1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3855 OF 2007

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR. .....APPELLANT(S)  

Vs

WEST BENGAL MINIMUM WAGES  INSPECTORS ASSOCIATION & ORS.

....RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T  

R.V. RAVEENDRAN J.,

This question involved in this appeal by special leave is whether the  

respondents,  holding the post of Inspector Agricultural  Minimum  Wages  

(for short, ‘Inspector – AMW’), were entitled to parity in pay scale, from  

April  1981,  with  those  holding  the  posts  of  Inspector  (Cooperative  

Societies), Extension Officers (Panchayat) and KGO-JLRO (now Revenue  

Officers). For convenience the post of Inspector-AMW which is the subject  

matter of this appeal will be referred as the ‘subject post’. The other three  

posts  with  reference  to  which  parity  is  sought  will  be  referred  to  as  the  

‘reference category posts’. For convenience, we give below the   pay scales

2

of the four categories of employees :

Sl. Name of Posts 1970

(I Pay  Commission)

1981

(II Pay  Commission)

1990

(III Pay  Commission)

1998

(IV Pay  Commission)

1. Inspector  Agricultural  Minimum Wages

300-600

(9)

380-910

(9)

1260-2610

(9)

4000-8850

(9)

2. Inspector,  Co-operative  Societies

300-600 with  higher initial at  

330/-

425-1050

(11)

1390-2970

(10)

4500-9700

(10)

3. Extension  Officer,  Panchayat

300-600 with  higher initial at  

330/-

425-1050

(11)

1390-2970

(10)

4500-9700

(10)

4. KGO-JLRO

(Now  Revenue  Officer)

300-600 with  higher initial at  330/- + Special  

pay 50/-

425-1050

(11)

1390-2970

(10)

4800-10925

(12)

5500-11325

(14)

w.e.f. 01-01-08

[Note : The figures in brackets below the pay scale refer to the number of the pay scale]

2. The facts in brief are as follows.  The respondents 3 to 295 were  

employed in or around 1975 as ad-hoc Inspectors-AMW, in Pay Scale No.9  

(300-600).   They  were  subsequently  absorbed  into  regular  service  and  

appointed  against  permanent  vacancies.  Though  Inspectors  (Minimum  

Wages), Inspector (Trade Unions), Labour Inspectors, Supervisor (Labour  

Welfare),  Investigators,  Inspectors  (Shops  & Establishments)  also  in  Pay  

Scale No.9 were included in the West Bengal Subordinate Labour Services,  

Inspectors-AMW  were  not  included  in  the  said  Labour  Services.   The

3

Second Pay Commission recommended the revised Pay Scale No.9 to the  

Inspectors - AMW subject to the condition that the minimum qualification  

for  recruitment  for  the  said  post  should  be  a  University  degree.   On  

28.7.1981, the Government framed the West Bengal Services Revision of  

Pay and Allowances Rules, 1981 (for short ‘RPA Rules 1981’) to implement  

the  second  Pay Commission  Recommendations  (effective  from 2.4.1981)  

under which Inspectors–AMW, were assigned Pay Scale No.9 (380-910).  

Holders of the post of Inspector (Co-operative Societies), Extension Officer  

(Panchayats)  and  KGO-JLRO (Revenue  Officers)  who  were  also  in  Pay  

Scale No.9 earlier, but with a higher initial pay of Rs.330, were granted the  

higher Pay Scale No.11 (425-1050).    

3. Feeling  aggrieved,  the  respondents  filed  a  writ  petition  (CR  

No.247(W) of 1982) for the following reliefs:- (a) a direction to the state  

government  to  revise  the  pay  scales  according  to  law,  without  

discriminating  them  from  Inspectors  (Co-operative  Societies),  Extension  

Officers  (Panchayat),  KGO-JLRO etc.,  and  grant  them Pay  Scale  No.11  

(Rs.425-1050) with special pay and other allowances; and  (b) to quash the  

RPA Rules 1981, insofar as they related to Inspectors-AMW.

4

4. The  respondents  contended  that  three  other  categories  of  posts  

(reference category posts),  were in  the same scale  of Rs.300-600 as was  

applicable to them (Inspectors-AMW) when the RPA Rules, 1970 were in  

force; that the said three  reference category posts were granted Pay Scale  

No.11 (Rs.425-1050) under the RPA Rules 1981 whereas they (Inspectors -  

AMW)  were  continued  in  the  Pay  Scale  No.9  (Rs.380-910).   It  was  

submitted  that  as  the  minimum  educational  qualification  for  all  four  

categories of posts were similar and as the pre-revision pay scales of all the  

four categories of  posts were the same, the State could not discriminate by  

upgrading the pay of the three reference category posts who were earlier in  

the same Pay Scale, to Pay Scale No.11, while continuing them (Inspectors  

–AMW) in the lower Pay Scale No.9.   

5. The  State  Government  resisted  the  said  writ  petition,  contending  

that the functions and duties of Inspectors - AMW were different from the  

functions  and  duties  of  Inspectors  (Co-operative  Societies),  Extension  

Officers  (Panchayat)  and  KGO-JLRO  (Revenue  Officers).   It  was  also  

pointed out that though the pay scale applicable to Inspectors -AMW and  

the three reference category posts were the same (Pay Scale No.9) prior to  

RPA Rules 1981,  there was a significant difference as those three reference   

categories were  started  on  a  higher  initial  Pay  Scale  of  Rs.330  instead

5

of  Rs.300.

6. Learned single Judge, by order dated 8.7.1987, disposed of the said  

writ  petition  permitting  the  respondents  to  make  a  representation  to  the  

appropriate forum, that is, the state government or the Pay Commission.  He  

held that the High Court in its writ jurisdiction cannot take upon itself the  

responsibility of giving higher scales of pay claimed by the writ petitioners.  

Feeling  aggrieved,  the  respondents  filed  an  appeal  (FMAT  No.2453  of  

1987).   

7. During the pendency of the appeal, Inspectors-AMW, through their  

association,  made  a  representation  before  the  Third  Pay  Commission  

seeking  several  reliefs.  The  Third  Pay  Commission  made  its  

recommendations on 31.12.1988 expressing the view that the existing scale  

of pay of the Inspectors –AMW, was just and proper and there was no need  

to  upgrade  them to  a  higher  pay  scale.  Therefore,  the  Pay  Commission  

recommended Pay Scale No.9 corresponding to the old Pay Scale No.9 (that  

is Rs.380-910 revised as Rs.1260-2610).

8. Inspectors-AMW and some other aggrieved categories of employees  

submitted  their  representations  in  regard  to  their  grievances  against  the

6

recommendations  of  the  Third  Pay  Commission.  The  State  Government  

therefore,  appointed  a  Pay  Review  Committee  to  consider  the  various  

representations  relating  to  anomalies.   The  said  Committee,  after  

considering  the  grievances  of  the  respondents  made  the  following  

recommendations:

“As the same time, however, the Second Pay Commission considered  upward revision of pay of quite a large number of post which were in the  scale of Rs.300-600 (as per ROPA Rules 1970) and recommendation the  scale of Rs.380-910.  Many Departments have written to us for upward  revision of the scale of pay of such posts.   In particulars,  the Labour  Department have recommended upward revision of the scale of pay of  posts  belonging  to  West  Bengal  Subordinate  Labour  Service  from  Rs.380-910/- to scale No.10 (which corresponds to the unrevised scale  No.11 i.e. Rs.425-1050).  Many of these posts are filled up by promotion  cum UDC and other employees drawing pay in Scale no.9 i.e. 380-910  (as per ROPA Rules 1981).

As per ROPA Rules 1970, the scale of pay of UDCs was Rs.330-550.  The posts referred to in the first paragraph are undoubtfully of higher  status than the posts of UDCs.  This is corroborated but the fact that the  qualification  for  direct  recruitment  to  these  posts  are  not  less  than  a  degree of a recognised university and here the post can only be filled up  by promotion and the feeder posts in many cases are the posts carrying  the scale of pay of the UDCs.  It is, therefore, felt that a large number of  anamolies can be avoided if the revised scale No.10 (which corresponds  to the unrevised Scale No.11) is allocated to all posts which were in the  scale  of  pay Rs.300-600  and  in  some  cases  Rs.300-600  with  higher  initial  start  at  Rs.330  (as  per  ROPA  Rules  1970)  and  which  were  allocated scales of pay less than Scale No.11 i.e.  Rs.425-1050 in the  WBS(ROPA) Rules 1981.

We, therefore, strongly recommend that all the posts which were in the  scale of pay of Rs.300-600 and in a few cases Rs.300-600 with higher  initial start at Rs.330 and which were awarded the pay scale lower than  Rs.425-1050 as per WBS(ROPA) Rules 1981 may now be awarded the  revised scale No.10 with effect from 1.1.86.”

7

9. The State Government decided not to accept the recommendations  

of the Pay Review Committee and continue the posts of Inspectors --AMW  

in Pay Scale No.9, that is, Rs.1260-2610.  The relevant portion of the said  

decision (file note) is extracted below:

“After careful consideration we have come to the conclusion that the  existing scales  of  pay of  these posts  are  just  and proper.   Hence we  recommend for them, our suggested scales of pay corresponding to their  present scales.

Thus it appears that the Third Pay Commission which is a specialised  body did not consider it necessary to recommend any upgradation of the  scale of pay for the post of Inspector of Agricultural Minimum Wages.  The  Government  accepted  the  recommendation  of  the  Third  Pay  Commission  and prescribed a revised scale No.9 (1260-2610) for the  post of Inspector of Agricultural Minimum Wage.

The matter was referred to the Pay Review Committee.  The Pay Review  Committee recommend Scale No.10 i.e. Rs.1380-2970 for the post of  Inspector of Agricultural Minimum Wages.  But this recommendation  actually follow from a general recommendation that posts of Inspectors  and equivalent which were borne in the scale of pay of Rs.300-600 as  per WBS (ROPA) Rules, 1970 and for which the minimum recruitment  qualification  is  a  graduation  degree  of  a  recognised  University  or  equivalent should be on scale No.10 (Rs.1390-2970).  It is,  therefore,  apparent  that  the  Pay  Review  Committee  did  not  recommend  Scale  No.10 specifically for the post  of Inspector of Agricultural  Minimum  Wages after taking into consideration duties and responsibilities attached  to  the  post.  The  State  Government  has  not  accepted  the  general  recommendation of the Pay Review Committee in regard to the revision  of the scale of pay of the post of Inspectors and equivalent which were  borne in the scale of pay of Rs.300-600 as per WBS (ROPA) Rules,  1970 and for which the minimum recruitment qualification is graduate  degree of a recognised university.  This being the position, any upward  revision  of  the  scale  of  pay of  the  post  of  Inspector  of  Agricultural  Minimum Wages will have serious repercussions.  The Government is,  therefore, unable to accept the recommendation of the Pay of the Pay  Review Committee in regard to the revision of scale of pay of the post of  Inspector of Minimum Wages. Accordingly the post should continue to  be on scale No.9 i.e. Rs.1260-2610.”

8

10. The  rules  regarding  the  recruitment  of  Inspectors  --  AMW were  

amended  on  5.6.1995  and  these  posts  were  brought  under  the  Labour  

Department.  Consequently, the West Bengal  Sub-ordinate Labour Service  

was also constituted on 23.6.1995 consisting of the following categories of  

posts:  (i) Inspector of Shops and Establishment; (ii) Inspector of Minimum  

Wages;  (iii)  Inspector  of  Trade  (Union);  (iv)  Labour  Inspector;  (v)  

Supervisor of Labour Welfare Centres under the Labour Directorate, West  

Bengal  (pleased  under  the  West  Bengal);  (vi)  Inspector,  Statistical  

Assistant,  Investigator  Scrutiny  Assistant,  Computer  and  Computing  

Investigation  in  the  Statistical   Section  of  the  Labour  Directorate  West  

Bengal; and (vii) Agricultural Minimum Wages Inspector.

11. In the pending appeal, the respondents amended their writ petition  

on 8.12.1995 contending that the Third Pay Commission had not taken into  

consideration  the  duties  and  responsibilities  of  Inspectors–AMW,  while  

recommending that they should continue in the same pay scale, that their  

grievance  in  regard  to  the  anomaly  was  considered  by  the  Pay  Review  

Committee constituted to look into the anomalies and it had recommended  

that they should be assigned the higher Pay Scale No.10 (Rs.1390-2970) and  

that the State Government had wrongly refused to accept the same; and that  

they should, therefore, by granted unrevised Pay scale No.11 (Rs.425-1050)

9

which corresponded to revised Pay scale No.10 (Rs.1390-2970).

12. The Fourth Pay Commission in April 1998 revised the existing pay  

scales and the new Pay Scale No.9 was Rs.4000-8850.  In December 1999,  

the  Fourth  Pay  Commission  submitted  the  second  part  of  its  

recommendation.   Para  2.39.9  relating  to  Inspectors  (AMW) is  extracted  

below:

“Inspectors  of  Agricultural  Minimum  Wages  who  are  posted  at  the  Block  Level  for  enforcement  of  minimum  wages  in  Agriculture  and  other  schedule  employments  and other  Labour  Laws,  have demanded  upgradation of their Scale of Pay. They are now in Scale No.9.  In view  of their duties and responsibilities, we recommend Scale No.10 for the  post.”

In view of it, the respondents filed an affidavit in the pending writ appeal  

submitting that as the Fourth Pay Commission has recommended pay scale  

No.10  for  the  post  of  Inspectors  (AMW)  and  that  though  the  State  

Government  had accepted  the  recommendation  in  regard  to  several  other  

posts, it had not accepted the recommendation relating to Inspectors-AMW.

13. On 27.1.2005, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeal, set aside  

the order of the learned single Judge and directed as follows:

“The petitioners be given the same scale from the respective date as were  given to their counterparts, namely, the four posts under RPA 1981 as  well as the corresponding scale under RPA 1986 and the same scale that

10

would be given to those four posts under the Fourth Pay Commission;  and accordingly their pay be fixed and the difference/arrears be paid to  the petitioners within six months from the date of service of a certified  copy of this order; and be paid accordingly so far as their current salary  is concerned in the same scale together with all consequential benefits as  are available in law to the respective petitioners.”

The said order is challenged in this appeal by special leave.

14. On  the  contentions  urged,  the  following  questions  arise  for  

consideration:

(1) Whether the respondents were entitled to the reliefs sought in the  writ petition as originally filed?

(2) Whether the respondents are entitled to higher pay scale on the basis  of the recommendations of the Pay Review Committee made in the  year 1990?

(3) Whether the respondents are entitled to higher pay scale as per the  recommendations  of  the  Fourth Pay Commission  and,  if  so,  from  what date?

Re : Question (1)

15. The principles relating to granting higher scale of pay on the basis  

of equal pay for equal work are well settled. The evaluation of duties and  

responsibilities  of  different  posts  and  determination  of  the  Pay  scales  

applicable  to  such  posts  and  determination  of  parity  in  duties  and  

responsibilities are complex executive functions, to be carried out by expert  

bodies.   Granting  parity  in  pay  scale  depends  upon  comparative  job

11

evaluation and equation of posts.  The principle “equal pay for equal work”  

is  not  a  fundamental  right  but  a  constitutional  goal.   It  is  dependent  on  

various factors such as educational qualifications, nature of the jobs, duties  

to  be performed,  responsibilities  to  be discharged,  experience,  method of  

recruitment  etc.  Comparison  merely  based  on  designation  of  posts  is  

misconceived.  Courts  should  approach  such  matters  with  restraint  and  

interfere only if they are satisfied that the decision of the Government is  

patently  irrational,  unjust  and  prejudicial  to  any  particular  section  of  

employees.  The  burden  to  prove  disparity  is  on  the  employees  claiming  

parity - vide State of U.P. Vs. Ministerial Karamchari Sangh, (1998) 1 SCC  

422;  Associate Bank Officers' Association Vs  State Bank of India, (1998) 1  

SCC 428; State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal   

Staff Association, (2002) 6 SCC 72; State of Haryana  Vs. Tilak Raj (2003)  

6 SCC 123; S.S. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand [2007 (8) SCC 299]; Uttar   

Pradesh State Electricity Board v. Aziz Ahmad [2009 (2) SCC 606].    

16. What  is  significant  in  this  case  is  that  parity  is  claimed  by  

Inspectors-AMW,  by  seeking  extension  of  the  pay  scale  applicable  to  

Inspector  (Cooperative  Societies),  Extension  Officers  (Panchayat)  and  

KGO-JLRO (Revenue Officers) not on the basis that the holders of those  

posts were performing similar duties or functions as Inspectors-AMW.  On

12

the other hand, the relief was claimed on the ground that prior to RPA Rules  

1981, the posts in the said three reference categories, and Inspectors-AMW  

were all in the same pay scale (Pay Scale No.9), and that under RPA Rules  

1981, those other three categories have been given a higher Pay Scale of  

No.11, while they – Inspectors-AMW -  were discriminated by continuing  

them in the Pay Scale No.9.  The claim in the writ petition was not based on  

the ground that subject post and reference category posts carried similar or  

identical duties and responsibilities but on the contention that as the subject   

post holders and the holders of reference category posts who were enjoying  

equal pay at an earlier point of time, should be continued to be given equal  

pay even after pay revision.  In other words, the parity claimed was not on  

the basis of equal pay for equal work, but on the basis of previous equal pay.

17. It is now well-settled that parity cannot be claimed merely on the  

basis  that  earlier  the  subject  post and  the  reference  category  posts were  

carrying the same scale of pay.  In fact,  one of the functions  of the Pay  

Commission is to identify the posts which deserve a higher scale of pay than  

what  was  earlier  being  enjoyed  with  reference  to  their  duties  and  

responsibilities, and extend such higher scale to those categories of posts.  

The Pay Commission has two functions; to revise the existing pay scale, by  

recommending  revised  pay  scales  corresponding  to  the  pre-revised  pay

13

scales and, secondly, make recommendations for upgrading or downgrading  

posts resulting in higher pay scales or lower pay scales, depending upon the  

nature of duties and functions attached to those posts.  Therefore, the mere  

fact that at an earlier point of time, two posts were carrying the same pay  

scale does not mean that after the implementation of revision in pay scales,  

they should necessarily have the same revised pay scale.  As noticed above,  

one post which is considered as having a lesser pay scale may be assigned a  

higher pay scale and another post which is considered to have a proper pay  

scale may merely be assigned the corresponding revised pay scale but not  

any higher pay scale.  Therefore, the benefit of higher pay scale can only be  

claimed  by  establishing  that  holders  of  the  subject  post and  holders  of  

reference category posts, discharge duties and functions identical with, or  

similar to, each other and that the continuation of disparity is irrational and  

unjust. The respondents have neither pleaded nor proved that the holders of  

post of Inspectors (Cooperative Societies), Extension Officers (Panchayat)  

and KGO-JLRO (Revenue Officers) were discharging duties and functions  

similar to the duties and functions of Inspector-AMW.  Hence, the prayers  

in the original writ petition could not have been granted.  In fact, that is why  

the learned single Judge rightly held that whether the posts were equivalent  

and whether  there  could  be  parity in  pay are  all  matters  that  have to  be  

considered by expert bodies and the remedy of the respondent was to give a

14

representation  to  the  concerned authority  and the  court  cannot  grant  any  

specific scale of pay to them.

Re :  Question (2)  

18. The Third Pay Commission did not accept the representation of the  

Inspectors–AMW seeking a higher pay scale.  It held that they are entitled  

only to Pay Scale No.9.  When the respondents made a grievance in that  

behalf, it  is no doubt true that the Pay Review Committee considered the  

representation and made a recommendation that the posts which were in the  

pay scale of Rs.300-600 including those which were in the same pay scale  

but started with a higher initial start of Rs.330, should be granted the scale  

of pay of Rs.425-1050, as per RPA Rules 1981.  The said Committee did not  

take note of the fact that different posts having the same pay scale, may have  

different duties and functions and some may deserve a higher pay scale than  

the  others.   The  Government  rejected  the  recommendation  of  the  said  

Committee,  for  valid  and  justifiable  reasons.  The  State  Government  

categorically  stated  that  the  Pay  Review  Committee’s  general  

recommendation that all posts carrying a particular scale of pay should all  

be given automatically the same higher pay scale could not be accepted, as  

the  Committee  did  not  make  the  recommendation  after  considering  the

15

duties  and  responsibilities  attached  to  different  categories  of  posts.  

Therefore,  we are of the view that the State Government was justified in  

acting on the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission and rejecting  

the recommendation by the Pay Review Committee.

Re :  Question (3)

19. The  Fourth  Pay  Commission  has  recommended  in  1999  that  the  

Inspectors–AMW should be extended the benefit  of Pay Scale No.10.  In  

view of  the  pendency of  the  dispute  relating  to  pay scale  in  the  appeal  

before the High Court, the Government did not take a final decision on the  

recommendation  of  the  Fourth  Pay  Commission  insofar  as  the  post  of  

Inspectors-AMW.

20. When  the  matter  came  up  today,  learned  counsel  for  the  State  

submitted  on  instructions  that  the  State  is  willing  to  accept  the  

recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission and extend the higher Pay  

Scale No.10, notionally with effect from 1.1.1996.  He also submitted that in  

the case of several  other posts,  where similar  recommendations had been  

made, while notional effect was given for the revised pay scale with effect  

from  1.1.1996,  actual  financial  benefits  were  given  with  effect  from

16

1.1.2008; and that the State Government will be willing to give similarly,  

actual  effect  (financial  benefits)  to  Inspectors-AMW from 1.1.2008.   In  

view of the said submission, it is unnecessary to examine the third question  

on merits.

21. For the  reasons  aforesaid,  we allow this  appeal  and set  aside the  

impugned  order  of  the  Division  Bench  of  the  Calcutta  High  Court.  

However,  in  view of  the  submission  made by the  State  Government,  we  

direct the State Government to extend the benefit of Pay Scale No.10 (4500-

9700) to the Inspectors  -  AMW, to take effect  notionally from 1.1.1996,  

with actual monetary benefits with effect from 1.1.2008.  We make it clear  

that  this  will  not  come  in  the  way  of  the  respondents  representing  or  

challenging the date on which the actual effect has been given (1.1.2008) in  

accordance  with  law,  if  they  want  the  actual  effect  from  a  date  

between 1.1.1996 and 1.1.2008.

  ___________________J.       ( R. V.  Raveendran)

__________________J.  (Swatanter Kumar)

New Delhi;  March 15,  2010.