http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 12  

PETITIONER: INDIAN RAILWAY SAS STAFF ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       21/01/1998

BENCH: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 1998 Present:                Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Sujata V.Manohar                Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P.Wadhwa Mr. S.K.Mehta,  Mr,   Dhruv Mehta,  Mr. Fazlin  Anam and Ms. Shobha Verma, Advocates for the appellants. Mrs. K.  Amreshwari, Sr.  Advocates, Mr.  A.K.Sharma and Ms. Anjani Ayyengar, Advocates with her for the respondents.                       J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: D.P.Wadhwa, J.      The appellants  are aggrieved by that part of the order dated April  26, 1991 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short  ‘the Tribunal’)  whereby the  Tribunal  did  not accept their  contention that they being in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200  be also granted the Group B status like their counterparts in  the office  of the  Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) and the Controller General of Defence Accounts (CGDA).      The appellants had also raised another issue before the Tribunal that  they should also be granted revised pay-scale of Rs.  2000-3200 w.e.f.  1.1.1986 and  not from 1.4.1987 as was granted  by the  respondents. The  Tribunal directed the respondents to  fix the  appellants in the revised scales of pay w.e.f.  1.1.1986  on  notional  basis  and  make  actual payment of the differential amount consequent to re-fixation of pay  in the  revised scales w.e.f. 1.4.1987. Against this part  of  the  relief  granted  to  the  appellants  by  the Tribunal, Union of India came in appeal in this Court and by judgment dated July 15, 1994 (1995 Supp 3 SCC 600) the court reversed the  decision of  the Tribunal  and held  that  the appellants would be entitled to revised pay scales only with effect from  1.4.1987. It  is therefore not necessary for us to go into this controversy which stands settled.      The first  appellant is  an Association  of Subordinate Account Service  (SAS) Staff  working in the Railways. Other appellants are  serving in  the Railways as Section Officers or Travelling Inspectors of Accounts. The appellants contend that in  various Ministries  and Departments  of the Central Government, notably Railways, Defence, Posts and Telegraphs,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 12  

CAG, CGDA  etc., there  is an  Accounts establishment called SAS. They,  therefore, contend that SAS Railways have always been equated and granted parity with SAS (CAG) in the matter selection grades,  pay scales,  status  etc.  and  that  any deviation from  the traditional parity with the SAS Railways and SAS  (CAG) and  SAS (CGDA)  etc. would be discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The main grievance  of the  appellants, therefore, is that while they have  been placed  in the  pay scale  of Rs. 2000-3200, they have not been granted Group ‘B’ status as has been done in respect of their counterparts in CAG and CGDA in the same pay scale.      The genesis of the dispute it would appear relates back to  the   report  of   the  Fourth  Central  pay  Commission (Commission for short). The Commission noted that there were about 65,000  posts of  accounts staff  in Groups  B  and  C working in  different departments/offices  of the Government of India and that the posts were in different pay scales and designation. It  noted that  there were  organised  accounts cadres under  CGDA, CAG,  Railways and  Departments of Posts and  Telecommunication.   The  Commission   considered   the existing pay-scale  of the  accounts posts  in the organised cadres and  it then  looked into  the representations of the associations of  the  accounts  staff.  The  report  of  the Commission relating  to accounts staff, in relevant part, is an under:      " 11.36.   The  main demand  of the      associations  of   accounts   staff      under  CGDA,   CAG,  Railways   and      Departments    of     Posts     and      Telecommunications  is  that  their      pay scales  should be  the same  as      for the  staff in  the Indian Audit      and  Accounts  Department  (IA&AD).      They have  pointed out  that  there      was parity  all  along,  which  was      disturbed in March, 1984 when there      was a  restructuring of  IA&AD into      two  separate  cadres,  i.e.  audit      cadre and  accounts & establishment      cadre.  As  a  result,  higher  pay      scales were  give to 80 per cent of      the staff  on the  audit side. They      have also  claimed that  the duties      and responsibilities  performed  by      them and  the staff  on  the  audit      side of  IA&AD are  comparable. The      all    India    Defence    Accounts      Association had  also filed  a writ      petition  in   the  Supreme   Court      requesting  the  Hon’ble  Court  to      direct the  government for bringing      the  pay  scales  of  auditors  and      Section  officers  working  in  the      Defence Accounts  Department at par      with those  in the  IA&AD. The writ      petition was  however allowed to be      withdrawn by  the Supreme  Court as      both the  parties   agreed that the      questions raised  in  the  petition      would  be  better  decide  by  this      Commission.     The     association      subsequently made  their submission      before  us   both  in  writing  and      orally.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 12  

    11.37.     Some  of   the  official      witnesses have  also emphasised the      need  for   parity  in  pay  scales      between     IA&AD     and     other      departments.       The   Controller      General  of  Defence  Accounts  has      stated that  the nature  of  duties      and  responsibilities  assigned  to      the auditors  and section  officers      of the  defence accounts department      is  an   integrated  on   combining      audit,     payment,     accounting,      financial   advice    and    allied      functions.   He    has    therefore      suggested that,  having  regard  to      the complexity  and arduous  nature      of the  jobs, they  should be given      the highest  scale of  pay given to      the corresponding  staff in  IA&AD.      The Controller  General of Accounts      has stated that the statutory audit      functions performed by the staff of      IA&AD are  in no  way unique as the      Internal  audit  functions  of  the      civil  accounts   staff  under  his      organisation include  most  of  the      audit functions  performed  by  the      statutory audit staff. Railway have      pointed  out  that  their  accounts      cadre had a traditional parity with      audit which  should  be  maintained      considering the  diversity,  nature      and  quality  of  their  work.  The      Departments of  P&T have  suggested      that whatever  pay scales are given      to  the  accounts  staff  in  other      departments, should be given to the      accounts staff in these departments      also.      11.38.    We  have  considered  the      matter. There  has all  along  been      parity between  the  staff  in  the      IA&AD and  accounts staff  of other      departments,   which    has    been      disturbed  by  restructuring  IA&AD      into  two   separate  cadres  viz.,      audit  cadre   and   accounts   and      establishment  cadre   and   giving      higher  pay   scales  to  a  major,      portion of staff on the audit side.      The audit  and  accounts  functions      are complementary to each other and      are  generally  performed  in  many      government offices in an integrated      manner which is necessary for their      effective functioning.   The  staff      in these  offices perform functions      of internal  check and audit suited      to   the   requirements   of   each      organisation  which   are   equally      important.    There    is    direct      recruitment in the scale of Rs.330-      560 in  all the  audit and accounts      cadres  through   Staff   Selection      Commission/Railway      Recruitment

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 12  

    Boards  from   amongst   university      graduates. We  are therefore of the      view that  there  should  be  broad      parity in  the pay  scales  of  the      staff in  IA&AD and  other accounts      organisation.    Accordingly,    we      recommend that the posts in the pay      scale  of   Rs.  425-700   in   the      organised accounts  cadres  may  be      given the scale of Rs.1400-2600. In      the Railways,  this will  apply  to      the posts  of sub-head  in both the      ordinary and  selection grades.  We      also recommend  that this should be      treated in  future as  a functional      grade requiring  promotion  as  per      normal  procedure.   The   proposed      scale of  Rs.2000-3200  of  section      officer may  also be  treated as  a      functional grade. With the proposed      scales, there  will be no selection      grades for  any of  the  posts.  As      regards the  number of posts in the      functional scales  of Rs. 1400-3600      and Rs.  2000-3200,  we  note  that      about 53  per  cent  of  the  total      posts of  junior/senior auditor and      66 per  cent of  the total posts of      ordinary  and  selection  grade  of      section officer in IA&AD are in the      respective      higher      scales.      Government may decide the number of      posts to be placed in the scales of      (i)  Rs.  1400-2600  and  (ii)  Rs.      2000-3200 in  the  other  organised      accounts cadres  taking this factor      into   consideration.   All   other      accounts posts  may  be  given  the      scales recommended in chapter 8."      On the  basis of  the recommendation  of the Fourth Pay Commission aforesaid, Central Government, in the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) issued an order dated June 18, 1987 relating to  restructuring of  accounts staff,  which is  as under:      "The General Managers,       All Indian Railways,       Production Units, etc.       (As per mailing list)      Subject   :-    Restructuring    of                     Accounts staff.      The Fourth  Central Pay  Commission      vide para  11.38 of  Part-I of  its      Report have  recommended that there      should be  broad parity  in the pay      scales of  the staff  in IA&AD  and      other  Accounts  Organisations.  It      has further  recommended  that  the      proposed scales  of pay of Rs.1400-      2600  and   Rs.  2000-3200  may  be      treated  as  functional  grades  in      future and  that there  will be  no      selection grade  for any  of  these      posts. As  regards  the  number  of      posts  in   the  higher  functional      scales, the  Commission  left  this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 12  

    matter  for   the   Government   to      decide.      2.   The revised  scales of the pay      for the Accounts staff have already      been notified  vide this Ministry’s      letter No.  PCIV  86/Imp/Schedule/1      dated 24-9-1986. In accordance with      the orders therein, certain persons      have  already   been  allowed   the      higher  revised   scales   of   pay      subject to the conditions laid down      therein.      3.   The question  regarding number      of posts to be placed in the higher      scales of  pay has  been under  the      consideration of  this Ministry. It      has bow been decided that the ratio      of number  of posts  in higher  and      lower scales in the accounts cadres      may be as follows:-      (i)  Section officers (A/cs.). Rs. 2000-60- 80%      Inspector of Stores           2300-EB-  75-      Accounts (ISA), Inspector     3200      of Station Accounts (TIA)                                    Rs.1640-  60- 20%                                    2600-EB-  75-                                    2900      (ii) Clerks Grade-I (including Rs.1400-40- 80%      existing Sub-Heads)           1600-50-  2300-                                    EB-60-         2600                                    Rs. 1200-30- 20% 1560-EB-                                    40- 2040      As regards designation, orders will follow.      4.   These orders  take effect from      1-4-1987. As  regards criteria  for      appointment    to     the    higher      functional     grades     requiring      promotion to the grades of Rs.1400-      40-1600-50-2300-EB-60-2600 and  Rs.      2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200,     orders      will follow.                     sd/-               (G. CHATTERJEE)      Executive Director, Pay Commission.             Railway Board."      As seen  above the  validity of  this  order  has  been upheld by  this Court  fixing the  revised scale of pay with effect from 1.4.1987.      As far  as the  recommendation  of  the  Commission  is concerned  revised   pay  scale   has  been   given  to  the appellants. There  cannot be  any grievance on that score as the  recommendation   has  been   accepted  by  the  Central Government. The  Commission, however,  in its report did not recommend that  posts in  pay-scale of Rs.2,000-3200 in CAG, CGDA and  other Ministries  and Railways  be all  treated as group B  posts. The  Commission recognised that grouping did not strictly  follow  the  pattern  based  on  pay-scale  in various Ministries  etc.  and  observed  that  the  existing classification for those posts might continue.      In 1984,  the work organisation in the CAG’s office was restructured and  the functioning of Audit and Accounts were separated. 80% of the posts of Section Officers (Audit) were upgraded to  the pre-revised  scale of  RS.  640-1040/-  and given the  Group B  gazetted   status. The  staff  who  were manning the accounting functions work, however, continued in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 12  

the scales of pay for the account staff. This disturbance in the parity  in pay  scales between  the Audit  and  Accounts staff was  not only resented in the establishment of CAG but also led to protest from the Accounts staff of the Railways. This gave  rise to the demand from the Railway Account staff for re-establishing  the parity  in the pay scales etc. with the Audit  staff in  the CAG’s office. The parity in the pay scale was,  however, restored  on the recommendations of the Commission  and  in  pursuance  thereof  the  Department  of Expenditure,  Ministry  of  Finance,  Government  of  India, issued  instructions,   among   others,   to   the   Finance Commissioner,  Railways   for  reconstructing  the  Accounts staff, as per instructions extracted below:      "4.   The question regarding number      of posts to be placed in the higher      scales of  pay has  been under  the      consideration of the Government and      it has  now been  decided that  the      ratio of  number of posts in higher      and lower  scales in  the organised      Accounts  cadres   as  well  as  in      Accounts Wing  of the  IA&AD may be      as follows :-      i)    Section  Officer (SG)     Rs.      2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200  80%      ii)   Section Officer           Rs.      1640-60-2600-EB-75-2900  20%      iii) Section  Accountant        Rs.      1400-40-1600-50-2300-EB-      60-2600   80%      iv)   Junior Accountant         Rs.      1200-30-1560-EB-40-2040  20%        The   designations  in  different      Organised Accounts  cadres  may  be      different. In  such cases also, the      pay structure on these lines may be      decided.      5. These  orders take  effect  from      1.4.1987.  The   respective   cadre      controlling  authorities   may  now      take necessary  action to prescribe      criteria  for  appointment  to  the      higher functional  grades requiring      promotion  to  the  grades  of  Rs.      1400-40-1600-50-2300-EB-60-2600 and      Rs. 2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200  on the      same lines  as  adopted  for  Audit      stream    and    thereafter    take      necessary action to implement these      orders."      As seen  above the  restructuring of the Accounts cadre in  the  Railways  had  accordingly  been  carried  out  and relevant section  of the  staff granted  the scale of pay of Rs.  2000-3200/-  which  is  same  as  in  CAG  office.  The appellants, however,  submit that  not only  that they  have been granted  the same  pay scales  but they  should also be accorded  parity   in  group   classification   with   their counterparts  in   CAG  and  CGDA  organisations.  This  the respondents are not prepared to grant.      Promotion to  the level  of Section Officer (Accounts), Inspector of  Store Accounts,  Inspector of Station Accounts with the  Railways from  Upper Division Clerks etc. is after passing an  examination conducted  by the Railways and it is admitted that  the standard  of examination is comparable to that  obtaining   in  the   SAS  examination  of  the  Audit

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 12  

Department of CAG. However, it is submitted that standard of examination  alone   cannot  be   the  sole   criterion  for determining parity  in all  respects.  As  seen  above,  the Commission had also gone into the question of classification of posts  in the  Central  Government  in  detail  and  made certain  recommendation   for  classification  of  posts  in various groups.  But then  the Commission  also  recommended that  where   there  were   deviations  of   the  nature  as recommended by  it, the  existing classification  for  those posts might  continue and  the  Government  might,  however, review  the   classification  in  such  cases  as  and  when necessary. The  Pay Commission  accepted  the  rationale  of certain deviations  from the  classifications recommended by it.      The respondents  have  submitted  that  the  matter  of classification of  posts in the Railways was examined in the context of  the recommendations of the Pay Commission but it was decided  to leave the existing classification untouched. Accordingly the  posts carrying  pre-revised scales  of  Rs. 700-900/- and  Rs. 650-960/-  were granted replacement scale of Rs.  2000-3200/- and  the posts carrying the scale of Rs. 840-1040/- were  allotted the replacement scale of Rs. 2375- 3500/- and  all these posts continued to be in Group ‘C’ 80% of the posts of Section Officer (Accounts) which were in the pre-revised scale  of Rs.  500-900/- were given the upgraded revised scale of Rs. 2000-3200/- and classified as Group ‘C’ on  par   with  other  posts  which  had  been  granted  the replacement scale  of Rs.  2000-3200/-. It  was,  therefore, submitted  that   within  the   Railways,   there   was   no discrimination against  any  section  of  employees.  It  is submitted the  that Group  ‘B’ posts  in the Railways of all departments are  placed in  the scale of Rs. 2000-3200/- but in the  Account Department  it is  in the scale of Rs. 2375- 3500/-. It  is then submitted that appointments to Group ‘B’ posts in  the Railways  are made  in accordance with certain prescribed selection  procedure. The  selection  process  is different in  the Accounts  Department and other departments in the Railways. The procedure followed in other departments of Central  Government, according to the respondents, is not relevant as  each department  is  free  to  evolve  its  own procedure for  promotion  etc.  to  suit  its  requirements. Respondents also  submitted that,  while  contradicting  the plea of  the appellants,  Section  Officers  in  CAG,  CGDA, Railways and  Departments of Post and Telecommunications did not form  an organised  All India  Service  and,  therefore, their pay,  status, promotional prospects have to be decided keeping in  view the  peculiar  and  special  needs  of  the different departments. Respondents denied that there was any violation of fundamental rights of the Accounts employees of the Railways  in not  according Group ‘B’ status though they were placed in the revised scale of Rs. 2000-3200/- as their counterparts  in  CAG  and  CGDA.  The  Tribunal  considered various aspects  of the  matter  and  also  reports  of  the earlier Pay  Commissions  and  rejected  the  claim  of  the appellants. This is how the Tribunal examined the matter :      "It will be observed from the above      that  the   intent   of   the   Pay      Commission’s observation  regarding      parity has been made in the context      of    pay    scales.    The    said      recommendation does  not  allude to      the  status   and  the  avenues  of      promotion etc.  In  fact,  the  Pay      Commission    has    stated    that      promotion from the functional grade

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 12  

    shall   be       "as   per   normal      procedure".     Obviously,      the      applicants  have   in  their   mind      horizontal  relativity   with   the      audit staff  when  they  articulate      about traditional  parity but  this      is not  supported by  the  relevant      recommendation    of     the    Pay      Commission. Railways  are a  multi-      disciplined  organisation  and  for      them the internal relativities both      the vertical  and horizontal within      the  organisation   are   of   much      greater import and relevance than a      horizontal  comparison   within  an      outside   organisation/agency.   In      fact, no  case has  been  made  out      before us  to establish  that there      has always  been a  complete parity      between the  Audit  staff  and  the      Railways Accounts  staff. Group ‘C’      officers in  the  Railway  Accounts      staff have always been subjected to      a  more   rigorous  selection   for      promotion to  Group  ‘B’  than  has      been the  case in other departments      e.g. C&AG,  CGDA etc.  Besides,  as      said  earlier,   the  Railways  are      multi-disciplined    and     multi-      dimensional organisation.  This  is      not the  case either in the case of      C&AG or in the case of organisation      of CGDA etc. The Railways cannot be      expected to blindly follow the path      followed       by       "inclusive"      organisations.  Compared  to  C&AG,      the   Railways    are   ‘exclusive’      organisation,   being    a    multi      disciplined  one.  Besides  to  our      mind, there has never been complete      parity between  the  Railway  staff      and the  Audit/other Accounts staff      in the  other  departments  and  as      observed earlier, nor any such case      has been  made out.  For  instance,      the    Railway    employees    have      traditionally enjoyed and zealously      protected     certain      benefits      exclusively available to them which      are  denied   not  only   to  other      Accounts establishments but also to      the generally of Central Government      employees. The  traditional  parity      has been  only in the pay scale and      this has been re-established w.e.f.      1.4.1987. Even  the parity  in  the      pay scale  is a  later  development      consequent to  broad banding of the      scale  of  pay  by  respective  Pay      Commissions.      In the  case before  us it  is  the      Railway  SAS   employees  who   are      seeking to be equated in the matter      of  status,  promotional  procedure      etc. with  the Section  Officers in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 12  

    the  C&AG’s   office   and   CGDA’s      office. The  offices  of  CGDA  and      C&AG  are   not   multi-disciplined      organisations  like  the  Railways.      The  internal   relativity  in  the      Railways  would  thus  carry  great      weightage    with    the    Railway      Administration when  they  consider      equation with outside organisations      of a  section  of  the  staff  from      within the  organisation. The total      parity with  outside  organisations      would    disturb    the    internal      relativities   which    have   far-      reaching implications both positive      and negative.  The negative aspects      of total  parity cannot  be brushed      under  the   carpet.  Further   the      procedure   for    promotion    are      designed  to   suit   the   special      requirements of  the organisational      structure. The Railways have always      followed a  more rigorous selection      procedure, as  group  ‘B’  Accounts      Officer  have  also  per  force  to      acquire reasonable knowledge of the      functioning    of     the     other      disciplines within  the Railway  to      become  effective   in  their   job      besides the  accounts and financial      function. We do not, therefore, see      any  merit   in  the  petition  for      diluting the procedure of selection      to Group  ‘B’ posts followed on the      Railways which  has stood  the test      of time."      We are  of the  view that  the  Tribunal  has  taken  a correct view  of the  matter. As  noted  above,  the  Fourth Central Pay  Commission had  recommended that  the  existing system of  classification of posts in various departments of the Central  Government may  be continued  and had indicated the corresponding  pay limits  in the revised pay structure. The Commission  had also  recommended  that  the  Government might, however,  review the  classification in such cases as and when necessary. The Railways reviewed the whole position and taking  into consideration various aspects of the matter decided that  the existing  system of  classification as  in vogue in  the Railways  to continue. The circumstances which went into such consideration have been enumerated as under:      "i)    On  the  Railways  posts  in      scale of  Rs. 2000-3200/-  and  Rs.      2375-3500/- are  merely off  shoots      of restructuring  and do  not in  a      real sense  constitute a  Group ‘B’      cadre either from the point of view      of responsibilities or duties.      ii)  Adoption of the pay limits for      classification implemented  on  the      civil side  would result in placing      a very  large number  of  posts  in      scales   Rs.1640-2900/-,   Rs.2000-      3200/- and Rs. 2375-3500/- in Group      ‘B’.   This   would   include   the      categories   like   Mail   Drivers,      Office    Superintendents,     Lab.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 12  

    Supdts.,  Stenographers,  Teachers,      Sr.   Console   Operators,   Asstt,      Programmers,      Chief       Power      Controller,  Chief   Traction  Loco      Foreman  ‘A’.  Fuel  Inspector  ‘B’      Driving      Inspector,       Power      Controllers,   Loco   Foeman   (B),      Traction  Loco  Controller,  Asstt.      Loco    Foreman     (R),    Driving      Inspector,     Section      officer      Accounts,  Inspector   of   Station      Accounts, Inspector  of  Travelling      Accounts,  Matrons,  Radiographers,      Pharmacist, Inspector in PRF, etc.      iii)   Nearly 32000  posts in scale      of  Rs.2000-3200/-  and  Rs.  2375-      3500/- would  become entitled for 3      additional 1st  A passes per annum,      besides eligibility  to  additional      luggage on these passes.      iv)   On    the    Railways,    all      appointments to  Gr. ‘B’  posts are      made on  the basis  of a  selection      consisting of a written examination      viva-voce and assessment of records      which is  not the case on the civil      side. The  promotional avenues  and      methodology  would   have   to   be      reviewed.      v)   At    present,    Group    ‘B’      constitutes the  managerial  level,      exercising control  over  staff  in      the   lower    grades.    If    the      classification norms  on the  civil      side is adopted on the  Railways it      would lead  to drastic upheavals in      the hierarchial structure.      vi) Group ‘B’ officers are entitled      to Stenographic Assistance in Scale      of Rs.  1200-2040/-  on  a  sharing      basis, on the Railways. Increase in      the number of Group ‘B’ posts would      lead   to    the   need    for    a      corresponding   increase   in   the      number  of  Stenographers  in  this      scale.      vii)   It would  lead  to  problems      regarding  accommodation   on   the      Railways."      Classification of  posts into  gazetted or  nongazetted cannot be  done purely  on the basis of scales of pay. There can be  many criteria; administrative, procedural and others which have to be taken into consideration by the authorities concerned before deciding on the classification. Admittedly, Railways   have a  number of  posts of   different operative categories  in  department  such  a  Operating,  Mechanical, Civil, Electrical,  S&T etc.  where field operators may have scales of  pay of  Rs.2000-3200/- or  Rs. 2375-3500/-  which have been classified as Group ‘C’ only. As such it cannot be said that  there is  any discrimination  against the Account staff in the scale of Rs. 2000-3200/-.      In Associate  Banks Officers Association vs. State Bank of India  & Ors.  [JT 1997 (8) S.C. 422] employees unions of various banks  which were  subsidiaries of the State Bank of India under the State Bank of India (Subsidiaries Bank) Act,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 12  

1959  claimed   higher  terminal  benefits,  better  medical facilities and  extra increments  in their  pay-scale on the ground that  such benefits  were available  to the employees holding equivalent  or similar  ranks in  the State  Bank of India. This Court declined to give relief to the petitioners and said  that "equal  pay for  equal work  for both men and women"   was one of the Directive Principles of State Policy laid down  in Article  39(d) of  the Constitution  had  been applied in  cases of  irrational discrimination  in the pay- scales of  workers doing  the same  or similar  work  in  an organisation and that it had not been applied when there was a basis or an explanation for the difference. The Court said that extending  this principle  to compare pay-scales in one organisation with  pay-scales in  another organisation would be stretching  of  the  doctrine  even  though  between  the employees doing  comparable work  and if at all it had to be applied it  must be  done with  caution  lest  the  doctrine snaps. This  Court said  that many  ingredients go  into the shaping of  wage structure  in any  organisation and  that a simplistic approach,  granting higher  remuneration to other workers in  other organisations because another organisation had granted  them, might lead to undesirable results. In the present case  what we  find is that the appellants have been granted the same pay-scale as that given to the staff in the Indian Audit  and Accounts  Department. Their grievance here is that  they should  be given  the same  status viz., their post be  incorporated in  Group B post as is existing in the CAG and CGDA.      In State  of Punjab  and others  vs. Om Parkash Kaushal and others  (1996) 5  SCC 325  the State  Government granted uniform pay  scales to  the  teachers  employed  in  various privately managed  schools in  the State  of Punjab. The pay scales  were   similar  to  the  pay  scales  drawn  by  the Government teachers.  This was  in pursuance to Section 7 of the Punjab  Privately Managed  Recognised  School  Employees (Security of  Service) Act,  1979. There was no dispute that the pay  scales and dearness allowance which were being paid to the  private teachers  were not  less than what was being paid to the Government teachers holding corresponding posts. The private teachers however wanted that their conditions of service should  be same as that of Government teachers. This Court negatived  this plea and said that other conditions of service relating  to the  Government teachers  could not  be extended to private teachers.      In Central  Railway Audit  Staff Association and others vs. Director  of Audit, Central Railway and others 1993 Supp (3) SCC  458 the  employees belonging  to the  Office of the Comptroller and  Auditor General  of India,  working in  the Railway Audit  Department were Designated as Section Officer prior to  March 1, 1984. They got promotion from that day as Assistant Audit  Officers and  were designated  as  Officers Group B  Gazetted. On  the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission, pay scale of Assistant Audit Officer was revised to Rs.  2000-3200 from  January 1,  1986. The  grievance  of these Assistant  Audit Officers   Group  B Gazetted was that the Indian  Railways should  not have  denied  to  them  the benefits, such  as, issue  of Railway  Travel Passes/P.T.Os, allotment of  Railway Quarters,  giving of  accommodation in Rest Houses/Retiring  Rooms, taking  of family members while on tour,  etc.- which  benefits were  admissible to  Group B Gazetted Officers  of the  Railways.  It  was  submitted  on behalf of  the Railways  that the  fact that  the  Assistant Audit Officers in Railway Audit Department, on the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200 but designated by the CAG of India as Group B Gazetted  was not  sufficient to  equate them with Group B

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

Officers of the Railways who held higher posts with scale of pay  of   Rs.  2000-3500  and  that  if  the  Railways  gave facilities and  privileges to  the Assistant Audit Officers, who were  not Railway  servants, treating them on a par with railway servants  of Group  ‘B’, they  could find  no  valid reason to deny such facilities and privileges to the railway servants holding  posts on  the pay  scale of Rs. 2000-3200. The Railway  further said  that if  that had to be done, the Indian  Railways   would  be   required  to  extend  similar facilities and  privileges to  all railway servants who hold posts in  the Indian  Railways on  the scale  of pay  of Rs. 2000-3200 which meant extending the benefits to thousands of railway servants  involving heavy  financial burden  on  the Railways. This  Court found  that the  contentions raise  on behalf of  the Assistant Audit Officers were unacceptable in that, if  accepted, they would lead to unjust results of the Indian Railways conferring special privileges and facilities upon persons  belonging to foreign department of Comptroller and Auditor  General of  India while  their own servants who held equivalent  posts on  the same  scale of  pay would  be denied such privileges and facilities. The Court, therefore, found substance  in the  submissions made  on behalf  of the Railways.      Thus, the  simplistic solution to classification merely based  on   the  scales  of  pay  might  lead  into  various complications and  might lead  to administrative hierarchial imbalances  in   any  particular   organisation.   Selection procedure for  appointment to  a particular  group post  and requirements of a department for classification of posts are valid  considerations  and  any  disturbance  thereof  would certainly lead  to compounding  of problems.  We, therefore, cannot subscribe to the view that the scale of pay alone can be the  criteria for  classification of  posts.  Respondents have given  valid and  justifiable reasons  as  to  why  the Account staff  in the scale of Rs. 2000-3200/- cannot be put at par  with their counterparts in CAG of CGDA in respect of putting the  Account staff  in Group ‘B’ posts merely on the basis of parity of pay scales.      There is no merit in this appeal. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed with costs.