http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  9244 of 2003

PETITIONER: Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation & Ors

RESPONDENT: G. S. Uppal & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/04/2008

BENCH: R. V. Raveendran & Lokeshwar Singh Panta

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T REPORTABLE

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9244 OF 2003 W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9239 OF 2003 Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells  Corporation & Ors.                                        .....        Appellants Versus Chakrawarti Garg                                                  .....     Respondent  W I T H CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9248 OF 2003 Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells  Corporation & Ors.                                        .....        Appellants Versus A. S. Dhir                                                                .....     Responde nt  

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.

1.      These appeals, by special leave, filed by Haryana State  Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation & Others are directed  against the common judgment dated August 22, 2001 passed  by the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and  Haryana in Letters Patent Appeal No. 725/1993 and Civil Writ  Petition No. 5946/1994 and Civil Writ Petition No. 834/1996. 2.      By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the  High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the  appellants against the judgment and order dated May, 18,  1993 of the learned Single Judge passed in C.W.P.  No.14200/1993 and allowed C.W.P. No. 5946/1994 filed by  Chakrawarti Garg and C.W.P. No. 834/1996 of A.S. Dhir,  respondents herein. 3.      These appeals are similar in nature and they involve  identical questions of law and facts and, therefore, they are  being decided by this common judgment. 4.      The facts giving rise to the filing of these appeals are that  the respondents in Civil Appeal Nos. 9244/2003 and 9248/  2003, at the time of filing of the writ petitions, were working  on the post of Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Sub-Divisional  Engineer (SDE) and Assistant Engineer (AE) with the Haryana  State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation Ltd. (for short  ’the Corporation’) \026 appellant No. 1, which is a Government  company, within the meaning of that expression under the  Companies Act, 1956.  The respondent in C.A. No. 9239/2003  was working as Law Officer with the Corporation.  State of  Haryana exercises deep and pervasive control over the  Corporation.  Secretary, Irrigation Department; Secretary,  Agricultural Department; Secretary, Finance Department, to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

the Government of Haryana; Chairman, Haryana State  Electricity Board and Chief Engineer (Canals), Irrigation  Works, Haryana, were the exclusive shareholders in the  Corporation at the time of its formation in the year 1970.  The  Corporation was carved out of the Irrigation Wing of the Public  Works Department and since its inception in the year 1970, a  number of officers have been appointed to different posts by  way of deputation.  There were about 27 SDOs on deputation  from the Irrigation Department working in Corporation whose  nature of duties and responsibilities were similar and identical  to the nature and duties of the SDOs working in the equivalent  post of Corporation.  Their duties were inter-changeable and  as such it was the case of the respondents before the High  Court that there was no difference whatsoever between the  duties and responsibilities expected to be shouldered by a  deputationist and by an employee of the Corporation.  The  respondents pleaded before the High Court that there was no  qualitative difference between the duties and responsibilities of  persons employed on the posts of SDOs, SDEs, AEs in various  departments of Haryana Government, such as Public Works  Department (Buildings and Roads), Public Health  Departments, various Corporations, Haryana State Electricity  Board, Haryana Urban Development Authority and several  other Boards.  Rule 5.1 of Part V of the Service Bye-Laws of  the Corporation reads as under:- "1) Each post in the Corporation will carry a  time scale of pay, the present pay scale being  indicated in Appendix II. 2) The pay scale is subject to revision by the  Board, which will, however, generally follow  the pattern adopted by the Government of  Haryana from time to time."

5.      The Corporation ever since its inception in the year 1970  has been following the pay scales of the employees of the  Haryana Government as revised from time to time in respect of  all categories of its employees.  As noticed earlier, initially,  when the Corporation was formed, almost the entire  Engineering staff right from the rank of Chief Engineer to the  rank of AEs/SDOs/SDEs was taken on deputation from the  Irrigation Department of the State Government till the  Corporation recruited its own cadre of AEs.  Qualifications and  experience for recruitment and promotion to the ranks of AEs,  SDOs, Executive Engineers, Superintending Engineers and  Chief Engineers are the same as in the Irrigation Department.   All those employees who came on deputation on whatever  post, were granted pay scales as  revised by the Haryana  Government from time to time for the Engineers in the  Government Departments, like PWD (B & R), Public Health  and Irrigation Department.  Keeping in view these facts, pay  scales of employees of the Corporation including those of  Engineers were revised with effect from 01.04.1979 and  01.01.1986 on the pattern of revision of pay scales approved  by the Haryana Government for its employees.  The revision of  pay scales with effect from 01.01.1986 was also approved by  the Pay Revision Committee (PRC) constituted by the Haryana  Government for revision of pay scales of the employees of  various public Undertakings/Boards/Corporations in its  meeting held on 21.09.1988.  Revision of pay scales were  made applicable to the Engineers in the Corporation w.e.f.  01.01.1986, but thereafter the Haryana Government, while  removing certain anomalies in the pay scale of the  Superintending Engineers, further revised the pay scales of  SEs of PWD (B & R), Public Health and Irrigation Department  from Rs.3700-5000/- to Rs. 4100-5300/- vide Finance

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

Department letter No.6/38/3PR(FD) -27 dated 16.05.1989. By  another letter of the said Department No. 6/38/PR dated  02.06.1989, salaries of other Engineers, such as  AEEs/AEs/SDOs/SDEs (Class-I and Class-II) were also  revised with effect from 01.05.1989 by way of removal of  anomalies. The Board of Directors of the Corporation in its  94th meeting held on 18.08.1989 decided that in view of the  parity in pay scales that had been maintained in the past  between the Corporation and their counter parts in the  Haryana Government Departments, which was approved by  the Finance Department, may be recommended to the Public  Enterprises and Investment Cell of the Finance Department,  Haryana, for their concurrence.  The names of the posts, their  existing and revised pay scales are tabulated as below:-    Name of the Post Existing Scales  of pay Revised Scales of Pay Superintending  Engineer  Rs. 3700-5000 Rs. 4100-5300 Engineers AEE/AE/SDO/SDE (Class I & II) Rs.2200-4000 Rs.2000-3500 Rs.2200-4000 Rs.3000-4500 (After 5 years of  regular service) Rs.4100-5300 (After 12 years of  regular service)

6.      The Haryana Government once again modified pay scales  of the Engineers vide letter dated 16.05.1990 with effect from  01.05.1989 as under:-

Name of the Post Existing Scales  of pay Revised Scales of Pay Engineers AEE/AE/SDO/SDE (Class I & II) Rs.2200-4000 Rs.2000-3500 (After 5 years of  regular service Rs.4100-5300 (After 12 years  of regular  service) Rs.2200-4000 Rs.3000-4500 (After 5 years of  regular satisfactory  service) Selection Grade Rs.4100-5300 (After 12 years of  regular satisfactory  service) limited to 20%  of the cadre posts.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

7.      The Board of Directors of the Corporation considered and  approved the adoption of the above modified scales of pay  w.e.f. 01.05.1989 in respect of the Engineers of the  Corporation in 97th meeting held on 25.06.1990, subject to the  concurrence of the Finance Department.  It was further  resolved that any further amendment/modification made by  the Haryana Government in the pay scales of the Engineers   may also be made applicable in respect of the Corporation  employees, subject to the concurrence of the Finance  Department.  The proposal of the Board of Directors of the  Corporation for revision of pay scales of the Corporation  Engineers was sent to the Finance Department and in the said  proposal, it was brought to the notice of the Standing  Committee that the revised pay scales had already been  granted to the Engineers of the Haryana Urban Development  Authority and that of the Haryana State Electricity Board.  The  proposal was placed before the Standing Committee in its  meeting that was held on 28.05.1992, which approved the pay  scales in a selective manner.  The revision in the pay scales of  the Superintending Engineers, Accounts Officers, Circle Head  Draftsmen, Divisional Head Draftsmen, etc. were approved,  whereas the revision of pay scales of the AEs/SDOs/SDEs was  postponed and it was decided that the matter would be  examined separately by the Finance Department.  The claim of  the respondents with regard to the revision of pay scales,  however, was not taken up by the Standing Committee.  The  respondents submitted repeated representations but they  could not get any relief and the respondents were left with no  option but to file the writ petitions before the High Court. 8.      The Corporation contested the claim of the respondents  before the High Court by filing written statement wherein it  has been pleaded that the respondents are seeking revised pay  scales on the pattern of Engineers of three wings of PWD of the  State Government.  The proposal of the Corporation for  revision of pay scales of engineering staff was placed for  consideration of the Standing Committee in its meeting held  on 15.11.1991.  The decision taken in the aforesaid meeting  reads thus: "It was decided to constitute a Sub- Committee comprising of Member  Secretary, Haryana Bureau of Public  Enterprises; Managing Director, Haryana  State Minor Irrigation Tubewell  Corporation and Joint Secretary Finance  (Pay Revision) to review the entire staffing  pattern along with pay scale of  CORPORATION.  Based on the  recommendations of the Sub-Committee,  the Corporation could submit a fresh  proposal for consideration of the  Standing Committee, if need be."

The meetings aforesaid of the Sub-Committee were held on  16.01.1992 and 6.02.1992.  Minutes of these meetings  containing recommendations of the Sub-Committee were  placed for consideration of the Standing Committee in its  meeting held on 28.05.1992 wherein it was decided as under:- "The revision of pay scales of posts of  AEE/AE/SDO/SDEs was postponed and  it was decided that the matter will be  examined separately by the Finance  Department."

It has further been stated that as the matter was under active

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

consideration and had not been finally decided by the Finance  Department, no cause of action arose to the respondents and,  therefore, the writ petition being premature was liable to be  dismissed on that sole ground.  The main defence of the  Corporation  in its written statement before the High Court   was that there has been a revision of pay scales of Engineers  of three wings of Public Works Department only of the State  Government who have to carry out more arduous duties under  different conditions and constraints because of the  development activities undertaken by the State under its  phased programme and time-bound schedule, whereas the  Engineers employed by the Corporation have been discharging  normal routine duties. It was  contended that the  Corporation  is running under loss and because of its financial position, the  Corporation is not  in a position to equate the pay scales of its  Engineers, Law Officers and other employees equivalent to the  Engineers of the three wings of PWD and other employees  working on the equivalent posts of the State Government. 9.      The learned Single Judge, allowed the Writ Petition No.  14200/1993 which was the subject-matter of LPA No.  7525/1993 before the Division Bench of the Punjab and  Haryana High Court and held as under:  "In view of the above, it is held that the  action of the respondents in not granting  the revised scale of pay to the petitioners  with effect from May 1, 1989 suffers from  the vice of discrimination and is violative  of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution  of India.  The next contentions raised by  the learned counsel for the petitioners  related to the jurisdiction of the  Government to interfere in the affairs of  the Corporation.  The contention is not  wholly without merit.  However, in view of  my decision on the first question, it does  not appear to be necessary to examine  this matter in detail.  

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed.   It is held that the petitioners will be  entitled to the revised scales of pay with  effect from May 1, 1989 as has been  granted to the persons working in the  Corporation by way of deputation or in  the Public Works Department of the  Government.  The needful shall be done  within 4 months from the date of receipt  of a copy of this order.  They will be  entitled to all consequential benefits.  In  case, the needful is not done within the  aforesaid time, the petitioners shall be  entitled to the payment of arrears, etc.  along with interest @ 12% per annum  from the date of accrual to the date of  actual payment.  However, in the  circumstances of the case, there will be  no order as to costs."     

10.     Being aggrieved, the Corporation carried the matter in  intra-court appeal before the Division Bench.  During the  hearing of Letters Patent Appeal, a copy of the final decision  taken by the Government had been handed over to the Bench  vide which the Finance Committee of the Government decided  that pay scales of the Engineers along with the doctors of  Health Department and Deputy Superintendents of Police were

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

further revised.  It has also been clarified that the revised pay  scales, so far as engineers were concerned, were applicable to  the Engineers of PWD (three wings) only.  Shri Chakrawarti  Garg, Law Officer working with the Corporation, filed Civil Writ  Petition No. 5946/1994 and Shri A.S. Dhir, SDO of the  Corporation filed Civil Writ Petition No. 834/1996 before the  Division Bench of the High Court claiming revision of pay  scales at par with the other employees discharging same and  similar duties and responsibilities at equivalent posts with the  State Government, Boards and Corporations.  The Division  Bench by impugned order dated August 22, 2001 dismissed  the Letters Patent Appeal of the Corporation and allowed the  Civil Writ Petitions filed by Shri Chakrawarti Garg and Shri  A.S. Dhir respondents herein.  Hence, the Corporation and  others have filed these appeals questioning the correctness  and validity of the common judgment of the Division Bench of  the High Court. 11.     We have heard learned counsel for the parties.  Mr.  Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned Additional Advocate General  appearing for the appellants, vehemently contended that the  pay scales of the respondents could not be compared and  equated with the Engineers and other employees of the three  wings of the PWD and other employees of the State  Government.   He submitted that there is apparent difference  between the duties, responsibilities and reliability of the  Engineers working in the three wings of Public Works  Department as they have to work under difficult conditions  and constraints because of the developmental activities as  compared to those Engineers working in the Corporation.  As  such, the findings of the High Court granting different pay  scales to the engineers and other employees of the Corporation  in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India  cannot be justified and sustained.  It was also urged that mere  fact that on two earlier occasions, pay hike to the engineers of  the Government Departments attracted an equal pay hike for  the Engineers employed with the Corporation is no guide that  may conclusively show that nature and duties of the two sets  of employees were the same.  The weak financial position of  the Corporation is also being pressed into service during the  course of arguments for denying the relief that has been  granted to the respondents by the High Court.   12.  The learned Additional Advocate General, in support of  his submissions, placed reliance on the judgments of this  Court in State Bank of India & Anr. v. M.R. Ganesh Babu  & Ors. [2002] 4 SCC 556; State of Haryana v. Haryana  Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association [2002] 6 SCC  72 and Union of India v. S.B. Vohra [2004] 2 SCC 150.   13.   We have gone through these decisions of this Court.  In  State Bank of India’s case (supra), this Court held that  equal pay must depend upon the nature of work done.  It  cannot be judged by the mere volume of work; there may be  qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility.   Functions may be same but the responsibilities make a  difference.  Often the difference is a matter of degree and there  is an element of value judgment by those who are charged  with the administration in fixing the scales of pay and other  conditions of service.  So long as such value judgment is made  bona fide, reasonably on an intelligible criterion which has a  rational nexus with the object of differentiation, such  differentiation will not amount to discrimination.  The  judgment of administrative authorities concerning the  responsibilities which attach to the post, and the degree of  reliability expected of an incumbent, would be a value  judgment of the authorities concerned which, if arrived at  bona fide, reasonably and rationally, is not open to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

interference by the court. 14.   In S.B. Vohra’s case  [supra], this Court dealing with the  fixation of pay scales of officers of the High Court of Delhi  (Assistant Registrars) held that the fixation of pay scales is  within the exclusive domain of Chief Justice, subject to  approval of President/Governor of the State and the matter  should either be examined by an Expert Body or in its absence  by the Chief Justice and the Central or State Government  should attend to the suggestions of the Chief Justice with  reasonable promptitude so as to satisfy the test of Article 14 of  the Constitution of India. Further, it was observed that  financial implications vis-a-vis effect of grant of a particular  scale of pay may not always be a sufficient reason and  differences should be mutually discussed and tried to be  solved. 15.   In State of Haryana’s case (supra), this Court held that  the High Court was in error in allowing the parity in pay scale  to State Civil Secretariat PAs with Central Secretariat PAs  merely because the designation was same, without comparing  the nature of their duties and responsibilities and  qualifications for recruitment and without considering the  relevant rules, regulations and executive instructions issued  by the employer and governing the cadre concerned.  16.   There is no dispute nor can there be any to the principle  as settled in the above-cited decisions of this Court that  fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties is the  function of the Executive and the scope of judicial review of  administrative decision in this regard is very limited.  However,  it is also equally well-settled that the courts should interfere  with the administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation  and pay parity when they find such a decision to be  unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees  and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors. [see  K.T.  Veerappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (2006)  9 SCC 406]. 17.   Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel assisted  by Shri Raj Kumar Gupta and Shri A.N.Bardiyar appearing for  respondents in C.A. Nos. 9244/03 and 9248/03; Mr. Rishi  Malhotra, Advocate appearing for respondents in C.A.  9239/2003, in support of the judgment of the Division Bench,  contended that no exceptions can be taken to the well- reasoned judgment recorded by the Division Bench of the High  Court.  They submitted that the Division Bench has analysed  in great detail the factual situation and legal proposition  covering the field of controversy, therefore, there is apparently  no infirmity or perversity in the judgment impugned in these  appeals inviting interference by this Court.  18.   In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the learned  counsel for the parties, we have scrutinized the judgment of  the Division Bench of the High Court in the backdrop of the  factual situation of the case as well as in the light of the  principle enunciated in the above-cited decisions.  19.  It is well-settled that the State can make reasonable  classification if it has a nexus with the object sought to be  achieved.  It is admitted position in the present case that posts  of SDOs/SDEs/AEs can be filled up by the Corporation by any  one of the three known methods, namely, direct recruitment,  on promotion or by transfer/deputation.  Once a person is  appointed to a post in a particular cadre, the source of his  recruitment or the method of his appointment becomes  irrelevant.  The Corporation has framed its Service Bye-Laws  and by virtue of Rule 5.1 of Part-V of the Service Bye-Laws,  each post in the Corporation will carry a time scale of pay; the  present pay scale being indicated in Appendix-II and further  that the pay scale is subject to revision by the Board, which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

will, however, generally follow the pattern adopted by the  Government of Haryana from time to time.  The employees of  the Corporation, since its inception in 1970, had been getting  the same pay scales as that of the employees of the Haryana  Government and the Board of Directors having already  equated the pay scales of the Engineers of the Corporation  commensurate to the pay scales of the Government employees,  but the State Government has not concurred with the decision  of the Board of Directors.  By virtue of Clause 81(v) of the  Memorandum of Association of the Corporation, the Directors  of the Corporation in their discretion have powers to appoint,  remove or suspend such Managers, Secretaries, Officers,  Clerks, Agents and Servants of permanent, temporary or  special services, as they may from time to time think fit, and to  determine their powers and duties and fix their salaries or  emoluments and to require security of such amount as they  think fit in such instances.   The power to fix the salaries or  emoluments of the employees of the Corporation, thus,  specifically rests with the Directors of the Corporation and by  virtue of Rule 5.1 of Part-V of the Service Bye-Laws, as  mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, the Corporation  had favourably considered the claim of the respondents by  recommending the same scales for them, as were being given  to their counterparts in the service of the Government  Departments.  The proposal of the Board of Directors of the  Corporation for revision of pay scales to its employees came up  before the Standing Committee in its meeting held on  28.05.1992 and the Standing Committee approved the pay  scales in a selective manner.  The revision in pay scales of the  Superintending Engineers, Accounts Officers, Circle Head  Draftsmen, Divisional Head Draftsmen, etc. were approved,  whereas the revision of pay scales of the respondents, who are  AEs/SDOs/SDEs, was postponed and it was decided that the  matter would be examined separately by the Finance  Department. 20.   The State of Haryana in its written statement filed before  the High Court admitted that although the technical  qualifications of incumbents on the posts of AEs/SDOs/SDEs  in various Government Departments, Boards and Corporations  are identical, yet the nature of duties and responsibilities,  quantum of workload and level of technical expertise involved  do vary from organization to organization depending upon the  nature of activities undertaken by the respective organizations.   It is further contended that the salary and allowances of the  deputationists of the Corporation are governed by the terms  and conditions of their deputation as decided by the  Government from time to time.  Therefore, the respondents  cannot be treated and equated at par with the similar  categories of employees of the State Government. 21.   The learned Single Judge of the High Court as also the  learned Judges of the Division Bench have considered the  controversy in detail in their judgments holding the  respondents entitled for the revision of pay scales at par with  their counter-parts working in the State of Haryana. 22.   It is not in dispute that a deputationist holds the post in  a particular cadre office for the duration he remains on  deputation and is a part of that cadre.  No material has been  placed on record by the appellants to show that the  deputationists are appointed against only certain particular  posts or that they cannot be posted or transferred to the posts  held by the respondents.  In fact, it is an admitted position  that the posts are mutually inter-changeable.  In this  situation, it is reasonable to infer that a deputationist  performs the same duties as those performed by other persons  working in the cadre.  It is also an admitted position that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

qualifications laid down for recruitment in the Corporation are  identical to those prescribed in the Departments of the  Government.   It is further clear that the respondents have  continued to work in the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 w.e.f.  01.01.1986.  As against this, their counter-parts in the  Government and also the persons, who are posted in the  Corporation by way of deputation, would get the scale of  Rs.3000-4500 on completion of five years of service and are  placed in the scale of Rs.4100-5300 (to the extent of 20% of  the posts) on completion of 20 years of service.  The  respondents were obviously placed at a disadvantageous  position.  The decision of the Government in rejecting the  proposal of the Board of Directors suffers from the vice of  invidious discrimination and cannot be sustained because the  very same decision of the Board with regard to all other  employees has since been accepted and approved by the State  Government.  On the scrutiny of the material on record, it is  clear that the appellants did not produce any evidence on  record to establish that the working conditions,  responsibilities and nature of duties, etc. of the respondents  are different to their counter-parts working in the same  categories in the State Government, Boards and other  Corporations, etc. and also the persons who are working with  the Corporation on deputation.       23.   A careful examination shows that the issue was not really  about grant of pay scales to Corporation Engineers on par with  PWD Engineers. When the pay revision took place, the revised  pay scales that were given to the Engineers of the State  Government were also given to the engineers of the  Corporation with effect from 1.1.1986 thereby maintaining the  parity. What was not extended to the Corporation employees,  which is the subject matter of the grievance, is the further  revision by way of ’removal of anomaly in pay scales’ given to  AEE/AE/SDO/SDE of the State Government with effect from  1.5.1989 vide circular dated 2.6.1989 of the Finance  Commissioner. The real question would be whether what is  given by way of anomaly removal in the case of Engineers of  State Government, should automatically be extended to the  corresponding categories of engineers of the Corporation.  When, after a pay revision, an anomaly is found in the pay  scale given to a class of Government servants and such  anomaly is rectified, it is not a new pay revision but a  correction of the original pay revision, or an amendment to the  pay scale that has already been granted. Therefore, where the  pay revision extended to the government servants has already  been extended to the employees of the Corporation also, it  follows that any correction of anomaly in the revised pay scale  given to the government servants should also be made in the  case of those who were earlier given parity by extending the  pay scale which is the subject matter of the correction. It  should be borne in mind that the question whether  Corporation engineers were on par with PWD Engineers and  should be given parity in pay scales was already decided when  the pay scale revision granted to Government (PWD) engineers  was extended to the corporation Engineers also with effect  from 1.1.1986. That question did not again arise when the  anomaly in the pay revision was rectified with reference to the  Government engineers. When the anomaly in the pay scale of  Government engineers was rectified, the rectification should  apply to Corporation engineers also to maintain the parity.     24.     The plea of the appellants that the Corporation is  running under losses and it cannot meet the financial burden  on account of revision of scales of pay has been rejected by the  High Court and, in our view, rightly so.  Whatever may be the  factual position, there appears to be no basis for the action of

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

the appellants in denying the claim of revision of pay scales to  the respondents.  If the Government feels that the Corporation  is running into losses, measures of economy, avoidance of  frequent writing off of dues, reduction of posts or repatriating  deputationists may provide the possible solution to the  problem.  Be that as it may, such a contention may not be  available to the appellants in the light of the principle  enunciated by this Court in M.M.R. Khan v. Union of India  [1990 Supp. SCC 191] and Indian Overseas Bank v. I.O.B.  Staff Canteen Workers’ Union [(2000) 4 SCC 245].  However,  so long as the posts do exist and are manned, there appears to  be no justification for granting the respondents a scale of pay  lower than that sanctioned for those employees who are  brought on deputation.  In fact, the sequence of events,  discussed above, clearly shows that the employees of the  Corporation have been treated at par with those in  Government at the time of revision of scales of pay on every  occasion.  It is an admitted position that the scales of pay were  initially revised w.e.f. April 1, 1979 and thereafter on January  1, 1986.  On both these occasions, the pay scales of the  employees of the Corporation were treated and equated at par  with those in Government.  It is thus an established fact that  both were similarly situated.  Thereafter, nothing appears to  have happened which may justify the differential treatment.   Thus, the Corporation cannot put forth financial loss as a  ground only with regard to a limited category of employees.  It  cannot be said that the Corporation is financially sound  insofar granting of revised pay scales to other employees, but  finds financial constraints only when it comes to dealing with  the respondents, who are similarly placed in the same  category.  Having regard to the well reasoned judgment of the  Division Bench upholding the judgment and order of the  learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the impugned  judgment warrants no interference inasmuch as no illegality,  infirmity or error of jurisdiction could be shown before us.   25.   In the result, for the reasons stated above, we find no  merit in these appeals.  The appeals are dismissed  accordingly.  However, the parties are left to bear their own  costs.