http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: MAKHAN CHANDRA ROY

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       23/04/1997

BENCH: S.B. MAJMUDAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH                   Civil Appeal No.10609/95                       J U D G M E N T Majmudar, J.      These two  civil appeals  on special  leave  have  been moved by the Union of India and its officers challenging the orders  passed   by  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal, Cuttack Bench at Cuttack by which each of the respondents in these appeals  was given  a higher pay-scale. We shall first deal with Civil Appeal No.10608 of 1995.      The respondent  herein  was  working  as  a  Laboratory Assistant under  Dandakaranya Development  Authority. He was granted Pay-scale  of Rs.260-400.  After the recommendations of  the   Fourth  Pay  Commissions  the  Central  Government promulgated Central  Civil Service  Revised Pay Rules. 1986, As per  these Pay  Rules, respondent’s pay scale got a hike. This revised  pay-scale with  effect from 1.1.1986 worked us to 950-1500.  According to the respondent he was entitled to a still higher pay-scale and as that was not granted to him. he moved  the Tribunal by Original Application. The Tribunal after hearing  the contesting parties took the view that the respondent was  not entitled to any higher pay-scale only on the ground  of equal  pay for equal work. That a higher pay- scale given  to Laboratory Assistant both in the Ministry of Defence and Railways could not automatically be given to the respondent as he was a mere matriculate having only 5 weeks’ training in  the Central  Laboratory of  Indor,. While those Laboratory Assistants in the aforesaid Ministries of Defence and Railways  were having better educational qualifications. On the  aforesaid finding  reached by the Tribunal on facts, the O.A.  should have  been dismissed. Instead. the Tribunal perhaps thinking  that because  the petitioner had moved the Tribunal, he  should not  go empty  handed and must be given some relief  from somewhere,  took the view that because the Auxiliary Nurses  and Miswife  who were also earlier getting two scales  of pay  of Rs.260-350/-  and Rs.  260-400/- were given a  revised pay-scale  of Rs. 975-1540/- under the same Pay Rules,  the respondent  should also  be granted the said pay scale  of Rs.  975-1540/- instead  of Rs. 950-1500/-. In our view  the aforesaid reasoning adopted by the Tribunal is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

totally misconceived  and cannot  be sustained. When we turn to the  Central Civil  Services Revised  Pay Rules, 1986. we find in  the First  Schedule to the said Rules framed in the light of  Rules 3 and 4, item 6 of Part ‘A’ dealing with all Posts carrying  present pay-scales and pay-scales of Rs.260- 400/- which  were revised  to Rs. 950-1500/-. The respondent admittedly got  the benefit of those revised pay-scales. But the Tribunal thought it fit to award to the respondent still higher Pay-scale which was made available under the Rules to the  Auxiliary   Nurses  and  Miswife.  Their  pay-scale  is mentioned in  Part  B  of  the  Schedule  at  item  No.4  in paragraph IX  dealing with  Paramedical Staff. The Auxiliary Nurses and Miswife who were getting the Pay-scale of Rs.260- 350/- and  Rs. 260-400/-  were given  a uniform  higher pay- scale of  Rs.975-1540/-. The  Tribunal compared  the earlier pay-scales of  Auxiliary Nurses and Miswife with the earlier pay-scales of the respondent and thought it fit to grant the same hike  in the  pay-scale which  was made available under the Revised  Pay Rules  to Auxiliary  Nurses and  Miswife to respondent also.  In our  view  that  exercise  was  totally unauthorised as  it amounted  to taking  a  policy  decision which was  within the  domain of  the authorities themselves who are  the authors of the Revised Pay-scales. The Tribunal having come  to the conclusion that on merits the respondent had no  case on  the ground  of equal pay for equal work the O.A. ought  to have  been dismissed.  Our attention was also drawn by  the learned  Senior Counsel for the appellant to a decision of  this Court  reported in (1989) 1 SCC 121 (State of U.P.  and others  vs. J.P.  Chaurasia &  others). In that judgment the following observations are made :-      "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  post.  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."

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

    Consequently, it  must be  held that  the Tribunal  had committed patent error of law in passing the impugned order. In the  result, this  appeal is  allowed. The  judgment  and order of  the Tribunal  are quashed  and set  aside and  the Original Application  filed by  the respondent is dismissed. However, in  the facts  and circumstance  of the  case there will be no order as to costs.      That takes us to the Civil Appeal No. 10609/95.      In this  case the  respondent was  a Malaria Technician working with  the Dandakarnaya  Development  Authority.  His earlier pay-scale  was Rs.380-560/-.  As per the Revised Pay Rules. 1986 his pay scale was raised to Rs. 1320-2040/- with effect from  1.1.1986. The  respondent felt aggrieved by the said hike  as in  his view he first deserved to be placed in selection grade  by the  authorities and  then the increased pay scale  for selection  grade employees  should have  been made available to him. With that grievance he approached the same Tribunal.  The Tribunal rejected his contention that he was entitled to be placed in selection grade as there was no vacancy in  that grade. Once that conclusion is reached, the respondent’s  O.A.  should  have  been  dismissed.  Instead, following the  same logic  which appealed to the Tribunal in the earlier  case, the  Tribunal thought  that  some  relief atleast should  be given to the respondent who should not be turned out  empty handed.  With  the  result,  the  Tribunal undertook a very curious unauthorised exercise. The Tribunal considered the fact that Pharmacists Radiographers and X-Ray Technicians who  were  earlier  getting  the  pay  scale  of Rs.330-560/- were  granted a  higher pay  scale of Rs. 1350- 2200/-. The  same pay  scale should be made available to the respondent also who was earlier getting the pay scale of Rs. 380-560/-. It  is  difficult  to  appreciate  this  line  of reasoning which  appealed to  the Tribunal.  When we turn to the Revised  Pay Rules,  we find  in Schedule I, Part B item No. 12  which deals  with all  posts  carrying  present  say scales wherein  the pay  scale  of  Rs.  380-560  which  was earlier available  to the  respondent is  mentioned and  the revised pay  scale as  per Revised Pay Rules is stated to be Rs.1320-2040. This pay scale is admittedly made available to the respondent. But the Tribunal found out another pay scale mentioned in  part B of the Schedule to the Rules wherein in paragraph IX  dealing with Paramedical staff, radiographers, X-ray Technician  and Pharmacists  are  referred  to.  Their earlier pay  scale was  Rs.330-560/- which  was increased to Rs.1350-2200/-. According  to the  Tribunal this  pay  scale should have been given to the respondent. It is difficult to appreciate how  the respondent  who was a Malaria Technician should be  straightaway given  pay scale of Radiographers or Pharmacists  who  are  admittedly  working  in  a  different department and  were doing  entirely different type of work. What  enhanced  pay  scale  should  given  to  a  particular employee is  within the domain of the authorities themselves who appoint  them and  the Tribunal should not have ventured in this forbidden field.      Consequently, the decision of the Tribunal in this case also cannot  be sustained. In the result this appeal is also allowed. The  judgment and  order of  the Tribunal  are  set aside and  the O.P. filed by the respondent is dismissed. In the circumstance  of the  case, there will be no order as to costs.