Supreme Court Denies Pay Parity to Junior Stenographers: Anjali Arora vs. Union of India (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 11 February 2019

Citation: (2019) INSC 69

Judges: R.F. Nariman, J. and Navin Sinha, J.

Can employees in the same organization, but holding different positions, claim equal pay? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning junior stenographers seeking pay parity with senior stenographers at the National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration. The core issue revolves around whether employees who have received similar pay scales through career progression schemes are entitled to the same pay as those who directly held higher posts. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench consisting of Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice Navin Sinha, with the opinion authored by Justice Navin Sinha.

Case Background

The petitioners, Anjali Arora and others, were employed as Junior Stenographers/Stenographer Grade-II at the National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration. They sought a pay scale equal to that of Senior Stenographers/Stenographer Grade-I, relying on a previous Supreme Court judgment in Yogeshwar Prasad & Ors. vs. National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration & Ors. [(2010) 14 SCC 323]. In the Yogeshwar Prasad case, the Supreme Court had granted a higher pay scale to certain employees of the National Institute. The petitioners argued that they were similarly situated and thus entitled to the same benefit under Regulation 4(2) of the National Institute Regulations, which stipulates that employees should receive pay scales equivalent to their counterparts in the Central Government. The petitioners had made representations since 2015 which were rejected on 05.02.2018. They pointed out that the institute had granted similar relief to four other employees who were not party to the Yogeshwar Prasad judgment.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioners, being aggrieved by the rejection of their claim for pay parity, filed a writ petition before the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. They sought a direction from the court to grant them pay scales equal to those given to Senior Stenographers, relying on the Yogeshwar Prasad case and the National Institute Regulations. The respondents, on the other hand, contended that the petitioners were not similarly situated as the appellants in Yogeshwar Prasad, and therefore, not entitled to the same relief.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework in this case is Regulation 4(2) of the National Institute Regulations, which states:

“4(2) Group ‘A’ officers, other than faculty members and those on UGC grades of pay groups ‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ employees shall draw salary and allowances in such scales of pay as may be applicable to the corresponding categories of Central Government employees and be subject to such conditions of service as are or may be applicable to Central Government employees from time to time.”

This regulation mandates that employees of the National Institute, in specified categories, should receive pay and allowances equivalent to their counterparts in the Central Government. The petitioners argued that this provision entitled them to the same pay scale as the Senior Stenographers, who were granted the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 with effect from 01.01.1986 pursuant to the 4th Central Pay Commission recommendation, and the consequent revisions of that scale.

Arguments

Petitioners’ Submissions:

• The petitioners contended that they were similarly situated as the appellants in Yogeshwar Prasad (supra) and therefore entitled to the same pay scale as per Regulation 4(2) of the National Institute Regulations. They argued that the regulation mandates pay parity with Central Government employees holding equivalent positions.

• The petitioners highlighted that the respondents themselves had granted similar relief to four other employees who were not parties to the Yogeshwar Prasad case, demonstrating that the principle of parity should apply to all similarly situated employees, not just those who were party to the previous litigation.

• The petitioners argued that they had been subjected to arbitrary and hostile discrimination by the respondents.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The respondents argued that the petitioners were not similarly situated as the appellants in Yogeshwar Prasad (supra). The petitioners were initially appointed as Junior Stenographers/Stenographer Grade-II, which is a lower post than the Senior Stenographers/Stenographer Grade-I held by the appellants in Yogeshwar Prasad.

• The respondents contended that the posts of Junior Stenographer and Senior Stenographer carry different pay scales. The fact that the petitioners acquired similar pay scales as Senior Stenographers through the Assured Career Progression (ACP) or Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) schemes does not entitle them to the same pay scale as those who were directly appointed to the higher post.

• The respondents highlighted that the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 for Senior Stenographers was operationalized in 1990, during the regime of 5th Central Pay Commission. Petitioners 1 and 2 were promoted to Stenographer Grade-I only in 2017 and 2018 respectively, when the 6th and 7th Pay Commissions were already operational. Petitioner No. 3 retired as Junior Stenographer and never got regular promotion.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the petitioners, who were initially appointed as Junior Stenographers/Stenographer Grade-II and later promoted or granted ACP/MACP, are entitled to pay parity with Senior Stenographers/Stenographer Grade-I, based on Regulation 4(2) of the National Institute Regulations and the principle of “equal pay for equal work.”

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners were not entitled to pay parity with Senior Stenographers.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court distinguished the case of Yogeshwar Prasad & Ors. vs. National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration & Ors. [(2010) 14 SCC 323]* and held that the relief granted in that case was specific to the appellants therein and did not create a general right to pay parity.
• The Court interpreted Regulation 4(2) of the National Institute Regulations to mean that pay scales should be equivalent to those of Central Government employees in corresponding categories, but not to grant parity between different posts.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the fact that the petitioners were not initially appointed to the same post as the appellants in Yogeshwar Prasad. The court emphasized that the pay scales for Junior Stenographers and Senior Stenographers were different, and the fact that the petitioners acquired similar pay scales through ACP/MACP did not automatically entitle them to the same pay as those who were directly appointed to the higher post. The court also considered that the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 was operationalized in 1990, while the petitioners were promoted to Stenographer Grade-I much later.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was based on the factual differences in the initial appointments of the petitioners and the appellants in Yogeshwar Prasad, as well as the legal interpretation of Regulation 4(2). The Court gave more weightage to the factual aspects of the case in its decision-making process.

The Court considered the arguments made by the Petitioners but ultimately rejected them, emphasizing that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” does not apply when employees are not holding the same position and the pay scales are different. The Court also noted that the relief granted in Yogeshwar Prasad was specific to the parties involved in that case.

The Court’s decision was based on the following reasoning:

• The petitioners were not similarly situated as the appellants in Yogeshwar Prasad because they were initially appointed to a lower post.
• The posts of Junior Stenographer and Senior Stenographer carry different pay scales.
• Acquiring similar pay scales through ACP/MACP does not entitle the petitioners to the same pay as those who were directly appointed to the higher post.
• The pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 was operationalized in 1990, while the petitioners were promoted to Stenographer Grade-I much later.

The Court stated, “The petitioners not being similarly situated as the appellants in Yogeshwar Prasad (supra), we find no merit in the present Writ Petition.” The Court also clarified that “parity of pay scale can be granted to the petitioners provided they were similarly situated as the appellants in the Yogeshwar Prasad (supra).” The Court further stated, “Therefore, UDCs/Junior Stenographer (Stenographer Grade II) who acquired identical pay scales as those of Assistants/Senior Stenographers/Stenographer Grade-I by virtue of ACP/MACP cannot be considered at par so as to be entitled to parity of pay scales.”

Key Takeaways

• Pay parity claims must be based on holding equivalent posts, not just acquiring similar pay scales through career progression schemes.
• The principle of “equal pay for equal work” does not apply when employees are not holding the same position with the same responsibilities.
• Relief granted in a specific case does not automatically create a general right to similar relief for others not party to that case.
• ACP/MACP does not entitle an employee to the same pay scale as those directly appointed to a higher post.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that employees who have acquired similar pay scales through ACP/MACP are not entitled to pay parity with those who were directly appointed to higher posts, if the posts are different and carry different pay scales. This case clarifies that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” is not applicable to different posts, even if the employees end up drawing similar pay scales due to career progression. This judgment reinforces the principle that pay parity claims must be based on holding equivalent posts, and not just acquiring similar pay scales through career progression. This is a reiteration of the settled position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition filed by junior stenographers seeking pay parity with senior stenographers, holding that they were not similarly situated and therefore not entitled to the same pay scale. The Court clarified that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” does not apply when employees are not holding the same position, even if they acquire similar pay scales through career progression schemes.