Supreme Court Denies Pay Parity for Sub Fire Officers: Punjab State Electricity Board vs. Thana Singh (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 08 January 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 19

Judges: R. Banumathi, J., and Indira Banerjee, J.

Can employees in the same group, but with different roles, demand equal pay? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning Sub Fire Officers of the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB). The court had to decide whether these officers were entitled to pay parity with other positions within the same group, such as Head Clerks and Internal Auditors. This judgment clarifies the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, emphasizing that mere categorization within the same group does not automatically warrant equal pay scales.

The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice Indira Banerjee. Justice R. Banumathi authored the judgment.

Case Background

The respondents, who were working as Sub Fire Officers in the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB), were initially placed in a pay scale of Rs. 225-500 which was later revised to Rs. 620-1200 with effect from 01.01.1978. Subsequently, their pay scale was revised to Rs. 1640-2925 with effect from 01.01.1986. However, the pay scales of Head Clerks and Internal Auditors were revised to Rs. 2000-3500 and Rs. 1800-3200 respectively, while the Sub Fire Officers’ pay scale remained unchanged. The Sub Fire Officers then made representations to the appellant-Board requesting for higher pay scale on the ground that the pay scale to the post of Sub Fire Officers in the Punjab State Government Department i.e. Fire Protection Department is Rs.1800-3200.

The Sub Fire Officers argued that the nature of their work was similar to that of Head Clerks and Internal Auditors, and therefore, they should receive the same pay scale. They also contended that there was no difference in qualifications for recruitment to the post of Sub Fire Officers between the Board and the State Government and therefore, there should not be any difference in the pay scale between them. The PSEB, however, maintained that the roles and responsibilities of Sub Fire Officers were different from those of Head Clerks and Internal Auditors, and hence, they were not entitled to pay parity.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Sub Fire Officers filed a writ petition (CWP No.9294 of 1993) in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, arguing that the PSEB’s action in granting them a lower pay scale compared to State Government employees was discriminatory and violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, holding that since Sub Fire Officers were part of Group XII, they could not be denied the same pay scales as Head Clerks, Head Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountants, and Internal Auditors, who were also in the same group. However, the Single Judge rejected the claim for parity with State Government employees.

The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the PSEB, upholding the Single Judge’s decision. The Division Bench referred to a letter dated 25.03.1991 from the Superintendent Engineer, GNDTP, Bhatinda, which stated that revising the pay scale of Sub Fire Officers would not cause a significant financial burden on the Board. Aggrieved by this decision, the PSEB appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which ensures equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. The respondents argued that the denial of equal pay for equal work violated this principle. The Supreme Court also considered the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ as enshrined under Article 39(d) of the Constitution, which directs the State to secure equal pay for equal work for both men and women. The court also considered the Punjab State Electricity Board (Revised Pay) Regulations, 1988, which governs the service conditions of PSEB employees.

Arguments

Appellant (Punjab State Electricity Board) Arguments:

• The appellant-Board contended that the Sub Fire Officers cannot claim parity with other categories like Head Clerks, Head Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountants, Internal Auditors, etc., because all these posts belong to different cadres.
• The mode of recruitment, nature of duties, and responsibilities for each post are entirely different.
• Though the post of Sub Fire Officers is included in Group XII, the nature of duties and responsibilities to each post in Group XII are different.
• The learned Single Judge erred in saying that merely because the post of Sub Fire Officers is categorized in Group XII, they are to be treated on par with other categories of posts in Group XII.
• Sustaining the impugned judgment would have huge financial implications on the appellant-Board.

Respondents (Sub Fire Officers) Arguments:

• The respondents argued that since they are included in Group XII, there cannot be any discrimination in the scales of pay.
• When the scales of pay were increased for other three classes of posts within Group XII, similar revision of scale of pay ought to have been given to the respondents also.
• The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench rightly ordered the parity in scale of pay.
• The respondents relied upon the letter dated 25.03.1991 of the Superintendent Engineer, GNDTP, Bhatinda, to support their claim for parity of pay scale with pay scale of Head Clerks, Head Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountants and Internal Auditors.

Summary of Arguments

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether Sub Fire Officers can claim parity of pay scale with the pay scale of Head Clerks, Head Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountants, Internal Auditors, etc., merely on the ground that the post of Sub Fire Officers is categorized in Group XII?
2. Whether respondents are right in contending that the grant of different scales of pay to Sub Fire Officers is discrimination and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On the principle that equation of pay scales is an executive function:

• Steel Authority of India Limited and Others v. Dibyendu Bhattacharya (2011) 11 SCC 122 (Supreme Court of India)
• Union of India and Others v. S.L. Dutta and Another (1991) 1 SCC 505 (Supreme Court of India)
• Union of India and Others v. N.Y. Apte and Others (1998) 6 SCC 741 (Supreme Court of India)
• State of U.P. and Others v. J.P. Chaurasia and Others (1989) 1 SCC 121 (Supreme Court of India)
• Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bank v. D.B. Sharma and Others (2001) 1 SCC 353 (Supreme Court of India)
• T. Venkateswarulu v. Executive Officer, Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanams and Others (2009) 1 SCC 546 (Supreme Court of India)
• S.C. Chandra and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others (2007) 8 SCC 279 (Supreme Court of India)
• Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 408 (Supreme Court of India)

On factors for considering equation of posts:

• Union of India and Another v. P.K. Roy and Others AIR 1968 SC 850 (Supreme Court of India)
• State of Maharashtra and Another v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni and Others (1981) 4 SCC 130 (Supreme Court of India)
• Vice-Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University v. Dayanand Jha (1986) 3 SCC 7 (Supreme Court of India)
• E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N. and Another (1974) 4 SCC 3 (Supreme Court of India)
• Sub-Inspector Rooplal and Another v. Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary, Delhi and Others (2000) 1 SCC 644 (Supreme Court of India)

On the burden of proof for claiming parity:

• State of Haryana and Another v. Tilak Raj and Others (2003) 6 SCC 123 (Supreme Court of India)
• U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. and Another v. Sant Raj Singh and Others (2006) 9 SCC 82 (Supreme Court of India)
• Union of India and Another v. Mahajabeen Akhtar (2008) 1 SCC 368 (Supreme Court of India)
• Union of India v. Dineshan K.K (2008) 1 SCC 586 (Supreme Court of India)
• Union of India and Others v. Hiranmoy Sen and Others (2008) 1 SCC 630 (Supreme Court of India)
• Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others (2008) 10 SCC 1 (Supreme Court of India)
• U.P. SEB and Another v. Aziz Ahmad (2009) 2 SCC 606 (Supreme Court of India)
• State of M.P. and Others v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (2009) 13 SCC 635 (Supreme Court of India)

On financial implications:

• Union of India and Another v. Manik Lal Banerjee (2006) 9 SCC 643 (Supreme Court of India)

On providing different pay scales in the same cadre:

• State of U.P. and Others v. J.P. Chaurasia and Others (1989) 1 SCC 121 (Supreme Court of India)
• Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Others (1989) 2 SCC 235 (Supreme Court of India)
• Madhu Kishwar and Others v. State of Bihar and Others (1996) 5 SCC 125 (Supreme Court of India)
• Associate Banks Officers’ Assn. v. SBI and Others (1998) 1 SCC 428 (Supreme Court of India)
• Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others (2008) 10 SCC 1 (Supreme Court of India)

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court emphasized that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ does not apply in a vacuum. The court noted that the determination of pay scales is primarily an executive function and that courts should not interfere unless the decision is unreasonable or arbitrary. The court highlighted that the burden of proving parity lies with the employee claiming it. The court also noted that the nature of duties and responsibilities of Sub Fire Officers are different from those of Head Clerks and Internal Auditors. The court also considered the financial implications of granting pay parity, noting that this could have a significant impact on the Board’s finances.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on the differences in the nature of duties and responsibilities between the posts. The court also considered the financial implications and the fact that the determination of pay scales is an executive function. The court rejected the argument that mere inclusion in the same group warrants equal pay.

Logical Reasoning:

The court rejected the argument that the Sub Fire Officers should receive the same pay scale as Head Clerks and Internal Auditors. The court emphasized that the principle of equal pay for equal work applies only when there is a complete identity between the posts in terms of duties, responsibilities, and qualifications. The court also highlighted the importance of financial implications and the fact that pay scale determination is an executive function.

The court considered the argument that the Sub Fire Officers were entitled to the same pay scale as employees of the Punjab Government but rejected it, stating that the nature of work performed by those in the service of Punjab Government are different from those in service of the Board. The court also considered the letter from the Superintendent Engineer, GNDTP, Bhatinda, but found that it did not indicate any parity of nature of work, responsibilities, functional need, etc.

The court quoted from Steel Authority of India Limited and Others v. Dibyendu Bhattacharya (2011) 11 SCC 122, stating that: “the determination that two posts are equal or not, is a job of the Expert Committee and the court should not interfere with it unless the decision of the Committee is found to be unreasonable or arbitrary or made on extraneous considerations.”

The court also quoted from S.C. Chandra and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others (2007) 8 SCC 279, stating that: “granting pay scales is a purely executive function and hence the court should not interfere with the same.”

The court further quoted from SAIL, stating that: “parity of pay can be claimed by invoking the provisions of Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India by establishing that the eligibility, mode of selection/recruitment, nature and quality of work and duties and effort, reliability, confidentiality, dexterity, functional need and responsibilities and status of both the posts are identical.”

Key Takeaways

• Mere categorization of posts in the same group is not sufficient for claiming parity of pay scales.
• The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ applies only when there is complete similarity in the nature of work, duties, responsibilities, and qualifications.
• The determination of pay scales is primarily an executive function, and courts should not interfere unless the decision is unreasonable or arbitrary.
• The burden of proving parity lies with the employee claiming it.
• Financial implications are a relevant factor for accepting the revision of pay.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that any amount paid to the respondents and other Sub Fire Officers over and above their payable salary due to the interim order of the Supreme Court should not be recovered from them.

Specific Amendments Analysis

(Not Applicable as no specific amendment was discussed in the judgment)

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that mere inclusion of posts in the same group does not automatically warrant equal pay scales. The court reiterated that parity of pay can only be claimed when there is a complete similarity in the nature of work, duties, responsibilities, and qualifications. This judgment reinforces the principle that the determination of pay scales is primarily an executive function and that courts should not interfere unless the decision is unreasonable or arbitrary. This case also clarifies the burden of proof for claiming parity of pay scales.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and held that the Sub Fire Officers of the Punjab State Electricity Board were not entitled to pay parity with Head Clerks, Head Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountants, and Internal Auditors. The court emphasized that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ applies only when there is a complete identity between the posts in terms of duties, responsibilities, and qualifications. The court also highlighted the importance of financial implications and the fact that pay scale determination is an executive function.