http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 19  

PETITIONER: R.D. GUPTA & ORS. ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: LT. GOVERNOR. DELHI ADMN, & ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT07/08/1987

BENCH: NATRAJAN, S. (J) BENCH: NATRAJAN, S. (J) REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)

CITATION:  1987 AIR 2086            1987 SCR  (3) 808  1987 SCC  (4) 505        JT 1987 (3)   259  1987 SCALE  (2)226  CITATOR INFO :  RF         1989 SC  19  (27)  F          1990 SC 883  (7)  RF         1991 SC1173  (6)

ACT:    Civil  Services--Pay Scales--Rates recommended  for  DESU employees--Whether   can   be  made   applicable   to   NDMC employees-Ministerial  staff--All  sections--To  be  treated alike--Entitlement  to same pay scales--Civil  engineers  in Electricity  wing--Whether can claim parity with  electrical engineers.

HEADNOTE:      In the Union Territory of Delhi there are two main civic bodies viz. the New Delhi Municipal Committee and the  Delhi Municipal  Corporation. The NDMC was constituted  under  the Punjab Municipal Act, 1913 to discharge all civic  functions including supply of water and electricity in the area  fall- ing within its jurisdiction. The Delhi Municipal Corporation was constituted in pursuance of the Delhi Municipal Corpora- tion Act, 1957.     The  NDMC forming a compact unit, had divided its  civic work  into various departments. Besides technical staff,  it also  engaged  nontechnical staff such as  Municipal  staff, clerks etc. The non-technical staff constituted one  unified cadre,  liable  to transfer from one department  to  another with common seniority.     The set up of the MCD was, however, different consisting of three separate and independent wings viz. the  electrici- ty,  the general and the water, sewage and  disposal  wings. The electricity wing was designated as the Delhi Electricity Supply  Undertaking  and its employees were  governed  by  a separate  cadre and seniority list, Similarly,  the  general wing,  performing other general civic duties and  functions, and the third wing concerning with distribution of water and disposal of sewage etc.     To satisfy the demands of the employees of the MCD, NDMC etc.  the  Government accepted the  recommendations  of  the Third  Pay Commission. The New Delhi Municipal Committee  as well as the general wing of the Municipal Corporation, Delhi accepted the pay scales recommended by the Third Pay Commis-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 19  

sion. However, the tech- 809 nical  staff of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking  were  not satisfied and claimed higher scales of pay. The  Government, therefore, constituted a Committee known as the Shiv Shankar Committee to go into the question of revision of pay  scales etc.  of  the  technical staff of the  DESU.  The  Committee submitted its report in 1973. Subsequently, the DESU  agreed to revise the pay scales of the non-technical staff also  to the level recommended by the S.S. Committee.     The  New  Delhi Municipal Committee, by  its  Resolution dated  19.10.73, decided to give the benefit of the  revised scales to the technical and ministerial staff working in its electricity wing as, in its view, such staff were performing same or similar functions and duties performed by the  staff of DESU and hence parity should be maintained, and by  Reso- lution  dated 7.1.1974, it decided to give the benefit  with effect from 1.4.72.     Two  of the employees of the general wing filed  a  writ petition  before the High Court for quashing the  Resolution dated 7.1.1974 which sought to implement the earlier Resolu- tion  of 19.10.1973. The HighCourt-held that the  Resolution was discriminatory in nature, and restrained the implementa- tion  of the Resolution till the NDMC considered afresh  the question  of revision of pay scales for all sections of  the ministerial staff after giving an opportunity to them.     In compliance with the above directions, the NDMC passed a  revised Resolution dated 25.6.1975 treating all the  non- technical staff as equal and granting uniform pay scales  at the rates recommended by the Third Pay Commission and not at different  rates  for different wings. This  Resolution  was again  challenged  by some of the affected  members  of  the electricity wing before the High Court, which disposed it of on  the assurance given by the NDMC that the whole  position would be reviewed after giving all the parties including the ministerial staff of the electricity wing due notice of  the matter.     The Letters Patent Appeal, originally filed by the NDMC, and in which some of the affected employees of the electric- ity  wing  had got themselves impleaded as  appellants,  was allowed  and the judgment of the Single Judge was set  aside as  it had been rendered without all the  necessary  parties being before the Court. The Special Leave Petition filed  in the  Supreme Court by two staff members of the general  wing was dismissed in limine. The  NDMC, after giving opportunity to all sections  of  the emp- 810 loyees  to make their representation passed a Resolution  on 27.6.78  constituting  the electricity  wing  w.e.f.  1.5.78 composed of pump drivers, welders, carpenters, mechanics and 496  posts of ministerial staff, carrying scales of  pay  as per  the  S.S. Committee report and benefit of  exgratia  on DESU pattern, and treated these as ex-cadre posts and to  be filled  on  deputation basis on rotation, for  a  period  of three years in one spell.     Three  writ petitions were filed in the High Court  con- tending (a) that the ministerial staff should be treated  on par  with their counterparts in the electricity wing in  the matter  of  pay and allowances, (b) that, as  there  was  no difference between the civil and electrical engineers, civil engineers should be equated with the electrical engineers on DESU pattern, and (c) that since the employees of DESU  were being  paid ex-gratia amount the staff in the  general  wing should also be paid likewise.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 19  

   The  High Court, while upholding the order of the  NDMC, modified the placement of the ex-cadre posts in the  overall set-up.  It  evolved a Scheme according to  which  the  S.S. Committee scales were to be given only to those who opted to work in the electricity department and the posts were to  be filled  on  the basis of  seniority-cum-option.  It  further directed that since higher scales of pay was linked with the service  rendered  in the electricity wing,  S.S.  Committee scales  should  be paid to all those who had worked  in  the electricity  wing during the period subsequent to June  1975 till  30th May, 1982, that such payment would not amount  to discriminatory payment and that after the 30th May, 1982 the postings  should  be done in accordance  with  senioritycum- option formula. It also held that the civil engineers  could not seek parity with electrical engineers in the electricity wing  in  the matter of pay scales as the  junior  engineers (Civil)  had no common seniority with the  electrical  engi- neers  in  the  electricity wing, that the  posts  were  not interchangeable and that they could not draw comparison with the employment pattern of DESU because it was a separate and independent  entity unlike the electricity wing of the  NDMC and that the nature of the duties performed by the  electri- cal engineers and civil engineers was different.     Upholding  the  refusal of the NDMC to  grant  ex-gratia payment  to the staff of the general wing, it  directed  the NDMC  to treat the amount already paid "as one-time  special ad hoc payment not serving as a precedent." 811     In  the  appeals before this Court it was  contended  on behalf of the ministerial staff in the general wing that the electricity  wing was not a distinct and  indepen‘dent  unit entitled to have its own scales of pay, that the ministerial staff of the NDMC belonged to a unified cadre and the  staff members  were liable to transfer from one branch to  another and,  as  such, the NDMC could not create a cadre  within  a cadre  and  fix a different scale of pay for  those  in  the carved out cadre, that the nature of duties performed by the ministerial  staff in all the three units was more  or  less similar,  if not identical, and hence  the  well-established rule  of  equal pay for equal work should govern  the  staff members,  that  instead of restricting the payment  of  S.S. Committee pay scales to the 496 ex-cadre posts in the  elec- tricity  wing and directing the NDMC to fill up those  posts on the basis of seniority-cum-option, the High Court  should have directed the NDMC to give the S.S. Committee pay scales to  all  the members of the ministerial staff and  also  pay ex-gratia  payment and should not have directed the NDMC  to treat  the adhoc payment as one time special  adhoc  payment and refrain from recovering the said amount.     The  NDMC, in turn. filed two appeals against  the  High Court  judgment  directing  the payment  at  S.S.  Committee scales for the period from June 1975 to May, 1982 and  fill- ing  up  the ministerial posts in the  electricity  wing  on seniority-cum-option basis instead of a three years  deputa- tion  basis on rotational system and payment of  arrears  of pay  etc. and for giving up the proceedings for recovery  of the  adhoc payment towards ex-gratia payment and  contending that  the  Government  or any State within  the  meaning  of Article  12  of the Constitution had a right  under  law  to create  new departments or new cadres with different  scales of pay and hence the appellants could not impugn the  action of  the NDMC in treating the ministerial staff in the  elec- trical  wing differently and giving them pay scales  as  per S.S. Committee Report.     On  behalf of some of the staff members in  the  general

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 19  

wing,  it was contended that since the NDMC  constituted  an integrated  unit with common fund, common budget  etc.,  the High  Court ought not to have sustained the payment  of  ex- gratia amount to only those persons working in the electric- ity  wing  and  water works wing and should  have  made  the payment applicable to all or to none.     In  the writ petition and appeal filed on behalf of  the Assistant  and  Junior Engineers (Civil), it  was  contended that  there  could not be any discrimination  between  civil engineers  and electrical engineers and since the NDMC  fol- lowed the pattern of scales of pay adopted by DESU 812 which  paid the Civil Engineers according to S.S.  Committee pay  scales  they were as much entitled  as  the  electrical engineers  to  be paid according to the S.S.  Committee  pay scales and also for payment of ex-gratia amount.     Allowing  the  appeals of the employees in  the  general wing  and  dismissing  the appeals and WP of  NDMC  and  the engineers (civil), this Court,     HELD:  1.1 All sections of the ministerial staff  should be  treated alike and all of them should be entitled to  the same  scales  of pay for the work of equal  nature  done  by them. [825C]     1.2 Merely because a member of the ministerial staff had been  given a posting in the electricity wing either due  to force  of circumstances or due to voluntary  preferment,  he cannot  stand  on a better or higher footing or  in  a  more advantageous  position than his counterparts in the  general wing. The ministerial staff in the NDMC constitute a unified cadre with a common recruitment policy, a common recruitment agency  a common seniority list, and the posts in the  three wings  are  inter-changeable  and  postings  are  made  from the common pool according to administrative convenience  and exigencies  of service and not on the basis of any  distinct policy or special qualification. [825B, 824H, 825A]     1.3 The only reason which prompted the NDMC to pass  the resolution  was  that since DESU had  implemented  the  S.S. Committee  pay  scales for its technical  and  non-technical staff,  the  NDMC should also follow suit in so far  as  its electricity  wing  is concerned. In doing so, the  NDMC  had failed  to  bear  in mind  several  distinguishing  features between its set up and the set up of the DESU and its  staff pattern and the staff pattern of DESU. [825G]     The NDMC is governed by the Punjab Municipal Act,  while the DESU is governed by the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.  The set-up of the NDMC is that of an integrated  unit comprising  all the three wings while the set-up  under  the Municipal Corporation Act of the MCD is that its three wings have  to  function as distinct and independent  units.  Such being the case, the DESU is a separate and independent  unit of MCD and constituted an independent body. The DESU has its own budget and consequently it has freedom without reference to  the other units. In contrast, the NDMC’s revenue is  the income  derived from all the three wings of it and  the  ex- penses are governed by a common 813 budget. Apart from the diference in the set-up, the ministe- rial staff in the NDMC are comprised in a unified cadre  and the  posts  in the three wings are transferable  and  inter- changeable  which is not so in the case of the staff of  the DESU. [825H, 826A]     1.4  There is no room whatsoever for treating the  elec- tricity  wing of the NDMC on par with the DESU and  adopting the pattern of pay scales implemented by DESU and the  deci- sion taken by the NDMC originally to place the non-technical

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 19  

staff  in the electricity wing on a higher footing and  give them  alone the S.S. Committee pay scales cannot be  legally sustained. The action of the NDMC clearly suffered from  the vice of arbitrariness and discrimination. [826B-D]     2.1 The NDMC has no legal ground to project any justifi- cation of its action in making the posts in the  electricity wing  as ex-cadre posts and giving the benefit of S.S.  Com- mittee  pay scales only to persons serving in  those  posts. [828A]     2.2  The resolution only sought to provide all the  mem- bers  of the staff the benefit of the higher scales  of  pay for  a period of three years at some point of time in  their service provided they opted to serve in the electricity wing but  it  did not provide an answer for  the  criticism  that there was no justification to treat the ministerial staff in the  electricity wing on a higher footing than the  rest  of the staff and give them a higher scale of pay. [826F-G]     2.3  The proposal would perpetuate the imbalance in  the pay  scales  between  the different sections  of  the  staff working in the three wings of the NDMC. The system of  depu- tation  would lead to a long period of wait for  large  sec- tions of the staff before getting postings in the electrici- ty wing on deputation basis. The staff members would have to forego the higher scales of pay and come back to the  lesser scales  when the period of deputation was over. The  insist- ence  on  the  staff members being  entitled  to  deputation service in the electricity wing only if they exercised their option to work in that wing introduces an element of compul- sion  among the members comprised in a unified cadre.  These factors vitiate the revised propsoal of the NDMC to make 496 posts as ex-cadre and to fill them up on deputation basis by adopting a rotational cum option system. [826G-H, 827A-B]     3.  The  scheme formulated by the High Court  cannot  be sustained  or  accepted. The High Court, apart  from  laying itself  open  to the criticism that it had gone  beyond  its power in formulating the scheme, has 814 failed to provide for equal benefits for all the members  of the  ministerial  staff. If the electricity wing  is  to  be filled  up on the basis of seniority cum option,  those  who had  served  earlier  in the electricity wing  would  get  a distinct  advantage over the rest of the  ministerial  staff including  the senior members in the matter of  higher  pay- scales. Besides, the seniority cum option system would  give grater benefit to some and lesser benefit to some  depending upon  their age etc. Moreover, the insertion of  the  option clause would introduce an element of compulsion and make  it appear  that the staff working in the electricity wing  per- form  more  onerous and more skilled duties and  hence  they stand on a higher footing. It would also lead to packing all the senior members of the staff in the electricity wing  and denuding  the other two wings of the services of the  senior ministerial staff. [827C-F]     4.  Merely because some of the Civil engineers  are  as- signed  to do civil engineers’ work in the electricity  wing it  cannot  be  said that they are not  different  from  the electrical  engineers  and that they should be  paid  higher scales  of pay. In the matter of promotions etc.,  they  are governed  by the common seniority list maintained for  civil engineers  and their posting to the electricity wing  cannot make  them a separate class by themselves. They cannot  com- pare  themselves  with the civil engineers working  in  DESU because  that is a separate and distinct unit, and  all  the engineers working therein constitute a single unit. There is no disparity of scales of pay between civil engineers  work-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 19  

ing  in the electricity wing and those working in the  other wings. It cannot, therefore, be said that there is discrimi- nation in the matter of pay scales. [828H, 829A-C]     5.  The pattern of payment of ex-gratia payment  adopted by the MCD cannot have any binding force on the NDMC because the three units of the MCD are different and distinct  enti- ties whereas the three wings of the NDMC are inter-dependent wings of the integrated Municipal Committee. [830A]     6.1 In the absence of justifiable reasons of  compulsive nature,  the  payments  whether as salary  or  as  ex-gratia amounts  have  to  be on the same and equal  basis  and  not differently  for  the different wings. All  the  ministerial staff working in the NDMC are entitled to get pay scales  as per S.S. Committee report and are also entitled to be  given ex-gratia  payment likewise. The grant of S.S. Commitee  pay scales to only the staff working in the electricity wing  or the grant of ex-gratia payment to only the staff working  in the  electricity  wing and the water works  wing  cannot  be legally sustained as it suffers from the vice of discrimina- tion. [830B, 831C] 815     6.2  There should be uniformity not only in  payment  of S.S.  Committee pay scales and the ex-gratia payment to  the staff  working in all the wings or departments of  the  NDMC but  the payment should also be made from a date  common  to all. [831D]     [In  so  far  as payment of uniform salary  to  all  the ministerial  staff  as  per S.S. Committee  pay  scales  and payment  of  ex-gratia payment is concerned, the  NDMC  will give  effect  to this judgment with effect  from  1st  June, 1982.  The  amount involved should  be  distributed  equally amongst  all the ministerial staff and not confined  to  the ministerial staff of the electricity wing alone. In view  of the financial committment involved the NDMC is permitted  to pay  the  difference in scales of pay and  ex-gratia  amount between June 1, 1982 to July 31, 1987 in three equal instal- ments within a period of 15 months.] [831F-H]     Randhir  Singh  v.  Union of India, [1982]  3  SCR  298; Dhirendra  Chamoli  v. State of U.P., [1986] 1 SCC  637;  P. Ramachandra Iver v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 541, Reserve Bank  of India v.N.C. Paliwal, [1977] 1 SCR 377 and  Reserve Bank of India v.C.N. Sahasranaman, [1986] (Suppl.) SCC  143, referred to.

JUDGMENT:     CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2969  of 1983 etc.     From  the  Judgment and Order dated 17.5.  1982  of  the Delhi High Court in Civil Writ No. 1231 of 1979.     G. Ramaswamy,  Additional  Solicitor  General,   Govinda Mukhoty, Dr. Y.S. Chitale, V.D. Misra, M.K. Ramamurthi, N.C. Talukdar, Mrs. C.M. Chopra, B.P. Maheshwari, R.S. Rama, M.A. Krishnamurthy,  N.L.  Kakkar, Dr. Meera  Aggarwal  and  R.C. Misra for the appearing parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     NATARAJAN,  J. The genesis for these appeals by  special leave,  the  special leave petition and the  petition  under Article 32 of the Constitution is the grant of pay scales at the rates recommended by the Shiv Shanker Committee for  the employees  of  the Delhi Electricity Supply  Undertaking  to only  a  section of the ministerial staff of the  New  Delhi Municipal Committee who happened to be working in the  elec- tricity  wing  of the said Committee at the  relevant  time.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 19  

There  is  a good deal of factual  material  and  historical background to be covered 816 for a full and proper appreciation of the contentions of the appellants  and  the  petitioners on the one  hand  and  the respondents on the other in these appeals and petitions.  We will, therefore, concern ourselves with that exercise before taking up the contentions of the parties.     In the Union Territory of Delhi there are two main civic bodies viz. the New Delhi Municipal Committee (for short  of NDMC)  and  the Delhi Municipal Corporation (for  short  the MCD). The NDMC comprises of New Delhi as it existed prior to 1947  and  was constituted under the Punjab  Municipal  Act, 1911.  The  NDMC discharges all  civic  functions  including supply of water and electricity in the areas falling  within its  jurisdiction. In 1957 the Delhi  Municipal  Corporation Act  came to be enacted and in pursuance thereof, the  Delhi Municipal  Corporation was constituted  amalgamating  within itself a few other smaller civic bodies which existed  inde- pendent of the NDMC and the resultant position was that  the rest of the areas fell within the jurisdiction of the Munic- ipal Corporation of Delhi.     The NDMC, forming a compact unit, had divided its  civic work  into various departments. Besides  engaging  technical staff the NDMC engaged non-technical staff such as Municipal staff,  clerks etc, for working in the  various  departments including  the electricity and water supply departments.  In so  far as the non-technical staff are concerned, they  con- stitute  one unified cadre and are liable to  transfer  from one  department  to another. They are governed by  a  common channel of seniority. in respect of each class of  employees with common seniority list.     The  set up of the MCD is, however, different since  the Delhi  Municipal Corporation Act provides for the  constitu- tion of three separate and independent wings viz. the  elec- tricity,  the  general and the water.  sewage  and  disposal wings.  The  electricity wing came to be designated  as  the Delhi  Electricity Supply Undertaking (hereinafter  referred to  as  DESU) and is governed by an independent  budget  and headed by a separate and independent General Manager and its employees  are governed by a separate cadre and  a  separate seniority  list.  The general wing of the MCD  performs  the other general civic duties and functions. The third wing  is concerned with the distribution of water and the disposal of sewage etc. and it is also independent of the general wing.     To satisfy the demands of the employees of the MCD, NDMC etc.  the  Government accepted the report of the  Third  Pay commission 817 appointed  by it and the pay scales, as recommended  by  the Pay  Commission  were accepted by the NDMC as  well  as  the general wing of the MCD. The technical staff of DESU claimed higher scales of pay as they were not satisfied with the pay scales  recommended by the Pay Commission.  The  Government, therefore, constituted a Committee known as the Shiv Shanker Committee  (hereinafter the S.S. Committee for short) to  go into  the  question of revision of pay scales  etc.  of  the technical  staff alone of DESU and the  Committee  submitted its  report in 1973. The non-technical or ministerial  staff of  DESU  who  were not covered by the report  of  the  S.S. Committee  demanded  and agitated that they should  also  be granted pay at the rates recommended by the S.S.  Committee. The  DESU conceded the demand of the minisiterial  staff  at its meetings held in May 1973 and decided to revise the  pay scales  of the non-technical staff also working in  DESU  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 19  

the level recommended by the S.S. Committee.     Since  the  technical and ministerial staff  working  in DESU  were granted the SS Committee pay scales by  the  MCD, the NDMC was of the view that the technical and  ministerial staff  working in the electricity wing of NDMC  should  also have the benefit of revised pay scales recommended by the SS Committee.  This view was taken on the assumption  that  the staff  working  in  the electricity wing of  the  NDMC  were performing the same or similar functions and duties as those performed  by the staff of DESU and hence parity of pay  and allowances  should  be  maintained.  Accordingly,  the  NDMC passed a Resolution No.  154 on 19,10,1973 that the benefits of pay and allowances as per SS Committee Report be given to the staff of the electricity wing of NDMC. By another  Reso- lution dated 7. 1. 1974 the NDMC decided to give the benefit of the revised pay scales with effect from i.4.72 to fall in line with the actions of the DESU.     The  grant  of  SS Committee pay scales  to  only  those members of the ministerial staff working in the  electricity wing  brought about discontentment amount the staff  working in  the general wing of the NDMC. They claimed  they  should also be paid at the rates prescribed by the SS Committee and not  as per the scales of pay recommended by the  Third  Pay Commission. Two of the employees of the general wing filed a writ petition W. No. 307 of 1974 against NDMC and the Delhi. Administration praying for quashing of the Resolution  dated 7.1. 1974 for implementing the earlier Resolution passed  in favour of the staff 01 the electricity wing. Prakash Narain, J. (as he then was) did not quash the Resolution but instead issued. a writ of prohibition against the NDMC not to imple- ment the Resolution. The learned Judge held that 818 the  Resolution was discriminatory in nature but  since  the staff  working  in the electricity wing had  not  been  made parties  and furthermore the petitioners had not  filed  the petition  In  a representative capacity, the  proper  course would be to forbear the implementation of the Resolution  by the  NDMC  till  such time the NDMC  considered  afresh  the question  of the revision of pay scales for all sections  of the ministerial staff in accordance with law.     In  compliance with the directions of the learned  Judge the  NDMC considered the matter afresh and taking into  con- sideration  its financial constraints. it passed  a  revised Resolution on 25.6.75 which resulted in all the  non-techni- cal staff being treated equal and being granted uniform  pay scales at the rates recommended by the Third Pay  Commission and not at different rates for different wings. This resolu- tion lead to discontent amount the ministerial staff of  the electricity wing since their pay scales were reduced to  the rates recommended by the Third Pay Commission. Consequently, some of the affected members of the electrical wing filed  a writ  petition  CW No. 1388 of 1975 before  the  Delhi  High Court challenging the Resolution of the NDMC dated  25.6.75. The  High Court disposed of the writ petition on 18.2.77  on the  assurance  given by the NDMC that  the  whole  position would be reviewed after giving all the parties including the ministerial staff of the electricity wing due notice of  the matter.  As against the judgment of Prakash Narain,  J.  the NDMC also filed a Letters Patent Appeal. However, in view of the  subsequent  Resolutions that had been passed  the  NDMC withdrew itself from the appeal. But at the instance of some of  the affected employees of the electricity wing  who  had got  themselves  impleaded  as appellants,  the  appeal  was allowed on the short ground that the judgment of the learned single judge could not be sustained as it bad been  rendered

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 19  

without all the necessary parties being before the court.     The two staff members of the general wing who had origi- nally  filed CW No. 307 of 1974 filed a Special Leave  Peti- tion  (SLP  No. 3597 of 1978) against the  judgment  of  the Division  Bench  of the Delhi High Court in LPA  No.  78  of 1975.  This  Court dismissed the special leave  petition  in limine  with an observation that it was hoped that the  NDMC would comply with the direction of the Delhi High Court that it  should evolve a formula satisfactory to all sections  of the ministerial staff working in the different wings of  the NDMC  and if the revised scheme formulated by the  NDMC  was not  satisfactory to any section of the staff, it  would  be open to the affected party to seek appropriate reliefs  from the High Court once again. 819     The NDMC after giving opportunity to all sections of the employees to make their representations. passed a resolution on 27.6. 1978 constituting the electricity wing with  effect from 1.5.78 or such subsequent date as may be fixed with  28 posts  of  pump drivers, two posts of welders.  3  posts  of carpenters  and one post of pump mechanic and 496  posts  of ministerial  staff and to give all of them scales of pay  as per  SS Committee Report. The NDMC further resolved as  fol- lows:-                  "D.  496  posts referred to above  will  be               treated  as ex-cadre posts and will be  filled               on deputation basis on rotation, the period of               deputation  in  one spell being  three  years.               These  posts will be in SS Committee’s  scales               and  will  carry the benefit of  ex-gratia  of               DESU pattern.                  E. An equal number of posts may be  created               in general wing to form deputation reserve.                  F. The employees holding the ex-cadre posts               from the date of constitution of the wing will               be entitled to have their pay fixed in the  SS               Committee  scales  or  would  draw  deputation               allowance  as permissible under normal  rules.               During  the  period of  deputation  they  will               continue  to remain as members of the  unified               cadre  and will be eligible for  promotion  to               higher posts on that basis.                  G. While the existing vacancies in the  ex-               cadre  categories will be filled  straightaway               on  seniority-cum-option basis,  the  existing               incumbents will hold the ex-cadre posts for  a               period of three years from the date of consti-               tution  of  the wing on deputation  basis.  On               expiry  of the three years, one third of  them               with longest stay will be replaced every  year               by transfer from the general wing on the basis               of seniority cum option. Such of the  existing               incumbents  who  become due for  promotion  to               higher post will have to forego their  deputa-               tion, if they accept the promotion and will be               transferred to general wing. " The above resolution was not to the liking of the ministeri- al staff working in the electricity wing and hence one  Shri R. Chaudhary and 190 other staff members in the  electricity wing  filed a Writ Petition CW No. 4072 of 78 under  Article 32  of the Constitution before this Court but  withdrew  the same  as  the  Court was not inclined  to  grant  admission. Thereafter three petitions under Article 226 of the 820 Constitution viz. CW Nos. 1231. 557 & 280 of 1978 came to be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 19  

filed in the Delhi High Court. In CW No. 1231 of 1979,  some of the petitioners were Junior Engineers (Civil) some of the petitioners were Assistant Engineers (Civil) and some of the petitioners  were Draftsman (Civil). While the grievance  of the  ministerial staff among the petitioners was  that  they should  be treated on par with the ministerial staff of  the electricity  wing  in the matter of pay and  allowances  the grievance of the Junior and Assistant Engineers (Civil)  and Draftsman (Civil) was that none of their posts was borne  on the  cadre of the electricity wing albeit on a  transferable basis as there is no difference between the Civil  Engineers and  the  Electrical Engineers as they attend to  the  civil engineering works in the electricity wing also and it is for that  reason the civil engineers in DESU have  been  equated with the electrical engineers.     In so far as CW No. 280 of 1979 is concerned, the  peti- tion  pertained to the grant of ex-gratia payment to only  a section of the NDMC employees. Ever since 1972, the  employ- ees and their unions were demanding ex-gratia payment on the ground.  that  since the employees of DESU were  being  paid -ex-gratia  amount, they should also be paid  likewise.  The Delhi  Administration, by its letter dated 1.2.72  permitted the  NDMC to make ex-gratia payment to the employees of  the electricity wing on the same lines as was being followed  in DESU.  Similarly,  on  7.2.1973,  the  Delhi  Administration permitted  the grant of ex-gratia payment to  the  employees working  in the Water Supply & Sewage Disposal wing  of  the NDMC  also  on the ground their counterparts  in  the  Water Supply  & Sewage Disposal undertaking in the MCD were  being paid ex-gratia amount. The ministerial staff in the  general wing  who  were not granted the ex-gratia payment  raised  a protest.  Eventually,  the NDMC passed a resolution  at  its meeting held on 25.7. 1977 that ex-gratia payment be made to all employees of common categories such as clerks,  superin- tendents  etc. and that the payment be made subject  to  the conditions that the employees will refund the amount if  the proposal  was  not  approved by  the  Delhi  Administration. Subsequently,  it turned out that the  Delhi  Administration did  not approve the proposal of paying ex-gratia amount  to all  the  employees as the expenditure would  cast  a  heavy burden  on the finances of the NDMC and furthermore it  will lead  to  similar demands being raised by employees  in  the other  local bodies of Delhi. Consequently, the NDMC  called upon  the  staff of the general wing to refund  the  ad  hoc payment of Rs.300 given by way of advance towards  ex-gratia payment.  To challenge the negation of ex-gratia payment  to them CW No. 280 of 1978 was filed. 821     The  High Court rendered a common judgment covering  all the three Writ Petitions. The High Court took the view  that the  contention of the ministerial staff that all  of  them. irrespective of the department of their work should be  paid as-per SS Committee Report failing which none should be paid at  that rate was an extreme stand and cannot  therefore  be accepted.  The  High Court was of the opinion that  the  im- pugned  resolution of the NDMC was acceptable to the  extent it  reflected the desire of the NDMC to grant  SS  Committee scales of pay to as a large section of the staff as possible and  to that extent the resolution was a beneficial  measure for  the  ministerial staff. The High Court also  held  that since  the NDMC wanted to equate the electricity  wing  with the  DESU, it is but proper that only those members  of  the ministerial staff who were prepared to work in the electric- ity  wing can be given the SS Committee pay scales  and  not the  others,  who preferred to remain in  the  general  wing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 19  

itself.  However, in so far as the decision of the  NDMC  to introduce a system of deputation on rotational basis to  the electricity  wing  is concerned, the High Court was  of  the view that the proposal may work hardship to the  ministerial staff  both ways i.e. in seniority being overlooked  at  the time  of the deputation posting and secondly in  the  emolu- ments  getting  reduced after the period of  deputation  was over  and as such a more fair and equitable formula  in  ac- cordance  with service jurisprudence should be  evolved.  In accordance  with that view, the High Court evolved the  fol- lowing formula to be adopted by the NDMC:-               "We,  therefore, feel that in accordance  with               the  equality  principle the  proper  approach               would be that SSC scale will be given  amongst               the ministerial staff only to those persons               (a)  who would opt to work in the  electricity               department.               (b)  it would be given strictly in  accordance               with  the  seniority, i.e. to say  the  option               will  first be asked from the  senior  persons               and  if  they  are agreeable to  work  in  the               electricity wing they will be posted there and               be  eligible to get the higher SSC  scale.  If               and when any vacancy arises either because  of               promotion or retirement or any other eventual-               ity  the  post will be filled up on  the  same               principle  of  seniority cum  option.  Thus  a               unified  principle and rule will apply to  all               the ministerial staff, namely that the  senior               most  person working in the  electricity  cell               will  be  eligible to get the  SSC  scale.  No               question  of discrimination will  thus  arise,               because the electricity cell will be automati-               cally manned by the senior most of the  minis-               terial staff. Thus no               822               ministerial  staff  is  discriminated  against               because each would be eligible in his own turn               of  seniority. This would really amount to  as               if  a separate department of  the  electricity               wing has been constituted." The  High Court, while therefore upholding the order of  the NDMC  modified  the placement of the ex-cadre posts  in  the over-all  set up and also suggested the manner in which  the posts should be filled up viz. on the basis of seniority cum option.  Thereby,  the  High’Court has done  away  with  the rotational  system  every three years and  further  directed that  since the higher scale of pay was linked up  with  the service  rendered  in the electricity wing, the  SSC  scales should be paid to all those who had worked in the electrici- ty  wing  during  the  period subsequent  to  June  75  till 30.5.82, that such payment will not amount to discriminatory payment  and that after 30.5.82 the postings should be  made in accordance with the seniority cum option formula.     In so far as the engineers (Civil) and draftsman (Civil) are  concerned,  the High Court declined  to  sustain  their grievance. The High Court noticed that the Junior  Engineers (Civil)  have no common seniority with the electrical  engi- neers in the electricity wing, that the posts are not inter- changeable  and  that they cannot draw comparison  from  the employment pattern of engineers in DESU because the DESU was a  separate  and independent entity unlike  the  electricity wing of the NDMC, that the nature of duties performed by the electrical  engineers and civil engineers was different  and for  all  these reasons the High Court held that  the  civil

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 19  

engineers  cannot seek parity with the electrical  engineers in the electricity wing in the matter of pay scales.     The  last  question to be dealt with by the  High  Court pertained  to the refusal to grant ex-gratia payment to  the staff of the general wing. The High Court saw  justification in the payment of ex-gratia payments to the employees in the electricity  wing and the water supply and  sewage  disposal wing alone because of the nature of their duties and because of  the precedent afforded by the MCD in granting such  pay- ment  to  the  staff of the DESU and the  Water  Supply  and Sewage  Disposal  Department. However, the High  Court  took into consideration the long delay that had occurred and  the hardship  that would result to the employees of the  general wing  by  complying with the order of refund  and  therefore directed  the  NDMC to treat the payment of Rs.300  "as  one time special ad hoc payment not serving as a precedent"  and refrain from recovering the said amount. 823     It  is in this situation the appeals and petitions  have come to be filed. CA No. 2969 of 1973 has been filed by  the members of minisiterial staff in the general wing to contend that instead of restricting the payment of SS Committee  pay scales to the 496 ex-cadre posts in the electricity wing and directing  the NDMC to fill up those posts on the  basis  of seniority  cure option, the High Court should have  directed the  NDMC  to give the SS Committee pay scales  to  all  the members  of the ministerial staff. Likewise  the  appellants would  contend that the High Court should have directed  the NDMC to pay them also ex-gratia payment and should not  have directed  the NDMC to treat the ad hoe payment "as one  time special ad hoc payment" and refrain from recovering the said amount.  The NDMC in turn has filed two appeals CA No.  2971 of 1983 and CA No. 2970 of 1983. The former appeal has  been filed against that part of the judgment relating to CW  1231 of  1979 wherein the High Court had directed payment  at  SS Committee’s scales for the period June 1975 to May 1982  and also  directed ministerial posts in the electricity wing  to be  filled  up on seniority cum option basis  instead  of  a three years deputation basis on rotational system.  Likewise the  direction of the High Court to give up the  proceedings for recovery of the ad hoc payment towards ex-gratia payment is  also  impugned in the appeal. Civil Appeal No.  2970  Of 1983 is directed against that portion of the judgment relat- ing to CW 557 of 1979 which has been filed by the  non-tech- nical  staff of the electricity wing praying for payment  of arrears of pay for the total period subsequent to the  sanc- tion.  CA No. 6074 of 1983 has been filed by  the  Assistant Engineers (Civil) & Junior Engineers (Civil) to contend that the High Court should have sustained their claim for  parity with  the electrical engineers in the electricity  wing  and directed  the NDMC to pay them also at the SS Committee  pay scales  and  also to give them ex-gratia payment as  in  the case  of all the persons employed in the  electricity  wing. SLP  NO. 11270 of 1982 has been filed by some of  the  staff members  in the general wing to contend that since the  NDMC constituted  an  integrated unit with  common  fund,  common budget etc., the High Court ought not to have sustained  the payment of exgratia amount to only those persons working  in the  electricity wing and should have made the  payment  ap- plicable for all or to none. As common questions are  raised in  this petition, special leave is granted and  the  appeal shall  be  assigned a number. WP NO. 9256 of 1983  has  been filed by the Assistant & Junior Engineers (Civil) to contend that there cannot be any discrimination between Civil  Engi- neers and Electrical Engineers and as such they are as  much

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 19  

entitled as the electrical engineers to be paid according to SS  Committee pay scales and also for payment  of  ex-gratia amount. 824     We  will now take up for consideration the merit of  the contentions of the parties in the appeals and petitions.  As we  propose  to  deal with the several  contentions  of  the parties in the course of our discussion in the judgment,  we do not think it necessary to set out the contentions of  the parties separately.     We will first take up for consideration the case of  the appellants in CA No. 2969 of 1983 viz. the ministerial staff in the general wing of the NDMC. Mr. Mukhoty learned counsel for the appellants urged before us that the electricity wing of the NDMC is not a distinct and independent unit  entitled to  have its own scales of pay and secondly the  ministerial staff  of the NDMC belong to a unified cadre and  the  staff members  are liable to transfer from one branch of the  NDMC to another and as such the NDMC cannot create a cadre within a  cadre  and fix different scales of pay for those  in  the carved  out  cadre.  It was further urged by  him  that  the nature  of the duties performed by the ministerial staff  in all the three wings of the NDMC is more or less similar,  if not identical, and hence the well-established rule of  equal pay  for  equal  work should govern the  staff  members.  In support  of his argument the learned counsel relied  on  the decisions of this Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of  India, [1982] 3 SCR 298; Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P., [1986] 1  SCC 637 and P. Rarnachandra Iyer v. Union of  India,  AIR 1984 SC 541.     Controverting  the arguments of Mr. Mukhoty, Mr.  Misra, learned  counsel  for the NDMC and Mr.  Ramamurthy,  learned counsel for the non-technical staff working in the  electri- cal wing, argued that the Government or any State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution has a right  under law  to create new departments or new cadres with  different scales  of pay and hence the appellants. cannot  impugn  the action of the NDMC in treating the ministerial staff in  the electrical  wing differently and giving them pay  scales  as per SS Committee Report. In support of their arguments,  the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in  Reserve Bank  of India v. N.C. Paliwal, [1977] 1 SCR 377  &  Reserve Bank of India v. C.N. Sahasranaman, [1986] (Suppl.) SCC 143.     On  a consideration of the matter we find the  grievance of  the  ministerial staff of the general wing  to  be  well founded.  Admittedly,  the  ministerial staff  in  the  NDMC constitute  a unified cadre. The recruitment policy for  the selection  of the ministerial staff is a common one and  the recruitment  is also done by a common agency. They are  gov- erned  by a common seniority list. The ministerial posts  in the three 825 wings  of  the NDMC viz. the general wing,  the  electricity wing and the water works wing are interchangeable posts  and the  postings  are made from the common  pool  according  to administrative convenience and exigencies of service and not on  the basis of any distinct policy or  special  qualifica- tions.  Therefore,  it would be futile to  say  that  merely because  a member of the ministerial staff had been given  a posting  in  the electricity wing, either due  to  force  of circumstances or due to voluntary preferment, he stands on a better or higher footing.or in a more advantageous  position than  his counter parts in the general wing. It is  not  the case  of the respondents that the ministerial staff  in  the electricity  wing  perform  more onerous  or  more  exacting

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 19  

duties  than the ministerial staff in the general  wing.  It therefore follows that all sections of the ministerial staff should be treated alike and all of them held entitled to the same  scales  of pay for the work of equal  nature  done  by them.  This Court has held in Randhir Singh’s case that  the mere  fact that persons belong to different  departments  of the Government cannot by itself be a sufficient circumstance to  justify  different  scales of pay and  that  "where  all things are equal, that is, where all relevant considerations are  the  same, persons holding identical posts may  not  be treated  differentially  in the matter of their  pay  merely because they belong to different departments." In  Dhirendra Chamoli’s case, the principle was reiterated and it was held that  when "the persons engaged by the Nehru  Yuvak  kendras performed  the  same duties as those performed by  class  IV employees  appointed  on regular  basis  against  sanctioned posts, it is difficult to understand how the Central Govern- ment  can  deny  to those employees the  same  salaries  and conditions  of service as class IV employees  regularly  ap- pointed against sanctioned posts. To the same effect is  the decision rendered in P. Ramachandra Iyer’s case which relat- ed  to  discriminatory treatment being meted  out  to  three Professors  employed  by the Indian Council  of  Agriculture Research.     It is relevant at this juncture to scrutinise the reason which  impelled the NDMC to pass the resolution in 1973  for giving the SS Commitee pay scales to the staff of the  elec- tricity wing alone. The only reason which prompted the  NDMC to  pass the resolution was that since DESU had  implemented the SS Committee pay scales for its technical and  non-tech- nical  staff, the NDMC should also follow suit in so far  as its electricity wing is concerned. In doing so, the NDMC had failed  to  bear  in mind  several  distinguishing  features between its set up and the set up of the DESU and its  staff pattern and the staff pattern of DESU. The NDMC, as  already stated,  is governed by the Punjab Municipal Act while  DESU is governed by the Delhi Municipal 826 Corporation Act, 1957. The set up of the NDMC is that of  an integrated unit comprising all the three wings while the set up  under the Municipal Corporation Act of the MCD  is  that its three wings have to function as distinct and independent units.  Such  being  the case, the DESU is  a  separate  and independent unit of MCD and constitutes an independent body. The DESU has its own budget and consequently it has  freedom of action without reference to the other units. In contrast, the NDMC’s revenues is the income derived from all the three wings of it and the expenses are governed by a common  budg- et.  Having  regard to all these factors, there is  no  room whatever  for treating the electricity wing of the  NDMC  on part  with the DESU and adopting the pattern of  pay  scales implemented  by DESU. Apart from the difference in  the  set up,  it  has also to be borne in mind that  the  ministerial staff  in the NDMC are comprised in a unified cadre and  the posts  in the three wings are transferable and  interchange- able  which is not so in the case of the staff of the  DESU. If regard is had to all these factors, the decision taken up the NDMC originally to place the non-technical staff in  the electricity wing on a higher footing and give them alone the SS  Committee  pay scales cannot be legally  sustained.  The action  of the NDMC clearly suffered from the vice of  arbi- trariness and discrimination.     That takes us to the validity of the further resolutions passed  by the NDMC. When it was directed by the High  Court to  reconsider  the matter in the light  of  the  grievances

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 19  

expressed by the staff of the general wing, the NDMC decided to make 496 posts in the electricity wing ex-cadre posts and fill  up  those posts on deputation basis  combined  with  a rotational system to be enforced once in every three  years. By  the revised resolution, fair distribution of higher  pay benefits  was  sought  to be given to  all  the  ministerial staff,  but nevertheless the vice of discrimination  as  be- tween the staff of the electricity wing and the staff of the general  wing  continued  to persist.  The  resolution  only sought  to provide all the members of the staff the  benefit of  the higher scales of pay for a period of three years  at some  point of time in their service provided they opted  to serve  in  the electricity wing but it did  not  provide  an answer for the criticism that there was no justification  to treat  the  ministerial staff in the electricity wing  on  a higher  footing than the rest of the staff and give  them  a higher scale of pay. Secondly, the proposal would perpetuate the  imbalance in the pay scales between different  sections of the staff working in the three wings of the NDMC.  Third- ly, the system of deputation would lead to a long period  of wait for large sections of the staff before getting postings in  the electricity wing on deputation basis. Fourthly,  the staff members would have to 827 forego the higher scales of pay and come back to the  lesser scales  when the period of deputation was over. Lastly,  the insistence on the staff members being entitled to deputation service in the electricity wing only if they exercised their option to work in that wing introduces an element of compul- sion  amont the members comprised in a unified cadre.  These factors  vitiated the revised proposal of the NDMC  to  make 496  posts as ex-cadre posts and to fill them up on  deputa- tion basis by adopting a rotational cum option system.     The  High Court realised in some measure  the  vitiating features present in the revised scheme evolved by the  NDMC. However, instead of deprecating the scheme in its  entirety, the  High Court has tried to formulate a scheme of its  own. The  High  Court has taken the view that the 496  posts  ex- caderised in the electricity wing can be treated as  special or  senior  posts  which can be filled up on  the  basis  of seniority  cum  option. The High Court,  apart  from  laying itself  open  to the criticism that it had gone  beyond  its powers  in formulating a new scheme, has failed  to  provide for  equal benefits for all the members of  the  ministerial staff.  If  the electricity wing is to be filled up  on  the basis of seniority cum option, those who had served  earlier in the electricity wing would get a distinct advantage  over the  rest  of  the ministerial staff  including  the  senior members  of  the matter of higher pay-scales.  Besides,  the seniority  cum option system would give greater  benefit  to some  and  lesser benefit to some depending upon  their  age etc.  Moreover,  the insertion of the  option  clause  would introduce  an element of compulsion and make it appear  that the  staff  working  in the electricity  wing  perform  more onerous  and more skilled duties and hence they stand  on  a higher footing. It would also lead to packing all the senior members  of the staff in the electricity wing  and  denuding the other two wings of the services of the senior ministeri- al staff. For all these reasons we find the scheme formulat- ed by the High Court also cannot be sustained or accepted.     The NDMC itself had fully realised at one point of  time that its original resolution was not fair to all the members of  the  ministerial  staff and hence  it  reconsidered  the matter  and resolved that the benefit of higher  pay  should either  be  given  to all the staff or to none  and  as  its

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 19  

finances did not permit the former option, it was obliged to adopt  the  latter option and hence all  the  staff  members would  be  uniformly paid at pay scales recommended  by  the Third  Pay  Commission. The NDMC was however forced  by  the Delhi Municipal Administration to treat the electricity wing as a different unit and to restrict the grant of higher  pay scales only to that unit. In as much as the ground put 828 forward by the NDMC to discriminate between the  ministerial staff  in the general wing and the electricity wing is  lack of  funds and not on the ground of any  distinction  between the  two wings, the NDMC has no legal ground to  project  in justification  of  its  action in making the  posts  in  the electricity wing as ex-cadre posts and giving the benefit of SS  Committee  pay scales only to persons serving  in  those posts.     We are, therefore of the view that the appellants in  CA No. 2969 of 1983 are entitled to succeed in their appeal. We will  deal  with the manner in which they  should  be  given relief, after considering the other appeals and petitions.     Our  next  concern will be to deal with CA No.  6074  of 1983  and WP No. 9266 of 1983 which have been filed  by  the Junior  Engineers (Civil) and Assistant  Engineers  (Civil). Their  grievance  is that though they are on  par  with  the Electrical Engineers except that the nature of their techni- cal services differ, their services are treated as  inferior or as less skillful and they are deprived the benefit of  SS Committee  pay  scales. They would contend  that  the  civil engineering  works designed and executed by them  constitute an  integral  part of the work of the  electrical  wing  and hence they cannot be discriminated in the matter of fixation of  their scales of pay. The last contention is  that  since the NDMC has followed the DESU pattern of scales of pay, the Civil  Engineers are also entitled to the SS  Committee  pay scales because the DESU pays its civil engineers  according- ly. Dr. Chitale appearing for the Civil Engineers strenuous- ly  argued that since the Civil Engineers have been  equated with  the Electrical Engineers by DESU, the NDMC  also  must give  parity  of treatment for all the Civil  Engineers  and give them the benefit of the higher scales of pay. We do not feel persuaded to accept the contention of Dr. Chitale.  The case  of  the  Civil Engineers does not stand  on  the  same footing as that of the ministerial staff. This is because of several  factors adverted to below. As has been pointed  out by  the  High Court the Civil Engineering  department  is  a separate and self-contained one and the civil engineers  are transferred  within the civil engineering unit  itself  i.e. from one division to another by the Chief Engineer  (Civil). The  Civil Engineers posted in the water works division  are not  paid  according  to the SS Committee  pay  scales.  The Junior  Engineers (Civil) do not have any  common  seniority with  the electrical engineers and the posts are not  inter- transferable.  All  the  engineers, in which  ever  wing  or department  they are posted, are paid according to  the  pay scales recommended by the Third Pay Commission. There is  no discrimination in payment of salary as between them.  Merely because some of the Civil Engineers 829 are assigned to do civil engineering works in the electrici- ty  wing they cannot be heard to say that they are not  dif- ferent from the electrical engineers and that they should be paid higher scales of pay. In the matter of promotions  etc. they  are governed by the common seniority  list  maintained for Civil Engineers. As such their posting to the electrici- ty wing cannot make them a separate class by themselves.  It

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 17 of 19  

is of no avail to the Civil Engineers to compare  themselves with  the Civil Engineers working in DESU because DESU is  a separate  and  distinct unit and all the  engineers  working therein constitute a single unit. Unlike in the case of  the ministerial  staff, there is no disparity of scales  of  pay between Civil Engineers working in the electricity wing  and the  Civil Engineers working in the other wings. Such  being the case the appellants and petitioners herein have no basis to  contend that they have been discriminated in the  matter of fixation of pay scales.     We are therefore of the view that C.A. No. 6074 of  1983 and W.P. No. 9266 of 1983 should fail.     We  are lastly left with the controversy  regarding  the payment  of ex-gratia amount by the NDMC only to  those  em- ployees  who  are working in the electricity  wing  and  the water works wing. We have already set out the history as  to how ex-gratia payment was sanctioned to the staff members of the  electricity wing and then the water works wing and  why it  was not extended to the general wing etc. By way  of  an adhoc  arrangement, the NDMC had given an advance of  Rs.300 for the period ending with 31.3. 1976 subject to the approv- al of the Delhi Administration. As the Delhi  Administration declined  to  give its approval, the NDMC  called  upon  the concerned  staff to refund the ad hoc payment of  Rs.300  in fifteen monthly instalments. To challenge the denial of  ex- gratia payment to them, the affected staff had filed CW  No. 2807  of  1979. The High Court, it may  be  remembered,  had sustained  the stand of the NDMC but  nevertheless  directed the NDMC to treat the adhoc payment as a special payment and to desist from recovering it.     We  are unable to appreciate the reasoning of  the  High Court  and  sustain  its conclusion on this  aspect  of  the matter. The High Court has failed to see that no rational or acceptable  reason  is put forward for  justifying  the  ex- gratia payment only to the ministerial staff working in  the electricity  wing and the water works wing and  denying  the same  to  the staff working in the general  wing.  The  only reason  given  is that the payment of  ex-gratia  amount  is patterned on the lines of the DESU and the Water Supply  and Sewage Disposal Undertaking of the MCD. 830 The  pattern of payment adopted by the MCD cannot  have  any binding force on the NDMC because the three units of MCD are different  and distinct entities whereas the three wings  of the NDMC are interdependent wings of an integrated Municipal Committee. Therefore, in the absence of justifiable  reasons of a compulsive nature the payments, whether as salary or as ex-gratia amount have to be on the same and equal basis  and not  differently  for the different wings of  the  NDMC.  In fact, what all we have said regarding the payment of uniform pay at the scales recommended by SS Committee would squarely apply to the payment of ex-gratia amount also. Hence CA  No. 2969  of 1983 and SLP No. 11270 of 1982 (S.C.A. No. 1688  of 1987) deserve to succeed.     In  the light of our conclusion, the two appeals CA  NO. 2971  and 2970 of 1983 filed by the NDMC have to fail in  so far  as  the main issues are concerned. Mr.  Misra,  learned counsel for the NDMC contended before us that it was open to the NDMC to constitute different cadres among its  employees as laid down in Paliwal’s case and furthermore the grant  of SS  Committee pay scales and ex-gratia payments to  all  the employees  would seriously affect the finances of the  NDMC. The decisions in Reserve Bank of India v. C. Paliwal (supra) & Reserve Bank of India v. C.N. Sahasranaman (supra)  relied on  by Mr. Misra are of no assistance in this  case  because

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 18 of 19  

what  we  are concerned is whether diferent pay  scales  and allowances can be given to a section of the staff when  they belong  to  a unified cadre and are governed by  common  re- cruitment policy, common seniority list and common  transfer policy.  It was urged by the learned counsel that  the  High Court  was  not  justified in directing payment  at  the  SS Committee  pay scales for the employees of  the  electricity wing from June 1975 to May 1982 as that would result in  the NDMC paying Rs.51,98,079 and in addition the payment of  the arrears  calculated on the difference in pay with  reference to  the  SS  Committee pay scales  for  the  period  between 1.4.1972 to 30.9.1973 would cost another Rs.7,30,062 thus in all  casting a financial burden of more than Rs.50 lakhs  on the NDMC. In the view we propose taking of the matter in the light  of our conclusions, this grievance does not call  for discussion.     Mr.  Ramamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the  mem- bers  of  the staff working in the electricity  wing  voiced forth  the  grievance of those employees. The  straight  and simple  argument  of  the learned counsel was  that  in  the controversy  between  the ministerial staff of  the  general wing on the one hand and the NDMC on the other, the staff of the electricity wing who had been granted revised pay scales at the SS 831 Committee  rates have not been paid their due share  of  the salary  and that they are entitled to be paid salary at  the revised rate from 1.4.1972 failing which at least from  1982 onwards.  The argument though appealing by itself cannot  be accepted  because then it would mean that the staff  members of  the electricity wing would be scoring an advantage  over their  fellow employees in the general wing  merely  because they were by accident or by compulsion working in the  elec- tricity  wing at the relevant time the impugned  resolutions came to be passed by the NDMC.     In  the  result we hold that all the  ministerial  staff working in the NDMC are entitled to get pay scales as per SS Committee Report and likewise all of them are entitled to be given  ex-gratia  payment.  The grant of  SS  Committee  pay scales to only the staff working in the electricity wing  or the grant of ex-gratia payment to only the staff working  in the  electricity  wing and the water works  wing  cannot  be legally sustained as it suffers from the vice of discrimina- tion.  As  a consequence of these findings it  follows  that there should be uniformity not only in the payment of the SS Committee  pay scales and the ex-gratia amount to the  staff working in all the wings or departments of the NDMC but  the payment  should  also  be made from a date  common  to  all. However,  having  regard to the long lapse of time  and  the financial implications involved in the matter it will not be fair and proper to direct the NDMC to pay all the members of the  staff at SS Committee rates from 1.4.72 to 30.9.73  and from  June 1975 to May 1982. But at the same time we  cannot also totally deprive the staff, particularly those who  have been  looking  forward  to receiving higher  scales  of  pay granted  by the NDMC, and the benefit of the ex-gratia  pay- ments.  We, therefore, direct that the sum of Rs.59,  10,160 and  the agreed amount of ex-gratia payment be equally  dis- tributed,  among  a11 the members of the  staff,  with  such adjustments  by deductions as may be required to be made  in the  case of persons who have received payment in excess  of their  share  under  the above-said formula. In  so  far  as payment  of uniform salary to all the ministerial  staff  as per SS Committee pay scales and payment of ex-gratia  amount is concerned, the NDMC will give effect to our judgment with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 19 of 19  

effect  from 1st June 1982 since the High Court’s  direction for payment extends upto the end of May 1982 and in  respect of which payment we have directed the amount involved to  be distributed equally among all the ministerial staff and  not confine it to the ministerial staff of the electricity  wing alone.  Taking into consideration the  financial  commitment involved for the NDMC, it is permitted to pay the difference in the scales of pay and ex-gratia amount between the period 1.6.82 to 31.7.87 in three 832 equated  instalments within a period of 15 months  from  the date of our judgment. The Delhi Administration will give the necessary sanction to the NDMC for disbursement of funds and payment  of  arrears and future pay in accordance  with  our judgment.     In  the result CA No. 2969 of 1983 and (SLP No. 1127  of 1982) numbered as CA No. 1688. of 1987 will stand allowed to the extent relief is given. CA Nos. 2970 of 1983 and 2971 of 1983  filed by the NDMC and CA No. 6074 of 1983 and  WP  No. 9266  of  1983  filed by the engineers  (civil)  will  stand dismissed.     There  will be no order as to costs in all  the  appeals and the writ petition. N.P.V.                                 1 ?833