it down  to  24  pay scales.  The  situation  thus  created  on account   of   the  increase  in  the   stratification    of administrative hierarchy and the consequential fragmentation of  duties  and  responsibilities on the one  hand  and  the reduction  in  the  number  of  pay  scales  on  the   other necessitated higher initial pay and attaching of special pay to  a increasing number of posts to avoid anomalies  in  the pay structure thereby throwing an increased financial burden on  the State Government.  The minimum pay fixed  for  State employees  has always been higher than that  prescribed  for Central  Government employees.  When the pay  structure  was related  to the index average 200 (1960 : 100)  the  minimum pay  of Central Government employees was Rs.  196 per  month while that of the State Government employees was Rs. 220;  a weightage  of Rs. 24 recommended by the Second  (State)  Pay Commission on account of dietary habits of State  employees. At  the  index average of 608 the minimum  pay  for  Central Government  employees has been fixed by the  Fourth  Central Pay  Commission  at  Rs. 750 per  month  whereas  the  Third

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 15  

(State)  Pay  Commission has fixed the same at Rs.  800  per month.   The maximum pay for State Government employees  has been  fixed in the scale of Rs. 5900-200-7300.  For the  old scale  11  (Rs. 425-1050) the new scale  prescribed  is  Rs. 1360-2800.  The revised equivalent for the old scale No.  17 (Rs.660-1600)  is Rs. 2200-4000.  With regard to the  demand for  higher  pay  scales  for  officers  belonging  to   the Registration Service, the Pay Commission observed:          "It  has been represented  to us that the scale  of          pay for the post of Sub-Registrar should have  been          Rs. 660-1600 which is the basic scale for the State          Services and that the scales of pay for the  higher          posts in the Registration Directorate as  mentioned          earlier  should have been  correspondingly  higher.          In  view of the duties and responsibilities of  the          posts we are of the opinion that upgradation of the          scales of pay of these posts will not be justified.          The  posts should carry the proposed scales of  pay          and  special  pay corresponding to  their  existing          scales and special pay."                                                   910      As  pointed out earlier the High Court took  notice  of the  revised  scales fixed by this body  and  by  subsequent orders directed that the Sub-Registrars should be placed  in revised scale  No. 17, ie.   Rs. 2200-4000, and the officers above  them should be placed in the revised scales  Nos.  18 and  19.  In taking the view that the  Registration  Service was  underpaid, the High Court was greatly impressed by  the fact that the Sub-Registrars were conferred gazetted  status and  the entire service was designated as State Service  and being  the  head of office and the  drawing  and  disbursing officer  as well, he exercised administrative and  financial power and now that the recruitment rule had been brought  on par  with  the educational qualification as  prescribed  for Munsiffs,  the pay-scales of Sub-Registrars ought to be  the same  and  cannot  be less than that  of  Munsiffs.   Strong reliance   was  also  placed  by  the  High  Court  on   the observations of the First (State) Pay Commission,  extracted earlier,  in  support  of  its  conclusion  that  the  State Government  had arbitrarily brushed aside the demand to  the Sub-Registrars for higher wages.  Holding that the  position of  a  Sub-Registrar  was  equivalent  to  others  in  State Services,  the  High Court ruled that they were  victims  of hostile  discrimination and the Government decision  not  to accept the weighty recommendations of the Pay Commission was wholly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of  the Constitution. In that view that it took it allowed the  Writ Petition and awarded scale No. 17 (Rs. 660-1600 now  revised to  Rs.  2200-4000) to them and scales Nos.  18  and  19  to higher level officers in the same department.  It is against these orders that the present appeals are preferred.      From the resume of facts set out hereinabove it clearly emerges  that  prior  to 1953  the  post  of  Sub-Registrars belonged to the Subordinate Service but by the  notification dated  July  17,  1953 it was placed in  the  State  Service w.e.f.  January  30,  1953.  Being the  head  of  office,  a drawing  and disbursing officer with certain  administrative and  financial powers, and also required to perform  certain quasi-judicial  functions,  such as,  interpreting  recitals contained  in  the  documents and  provisions  of  concerned statutes  and rules, counsel for the  respondents  contended that till 1981 when the educational qualification for  entry into  that post was graduation of any discipline,  the  Sub- Registrars  were  entitled  to  be  treated  above   members belonging to Junior Service and pay-scale so determined  but

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 15  

the  State  authority  failed to  do  so.   Counsel  further contended that after 1981 the additional qualification of  a degree  in  law was added to the eligibility  criterion  and thus the same was brought on par with Munsiffs and hence                                                   911 they  should have been  equated with Munsiffs in the  matter of pay-scale, since officers in all services recruited  from practicing  advocates were given the same scale.   Accepting this line of reasoning the Division Bench of the High  Court concluded  that the Government had acted arbitrarily and  in violation  of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in  not awarding  scale No. 17 (Rs. 660-1600)  earmarked  for  State Services  by  the Second (State) Pay Commission  (which  the Government  had  accepted  and  implemented)  to  the   Sub- Registrars.   It is thus manifest that the decision  of  the High  Court was based on the facts (i) the post of the  Sub- Registrar was a gazetted post belonging to the State Service (ii)  the  First (State) Pay Commission  had  recommended  a higher scale (which was still lower than the one demanded by the Sub-Registrars) for Sub-Registrars observing that it was an  extremely  ill-paid service (a recommendation which  was turned  down  by  the  Finance  Department)  and  (iii)  the eligibility criterion for entry into service was  graduation up  to 1981 and thereafter the requirement of a  law  degree was  added  to it, thus bringing  the  required  educational criterion to that of a Munsiff.      The  appellant contend that the High Court committed  a serious error in revising the pay-scale of Sub-Registrars in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in total ignorance of the settled  legal position  that  pay  fixation is  essentially  an  executive function ordinarily undertaken by an expert body like a  Pay Commission  whose  recommendations  are  entitled  to  great weight  though  not  binding on the Government  and  ar  not justiciable in a court of law since the court of law is  not well equipped to take upon itself the task of job evaluation which is a complex exercise.  In support of this  contention a  catena  of decisions beginning with the  case  of  Parbat Kiran Maithani & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1977  SC 1553  and  ending with the case of State of U.P. &  Ors.  v. J.P. Chaurasia  & Ors., AIR 1989 SC 19 at 29 was relied  on. The  appellants  also contest the contention that  the  Sub- Registrars are a part of the constituted State Service which is awarded scale No. 17.  They contend that there is no such service  as ‘Constituted State Service’ and  therefore,  the question of granting them scale No. 17 never arose.  On  the contrary  they point out that the employees are  categorised as  belonging to Group A, Group B, Group C, and Group D  and are  placed  in  one  group or the other  on  the  basis  of evaluation of their work and the recruitment policy  adopted by  the Government.  By placing the Sub-Registrars in  scale No. 17 the High Court has given them a jump which is  likely to give a severe                                                       912 jolt  to  the pay structure and would destroy  the  verticle heirarchial  relativities carefully  built-up  by  the   Pay Commission.   The  appellants, therefore, contend  that  the High Court had acted in haste in placing the  Sub-Registrars in  Scale  No. 17 without realising its impact  on  the  pay structure.   For  examination  purposes  the  State   Public Service Commission has placed the Sub-Registrars in Group  D whereas  those  in  scale  No. 17 fall  in  Group  A.  Those belonging  to  Group A are required to sit  for  six  papers whereas  those belonging to Group D are required  to  answer four  papers  only.  While those belonging to  Group  A  are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 15  

allowed  to take one or more optional papers  not  exceeding three  and have to appear for a compulsory personality  test of  200 marks, those belonging to Group D are  allowed  only one   optional  paper  and  have  not  to  appear  for   the personality   test.   Thus  the  examination  for  Group   A employees is far more stringent than for those belonging  to Group  D employees and, therefore, contend  the  appellants, they  are  not comparable and cannot be placed in  the  same pay-scale invoking the equality clause in Article 14 of  the Constitution.   Lastly, it is said that the financial burden which   will   fall   on  the  State   Government   on   the implementation  of  the  impugned judgment will  be  in  the vicinity of Rs. 1.45 crores which is not justified since the High  Court  has failed to appreciate the  issues  in  their proper  perspectives.   We find considerable  force  in  the submissions made on behalf of the appellants.      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  Commission, 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 must, however, realise that job evaluation is  both  a  difficult and time consuming  task  which  even expert   bodies  having  the  assistance  of   staff    with requistite  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                                                   913 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 discharges 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 broadbanding 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 qualification  required, (v)  avenues  of promotion, (vi) the nature  of  duties  and responsibilities,   (vii)   the  horizontal   and   verticle 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 15  

emphasise that several factors have to be kept in view while evolving  a  pay structure and the horizontal  and  verticle relativities  have to be carefully balanced keeping in  mind the  hierarchial 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 pay  scale  for  a given post and  Court’s  interference  is absolutely necessary to undo the injustice.      There  can be no dispute that by Government  Resolution No.  226 dated 22nd May, 1952 gazetted status was  conferred on  Sub-Registrars w.e.f. 1st April, 1952. So also there  is no dispute that by notification dated                                                        914 17th  July, 1953 the Registration Service was,  with  effect from the date of its constitution, i.e, 30th January,  1953, included in the West Bengal State Services. Subsequently, by a notification dated 10th October, 1953, all the entries  in column  I  of the Schedule under the  heading  ‘Registration Department’ of the Bengal Subordinate Service (Discipline  & Appeal)   Rules,   1936   were  omitted   along   with   the corresponding  entries  in  columns 2 to  5  thereof.  Thus, contend  the  respondents,  the  West  Bengal   Registration Service,  including  the Sub-Registrars was brought  on  par with  other  Constituted State Services’, with  effect  from 30th  January,  1953. Chapter 18 of the  Third  (State)  Pay Commission  would  show  that the  Constituted  Service  may comprise  of  tiers, such as,  Subordinate  Service,  Junior Service  and  State Service with  or  without  corresponding higher  or  senior service. Paragraph 18.5 of  that  chapter shows: ‘There are 4 tiers of constituted service in some  of the  Government Departments viz., Higher or Senior  Service, State  service,  Junior Service  and  Subordinate  Service’. Paragraph 18.6 recites that the State Services are generally in  scale  No. 17 (Rs. 660-1600). The  Junior  Services  are generally  in  scales Nos. 11 to 16 and the pay  scales  for Subordinate Services range from scale No. 4 to scale No. 13. It  would,  therefore,  appear that the  contention  of  the respondents that the State Service employees were  generally placed  in  scale No. 17 is prima facie accurate.  Yet  that body turned down the plea of the Sub-Registrars to be placed in  scale  No.  17  on  the  ground  that  the  duties   and responsibilities of the post did not justify upgradation  of the  scale  as  is evident from  the  observation  extracted earlier.  This clearly shows that the Commission  determined the  pay  scale  for Sub-Registrars keeping  in  view  their duties  and responsibilities. Therefore, merely because  the Sub-Registrars  were  conferred  gazetted  status  and   the Registration  Service was included in State Service did  not entitle the Sub-Registrars  to be placed in the higher scale if  their  duties and responsibilities did not  justify  the same.  One of the basic principles for pay fixation is  that the   salary   must  reflect  the  nature  of   duties   and responsibilities attached to the post, meaning thereby  that the scale must be commensurate with the task to be performed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 15  

and the responsibility to be undertaken by the holder of the post.  Merely  because of conferment of gazetted  status  or placement  in  State  Service,  no  qualitative  change  was brought  about in the job performance of the  Sub-Registrars and their superiors.     Before November, 1949 appointments to the posts of  Sub- Registrars  was  made by nomination of candidates  who  were undergraduates or even                                                        915 of  lower academic qualification. By the notification  dated 25th  November,  1949, made under section 211(2)(b)  of  the Government of India Act, 1935, the recruitment rules  framed in   supersession  of  all  previous  rules,   the   minimum educational  requirement  for Sub-Registrars was  raised  to graduation. The revised recruitment rules for Sub-Registrars framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the  Constitution dated  17th   October  1966  also  prescribed  the   minimum educational   requirement  as  graduate  of   a   recognised university.   By  the  subsequent  notification  dated   4th November,  1981 issued under the proviso to Article  309  of the  Constitution,  the recruitment rules of  17th  October, 1966  were amended whereby rules 3 and 4 were replaced.  The newly inserted rule provided for recruitment to the posts of Sub-Registrars  on  the basis of West Bengal  Civil  Service (Executive) and Allied Service Examination conducted by  the State Public Service Commission and the selection was to  be made in consultation with that body. For direct  recruitment the educational qualification was raised to a degree in  law from   a  recognised  University/Institute   or   equivalent qualification  and experience  of 3 years at the Bar.  Since this revised educational requirement is the same as required for Munsiffs, the High Court has thought it proper to  place them in the scale of the latter i.e. scale No. 17 (Rs.  660- 1600).  But  in doing so the High Court has,  with  respect, failed  to evaluate the difference in the nature  of  duties and  responsibilities of a Munsiff and a Sub-Registrar.  The duties  and  responsibilities  of a Munsiff and  a  Judicial Magistrate  are  far  more  onerous than  those  of  a  Sub- Registrar. The Sub-Registrar’s duties are relatively  simple -  namely  to receive, examine and register the  document  - whereas the duties of a Judicial Officer at the floor  level are to hear cases, examine witnesses, interpret and construe different  laws,  hear oral arguments and  deliver  reasoned judgments.  He  has  to keep abreast  with a  host  of  laws unlike  a  Sub-Registrar  who is expected to  study  only  a couple of laws connected with the registration of  documents like   the  Registration  Act,  the  Stamp  Act,  etc.   The responsibilities of a Judicial Officer are also far  greater than those of Sub-Registrars. Therefore, to compare the Sub- Registrars  with  Judicial  Magistrates  -  Munsiffs  is  to compare  unequals. It would, therefore, be wholly  arbitrary to place them in the same pay scale. In our view, therefore, the  High Court, with respect, committed a serious error  in law in holding that the Government’s action in not  granting the  same  pay  scale to  Sub-Registrars  was  violative  of Article  14 of the Constitution. In fact to put them on  par is wholly unjustified.                                                        916     It  was  then  submitted  that  the  Third  (State)  Pay Commission  had failed to notice the upward revision of  the educational  requirement  for  direct  recruitment  as  Sub- Registrars.  It  was  rightly pointed out that  one  of  the inputs for pay determination is educational requirement  for the  post.  The  higher the  educational  qualification  the better would be the quality of service rendered and the  end

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 15  

result would in the ultimate be far more satisfactory.  That indeed cannot be disputed. But educational qualification  is only  one  of the many factors which has  relevance  to  pay fixation. The complexity of the job to be performed and  the responsibilities  attached  thereto are  entitled  to  great weight in determining the appropriate pay scale for the job. Prima facie there appears substance in the grievance of  the Sub-Registrars   that   while   the   minimum    educational qualification  for  direct  entry into  the  post  has  been periodically raised, the level of pay scale for the post has not  undergone  any change, whatsoever. We think  the  State Government   ought  to  re-examine  the  question   of   the appropriate pay scale for Sub-Registrars in the light of the above and if it decides to upgrade the pay scale it may also consider  if  the  pay  scales of  their  superiors  in  the hierarchy need an upward revision.     In  the result we allow these appeals and set aside  the judgement  and orders of the High Court impugned herein  but make  no order as to costs throughout. We,  however,  direct the  State  Government  to re-examine the  question  of  the appropriate pay scale for Sub-Registrars within three months by   a  speaking  order  after  giving  a  hearing  to   the representative    of   the   respondent   association    and communicate the decision so taken to the association. If the State  Government  decides  on the upward  revision  of  the salary   of  the  Sub-Registrars,  it  will   simultaneously consider  the question of upward revision of the pay  scales of  higher  posts in the department. I.A. Nos. 7-9  of  1991 will also stand disposed of. T.N.A.                                      Appeals allowed.                                                        917