http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: M.P. SINGH, DY. SUPDT. OF POLICE C.B.I. & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/01/1987

BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) BENCH: VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J) SINGH, K.N. (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR  485            1987 SCR  (1)1014  1987 SCC  (1) 592        JT 1987 (1)   146  1987 SCALE  (1)47  CITATOR INFO :  R          1987 SC 490  (10)  R          1988 SC1291  (10)

ACT:     Equality  clause--Equal pay for equal work--Whether  the principle   applies  to  the  payment  of  Special  Pay   as well--Direct  Recruits (Non--deputationists) in  the  C.B.I. paid lesser special pay from Sub-Inspectors to Dy. Suptd. of Police   cadre  than  the  deputationists  from  the   State cadre--Whether discriminatory and offends Article 14 of  the Constitution.

HEADNOTE:     There are two classes of officials amongst those who are holding  the posts of Sub-Inspectors, Inspectors and  Deputy Superintendents of Police in the Central Bureau of  Investi- gation namely (i) who are directly recruited and (ii)  those who have been drawn from various State cadres on  deputation basis.  The deputationists are paid Deputation Allowance  as compensation  for  the  temporary  displacement  from  their parent cadres occasioned by their deputation to the  Central Bureau  of Investigation. Pursuant to the recommendation  of the Third Pay Commission as accepted by the Central  Govern- ment  both the Direct recruits and "deputationists"  in  the rank  of Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors were paid equal  rate of  Special Pay from 1.7.73, while the  Dy.  Superintendents were  not  paid anything. Both the direct recruits  and  the deputationists  posted  in  one of the  Central  Units  were granted Special Pay considering the special nature of duties of    investigating    officers,   by   its    letter    No. 203/13/76--AUD--II  dated  21.6.1976. But  the  Special  Pay granted  to  the deputationists were more in all  the  three categories.  Having failed to get the disparity in the  pay- ment  of Special Pay set aright at the  departmental  level, the  aggrieved  direct recruits  (non  deputationists)  have approached  the  Supreme  Court for  justice  through  their petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution. Allowing the petitions, the Court,     HELD:  It  is well settled by several decisions  of  the Supreme Court that in order to pass the test of  permissible classification  of persons belonging to the same class  into

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

groups for purposes of differential treatment two conditions must  be fulfilled, namely, that the classification must  be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes 1015 persons who are grouped together from others left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational relation  to the  object  sought to be achieved by the law  which  brings about  discrimination  between  the  two  groups.  [1017G-H; 1018A]     The Special Pay that was being paid to all the  officers in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors. Inspectors and Deputy Super- intendents  of Police in the Central Investigating Units  of the  Central Bureau of Investigation has nothing to do  with any  compensation for which the deputationists may be  enti- tled  either on the ground of their richer experience or  on the  ground of their displacement from their parent  depart- ments  in  the various States, but it relates  only  to  the arduous nature of the duties that is being performed by  all of them irrespective of the fact whether they belong to  the category  of  the  ’deputationists’ or to  the  category  of ’non-deputationists’. That being the position, the classifi- cation  of the officers working in the said cadres into  two groups,  namely, deputationists and  non-deputationists  for paying different rates of Special Pay does not pass the test of  classification permissible under Articles 14 and  16  of the Constitution of India since it does not bear any ration- al relation to the object of classification. [1022D-F]     The  Court  directed the Central Government to  pay  the nondeputationists  who  have been working in the  cadres  of Sub-Inspectors,  Inspectors  and Deputy  Superintendents  of Police  in  the Central Investigating Units of  the  Central Bureau  of  Investigation Special Pay at the same  rates  at which the deputationists are being paid with effect from the date from which the decision contained in the letter of  the Government   of  India,  Cabinet  Secretariat  beaming   No. 203/13/76-AVD.II  dated 21.6.1976 came into force upto  date and to pay hereafter Special Pay to all the officers  (depu- tationists and non-deputationists) in the said cadres at the same rates.) [1022G-H; 1023A-B]

JUDGMENT:     ORIGINAL   JURISDICTION: Writ  Petition   (Civil)   Nos. 13097-13 176 Of 1984 (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India). M.S. Ganesh for the Petitioners.     V. Kanth, Ms. Halida Khatun, C.V. Subba Rao and N.S. Das Bahl for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 1016     VENKATARAMIAH, J. The petitioners in these petitions, 80 in  number. are employees of the Central Government  working in  the  Central Bureau of Investigation. Some of  them  are holding the posts of Sub-Inspectors, some are Inspectors and the  remaining are the Deputy Superintendents of  Police  in the  Central  Investigating Units of the Central  Bureau  of Investigation.  There are two classes of  officials  amongst those   who  are  holding  the  posts   of   Sub-Inspectors, Inspectors  and Deputy Superintendents of Police. The  first class  of  those officials to which the  petitioners  belong consists  of those who have been recruited directly  to  the Central  Bureau  of  Investigation.  They  are   hereinafter referred  to  as ’non-deputationists’. The  other  class  of officials  in those cadres consists of those who  have  been

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

drawn  from  various  State  cadres.  They  are  hereinafter referred to as ’deputationists.     In  this case the dispute relates to the  discrimination that  has been brought about by the Central  Government  re- garding  the Special Pay payable to the two groups of  offi- cers,  namely,  ’deputationists’  and  ’non-deputationists’. While  a Deputy Superintendent of Police who belongs to  the category of ’deputationists’ is getting Rs. 150 per month by way of Special Pay, a Deputy Superintendent of Police who is a  non-deputationist gets Rs. 100 per month as Special  Pay. Similarly while an Inspector belonging to the former catego- ry  gets  Rs.  125 per month as Special  Pay,  an  Inspector belonging  to  the latter category gets Rs.75 per  month  as Special  Pay  and  while a Sub-Inspector  belonging  to  the former  category  gets Rs. 100 per month by way  of  Special Pay,  a Sub-Inspector belonging to the latter category  gets Rs.50  per month. The petitioners, who  are  non-deputation- ists,  claim that they should also be paid the same  Special Pay  which the deputationists are getting with  effect  from the  date on which the deputationists commenced to draw  the Special Pay at higher rates.     The  two groups of officers, referred to above  are  all working in the 14 Branches of the Central Bureau of Investi- gation  which are called Central Investigating Units. It  is not  disputed  that  the two sets of  officers,  namely  the ’non-deputationists’  and the ’deputationists’ in the  ranks of Sub-Inspectors, Inspectors and Deputy Superintendents  of Police discharge the same functions, duties and responsibil- ities in the various Central Investigating Units. They  have to travel to different places for purposes of  investigation into  the several cases entrusted to them. The  Special  pay that  is being paid to the deputationists is in addition  to the Deputation Allowance paid to them which is not  admissi- ble  to the non-deputationists. The Deputation Allowance  is paid to the 1017 deputationists  as compensation for the temporary  displace- ment from their parent cadres occasioned by their deputation to the Central Bureau of Investigation. At present a  Deputy Superintendent  of Police who is on deputation gets Rs.  150 per  month as Deputation Allowance, an Inspector who  is  on deputation  gets Its. 125 per month as Deputation  Allowance and  a Sub-Inspector who is on deputation gets Rs.  100  per month  as Deputation Allowance. It is also alleged  that  in the non Central Investigating Units of the Central Bureau of Investigation the rates of Special Pay paid to the  officers working  in the three cadres of  Sub-Inspectors,  Inspectors and  Deputy Superintendents of Police are the same  both  in the  case of deputationists and non-deputationists,  but  in the  case of Central Investigating Units, however, to  which the  petitioners belong the deputationists in all the  three ranks  get Special Pay at higher rates as stated  above.  It would  also appear that between June, 1976 and August,  1979 the Deputy Superintendents of Police belonging to the  cate- gory  of non-deputationists were totally denied the  Special Pay of Rs. 150 per month which was being given to the Deputy Superintendents  of  Police  who are on  deputation.  It  is contended by the petitioners that the denial, of the Special pay at the same rates at which. the deputationists are being paid  amounts  to  violation of Articles 14 and  16  of  the Constitution of India.     In  answer to the above claim of the petitioners  it  is stated  on behalf of the Central Government in the  counter- affidavit filed by Shri R.S. Nagpal, Under Secretary to  the Government of India, Ministry of Home  Affairs   (Department

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

of Personnel  and  Administrative Reforms) that because  the State  Governments had revised scales of pay of their  staff including  the  State Police from  different  dates  merging whole  or substantial portion of the dearness allowance  and because  the  dearness allowance and the  structure  of  pay scales  differed  widely from one State  to  another,  there could not be any comparison between the scales of pay of the deputationists and the scales of pay of the  non-deputation- ists which had been fixed on the recommendation of the Third Pay  Commission. It is further stated that the  Special  Pay was  being  paid to the deputationists at a higher  rate  to attract  officers of high caliber from their parent  depart- ments and the arduous nature of their duties.     It  is well-settled by several decisions of  this  Court that in order to pass the test of permissible classification of  persons  belonging  to the same class  into  groups  for purposes  of differential treatment two conditions  must  be fulfilled,  namely, that the classification must be  founded on  an intelligible differentia which distinguishes  persons who  1018 are  grouped together from others left out of the group  and that  that differentia must have a rational relation to  the object  sought to be achieved by the law which brings  about discrimination between the two groups. The Deputation Allow- ance  which  is paid to the deputationists  with  which  the petitioners  have  no quarrel compensates  the  difficulties which  the deputationists may encounter on account of  their displacement from their parent departments. The Special Pay, however,  is  not  actually paid as  compensation  for  such displacement. This is quite evident from the recent proposal which  was  submitted to the FOurth Pay  Commission  by  the Government of India. it reads thus: "Considering  special  nature  of  duties  of  Investigating Officers in Central Branches and the fact that they were  to remain  on extensive tours spreading about 20 days a  month, the rate of special pay for deputationist officers only  was raised by Rs.50 p.m. for S.Is, Inspectors and Dy. Ss.P. They get special pay at the following rates:         Dy.S.P .....  Rs. 150         Inspector  ....  Rs. 125         Sub-Inspector  .....  Rs. 100           There has been a demand that departmental officers posted  in Central Branches should also be entitled  to  the same  amount  of enhanced special pay which has  been  sanc- tioned  to  the deputationists. It is considered  that  this demand  is genuine and the Government had desired it  should be projected before the Fourth Pay Commission."     It is clear from the foregoing proposal submitted to the Fourth Pay Commission that the Special Pay was being paid at higher  rates  to the deputationists not  because  of  their displacement from the parent departments but as compensation for  the arduous nature of the duties performed by  them  as Investigating Officers in the Central Branches which includ- ed  extensive  tours spreading over about 20  days  a  month which  they had to undertake. It is not in dispute that  the nature  of  the duties performed by  the  deputationists  as Investigating  Officers is the same as the nature of  duties performed  by the non-deputationists as Investigating  Offi- cers.  It  is significant that the said proposal  which  was submitted perhaps during the pendency of this Writ  Petition does not 1019 refer  to  the difference in the rates of pay  and  dearness allowance  which the deputationists were getting as  members

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

belonging to the Police departments of different States  nor does  it state that the Special Pay was being paid  for  at- tracting  talent  from the State Services.  The  petitioners have  alleged that the non-deputationists holding the  posts of Sub-Inspectors, Inspectors and Deputy Superintendents  of Police are highly qualified persons and are equally talented and  this allegation is not properly traversed in the  coun- ter-affidavit.     It  is seen that pursuant to the recommendation  of  the Third  Pay Commission as accepted by the Central  Government both  the  nondeputationists and the deputationists  in  the ranks  of Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors were being paid  the same  Special Pay with effect from January 1, 1973. On  that occasion  the  Deputy Superintendents of  Police  of  either category were not granted any Special pay. By its letter No. 203/13/76-AVD-II  dated 21.6, 1976 the Government  of  India intimated the Director, Central Bureau of Investigation  its decision  that  the  Police officers on  deputation  to  the Central Bureau of Investigation as Deputy Superintendents of Police,  Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors and posted in one  of the  Central Units had been granted Special Pay at the  fol- lowing rates with effect from the date of issue of the  said order:       Dy. S. P  .....               Rs. 150 p.m.       Inspector      ....           Rs. 125 p.m.       Sub-Inspector  ....           Rs. 100 p.m. By  the aforesaid decision dated 21.6.1976 the Central  Gov- ernment disturbed the existing parity of Special Pay between non-deputationists and deputationists which it had  accepted pursuant to the recommendation of the Third Pay  Commission, as stated above, and commenced the discrimination complained of  in this case. The Government Order dated 21.6. 1976  did not give any reason as to why in the case of the deputation- ists  alone  there was an increase in the rates  of  Special Pay, but it is clear from its letter written on 6.7.1976  by Shri D. Sen, Director of the Central Bureau of Investigation to  the Superintendents of Police of the Central Units  that the  Higher  Special  Pay had been sanctioned  in  order  to compensate to a certain extent the arduous nature of the job which  the Investigating Officers had to perform. He  stated in the course of the letter thus: "Recently   .....  we have been able to get  higher  special pay sanctioned for all the Investigating officers posted in 1020 Central  Units.  This should compensate them  to  a  certain extent for the arduous nature of the job which they have  to perform in a Central Unit  ....  "     A reading of that letter does not, however, suggest that the  Director had noticed that the rates of Special Pay  had been increased only in the case of deputationists and not in the case of non-deputationists. By its letter dated 2.2.1978 Shri P.C. Sharma, who was then working as Sub-Inspector (now Inspector  and  one of the Petitioners herein)  submitted  a representation to the Director requesting that he might also be  granted  enhanced rate of Special Pay at  par  with  the deputationist  Sub-Inspectors posted in Central  Units  with retrospective effect. He pointed out that he had been  work- ing  in one of the Central Units and that he had  been  per- forming the same duties as any of the deputationist officers in  the  Central Units. He further stated that the  job  re- quirements in the Central Units did not make any distinction between a deputationist and a non-deputationist  Sub-Inspec- tor  and  that often it had been found that  assignments  of complicated nature had been entrusted to the non-deputation- ists. Similar representations were made by other Sub-Inspec-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

tors  and  Inspectors who are petitioners before  us.  Along with his letter dated 8.2.1978 the Superintendent of Police, Central  Bureau  of Investigation forwarded to  the  Central Government  eight  such  representations for  the  grant  of Special Pay at the enhanced rates. On 22.2. 1978 the  Minis- try of Home Affairs intimated the Superintendent of  Police, Central  Bureau of Investigation that the question of  grant of Special Pay to the non-deputationist Inspectors and  Sub- Inspectors of the Central Bureau of Investigation working in the Central Branches at the same rates at which it was  then admissible to the deputationist officers of the  correspond- ing  ranks had already been taken up with the Department  of Personnel  & Administrative Reforms and that the  Government decision in that regard was Still awaited. On 27.8.1979  the Government  of  India  sanctioned with  immediate  effect  a Special  Pay of Rs. 100 per month to  the  non-deputationist Deputy  Superintendents of Police in the Central  Bureau  of Investigation.  The  question of maintaining parity  in  the matter of payment of Special Pay between the  deputationists and the non-deputationists was taken up for consideration at the  meeting of the CBI Staff Council presided over  by  the then  Home Minister Shri Zail Singh. The Home  Minister  as- sured the Staff Council that the request of the  non-deputa- tionists would be considered sympathetically by the  Govern- ment and an early decision would be taken. The said question was again raised at the meeting of the Staff Council on  the 30th October, 1982 and at the meeting held on 1021 17.1. 1983. On 11.27.1983 the Home Department again wrote to the  Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of  Investiga- tion  that  the question of granting of Special Pay  to  the non-deputationists in the Central Bureau of Investigation at the  rates  applicable  to deputationists  was  still  under consideration  with  the Government and  that  its  decision would  be  communicated as and when it was taken.  Again  on 26.3.1984 the Home Department addressed a letter to all  the Superintendents of Police on the subject of Special Pay.  It reads thus:                 No. A.- 110 19/6/80-IWSU                    Government of India                 Ministry of Home Affairs              Department of Personnel & A.R.              C.B.I, Kotah House Hutments,                         New Delhi Dated 26.3.84 To The Superintendents of Police, Central Bureau of  Investiga- tion, All Central Units located in Delhi      Subject: Grant of special pay of the enhanced rates  to the  non-deputationist  Dy. SS. P., Inspectors  and  S.  Is. working in the Central Branches. Sir,          I  have the honour to say that of late a number  of representations  have been received from departmental  offi- cers  of  the level of S.Is. to Dy. Ss. P.  working  in  the Central  Units, requesting for special pay at par  with  the deputationist officers. I am to inform your that a  proposal has  already been sent to the Government requesting them  to sanction higher rates of special pay for  non-deputationists Dy.  Ss.  P.,  Inspectors and S. Is. while  working  in  the Central  Units  of C.B.I. The decision when  taken  will  be communicated  to all concerned. You are requested to  inform all departmental officers suitably in the matter. Yours faithfully, Sd

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

                             (R.S.  Nagpal)  Administrative Officer (E) C.B.I." 1022     It  is thus seen that at no point of time there was  any suggestion  by the Government of India that the  non-deputa- tionists  were not entitled to the same treatment  with  the deputationists  as regards Special Pay. On the  other  hand. the  letter  addressed to the Fourth Pay Commission  by  the Home  Department which is referred to above  clearly  stated that:  "There  has been demand  that  departmental  officers posted  in Central Branches should also be entitled  to  the same  amount  of enhanced special pay which has  been  sanc- tioned to deputationists. It is considered that this  demand is  genuine  and  the Government had desired  it  should  be projected  before the Fourth Pay Commission". There  appears to be thus no rational explanation for the Government taking up a contrary stand in the counter-affidavit filed before us while it had accepted that the demand made by the  petition- ers,  who were the departmental officers posted in the  Cen- tral Units, was a genuine one.     From  the foregoing discussion it emerges that the  Spe- cial  pay  that was being paid to all the  officers  in  the cadre of Sub-Inspectors, Inspectors and Deputy  Superintend- ents  of  Police in the Central Investigating Units  of  the Central  Bureau of Investigation has nothing to do with  any compensation  for which the deputationists may  be  entitled either  on the ground of their richer experience or  on  the ground  of their displacement from their parent  departments in  the various States, but it relates only to  the  arduous nature of the duties that is being performed by all of  them irrespective of the fact whether they belong to the category of  the  ’deputationists’ or to the category  of  the  ’non- deputationists’. That being the position. the classification of the officers working in the said cadres into two  groups, namely,  deputationists  and non-deputationists  for  paying different  rates  of Special Pay does not pass the  test  of classification  permissible under Articles 14 and 16 of  the Constitution  of India since it does not bear  any  rational relation to the object of classification.     In  these circumstances,. it is difficult to accept  the stand of the Central Government justifying the discriminato- ry treatment meted out to the non-deputationists as  regards payment of Special Pay.     We, therefore, direct the Central Government to pay  the nondeputationists  who  have been working in the  cadres  of Sub-Inspectors,  Inspectors  and Deputy  Superintendents  of Police  in  the Central Investigating Units of  the  Central Bureau  of  Investigation Special Pay at the same  rates  at which the deputationists are being paid with effect from the date from which the decision contained in the letter of the 1023 Government   of  India,  Cabinet  Secretariat  bearing   No. 203/13/76AVD.II  dated 21.6.1976 came into force  upto  date and to pay hereafter Special Pay to all the officers  (depu- tationists and non-deputationists) in the said cadres at the same  rates.  The arrears of Special Pay payable  upto  date shall be paid within four months from today.       The Writ Petitions are accordingly allowed. No costs. S.R.                                         Petitions   Al- lowed 1024