Supreme Court Denies Pension Upgrade Based on Equal Pay for Retired Forest Officer: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. R.D. Sharma (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 27 January 2022
Citation: (2022) INSC 73
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J., Bela M. Trivedi, J.

Can a retired government employee claim a pension upgrade based on the principle of “equal pay for equal work,” when the upgrade is for a post they never held during their service? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning a retired Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF) from Madhya Pradesh. The court examined whether the High Court of Madhya Pradesh was correct in granting the pension upgrade based on the principle of “equal pay for equal work.” The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench consisting of Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Bela M. Trivedi.

Case Background

The respondent, R.D. Sharma, retired from the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF) on December 31, 2001. Subsequently, the Government of India introduced the Indian Forest Service (Pay) Second Amendment Rules, 2008, effective from September 27, 2008. These rules upgraded one existing post of PCCF to be designated as Head of Forest Force in each state cadre, with an apex scale of Rs. 80,000. The upgraded post was to be filled by selection from among officers holding the post of PCCF in the HAG+ scale. Sharma, after his retirement, sought a revision of his pension from Rs. 37,750 to Rs. 40,000, arguing that he should receive 50% of the apex scale of Rs. 80,000. His representation was rejected, leading him to file an Original Application (O.A.) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which was also dismissed. He then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which was allowed, granting him the pension benefit. The State of Madhya Pradesh then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The respondent, R.D. Sharma, initially filed an Original Application (O.A.) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jabalpur, which was dismissed on May 17, 2013. Aggrieved by this decision, Sharma filed a Writ Petition (No. 14940 of 2013) before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which was allowed on August 24, 2013. The High Court held that Sharma was eligible for a pension of Rs. 40,000, at par with other officers, as per the 2008 Rules. The State of Madhya Pradesh then filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, which was disposed of on December 1, 2017, with liberty to the State to approach the High Court for correction of records. Subsequently, the State filed a review petition before the High Court, which was dismissed on September 17, 2019, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the Indian Forest Service (Pay) Rules, 2007, and the subsequent Indian Forest Service (Pay) Second Amendment Rules, 2008. Specifically, sub-rule 1 of Rule 3 of the Amended Rules of 2008 is crucial, which states:

“(iii) Apex Scale: Rs.80000 (fixed), Grade Pay: nil (by upgradation of one existing post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest as head of Forest Force in the each State Cadre); (With effect from the date of issue of notification of the Indian Forest Service (Pay) Amendment Rules, 2008 );”

The rule further specifies that the upgraded post of PCCF in the apex scale was to be filled by selection from amongst the officers holding the post of PCCF in the State cadre in the HAG+ scale of Rs. 75,500 – 80,000. The All India Services Act, 1951, under which these rules were framed, empowers the government to regulate the conditions of service of members of the All India Services. The case also touches upon Article 227 of the Constitution of India, which deals with the High Court’s power of superintendence over subordinate courts and tribunals.

Arguments

Appellant (State of Madhya Pradesh) Arguments:

• The State argued that the 2008 Rules came into force on September 27, 2008, and since the respondent had retired in 2001, he could not be granted the benefit of the apex scale.
• The principle of “equal pay for equal work” was not applicable as the upgradation of the post of PCCF to Head of Forest Force was to be filled by “selection” and was effective from September 27, 2008.
• The respondent was not working on the upgraded post of Head of the Forest Force, which was designated for the first time in 2008.
• The State relied on the case of K.S. Krishnaswamy & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. [2006 (13) SCC 215] to argue that the benefit of upgradation cannot be given to a pensioner who had retired before such upgradation.

Respondent (R.D. Sharma) Arguments:

• The respondent argued that officers appointed as PCCF were also appointed as Head of the Forest Department before the 2008 Rules came into force.
• The respondent was also shown as PCCF, M.P., in the list of members of IFS, implying he was also the Head of the Forest Department.
• The work and responsibility of a PCCF and the upgraded post of PCCF, Head of Forest Force were the same, and therefore, he was entitled to the benefit of the apex scale.
• The post of PCCF, Head of Forest Force was not newly created but was upgraded from the existing post of PCCF, and therefore, he should be eligible for pension as per the apex scale.
• The respondent relied on the principle of “equal pay for equal work,” citing State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh and Ors. [2017 SCC 148].

Submissions Table:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

✓ Whether the High Court, while exercising its powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, had misdirected itself by applying the principle of “equal pay for equal work” to the case of respondent no. 1 who had already retired as the PCCF on 31.12.2001, for the purpose of granting him the benefit of the apex scale fixed for the upgraded post of Head of the Forest Force, MP Cadre, as per the Amended Rules of 2008 which came into effect from 27th September 2008 and fixing his pension accordingly?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

✓ K.S. Krishnaswamy & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. [2006 (13) SCC 215] – The Supreme Court held that the benefit of upgradation of a post cannot be given to a pensioner who had already retired before such upgradation.

✓ Sudhakar Baburao Nangnure Vs. Noreshwar Raghunathrao Shende [2020 (11) SCC 399] – The Supreme Court held that if a submission has not been considered by the High Court, the aggrieved litigant must turn to the High Court for rectification.

✓ State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh and Ors. [2017 SCC 148] – The Supreme Court held that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” is applicable to temporary employees. This case was relied upon by the High Court, but the Supreme Court held that it had no application to the facts of the present case.

✓ Secretary, Finance Department Vs. West Bengal Registration Service Associations and Ors. [1993 Supl. 1 SCC 153] – The Supreme Court held that the equation of post and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary.

✓ State of Haryana and Anr. Vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association [2002 (06) SCC 72] – The Supreme Court held that “equal pay for equal work” is not a fundamental right but a constitutional goal.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

✓ All India Services Act, 1951 – This act empowers the government to regulate the conditions of service of members of the All India Services.

✓ Indian Forest Service (Pay) Rules, 2007 – The original pay rules for the Indian Forest Service.

✓ Indian Forest Service (Pay) Second Amendment Rules, 2008 – Amended the 2007 rules, providing for the upgradation of one post of PCCF to Head of Forest Force.

✓ Article 227 of the Constitution of India – Grants the High Court power of superintendence over subordinate courts and tribunals.

Authority Usage Table:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ The Court relied on K.S. Krishnaswamy & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. [2006 (13) SCC 215]* to support its view that the benefit of upgradation cannot be given to a pensioner who had already retired before such upgradation.

✓ The Court cited Sudhakar Baburao Nangnure Vs. Noreshwar Raghunathrao Shende [2020 (11) SCC 399]* to justify the maintainability of the appeals.

✓ The Court distinguished State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh and Ors. [2017 SCC 148]*, stating that it had no application to the present case as it pertained to temporary employees and not to pensionary benefits.

✓ The Court referred to Secretary, Finance Department Vs. West Bengal Registration Service Associations and Ors. [1993 Supl. 1 SCC 153]* to reiterate that the determination of pay scales is the function of the executive and not the judiciary.

✓ The Court cited State of Haryana and Anr. Vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association [2002 (06) SCC 72]* to clarify that “equal pay for equal work” is a constitutional goal and not a fundamental right.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• The explicit language of the Amended Rules of 2008, which stated that the upgraded post of Head of Forest Force was to be filled by selection from among serving officers, and was effective from September 27, 2008.
• The fact that the respondent had retired in 2001, much before the Amended Rules came into force, making him ineligible for the benefit of the apex scale.
• The principle that the determination of pay scales is primarily an executive function, and courts should not interfere unless there is a clear error.
• The understanding that “equal pay for equal work” is a constitutional goal and not a fundamental right, and that it was not applicable to the facts of the case.
• The Court emphasized that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 by interfering with the well-reasoned order of the Tribunal.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning Flowchart:

The Court’s reasoning was based on a strict interpretation of the rules and a clear distinction between the roles of the executive and the judiciary in pay scale determination. The court emphasized that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” could not be applied to a situation where the employee had retired before the upgradation of the post.

The court stated, “From the above quoted rules, it is abundantly clear that one existing post of PCCF was to be upgraded as the Head of Forest Force in each State cadre, fixing the apex scale at Rs. 80,000/- w.e.f. the date of the issue of Notification of the said Amended Rules i.e. 27th September, 2008, and that the said post of PCCF in the apex scale was to be filled up by selection from amongst the officers holding the post of PCCF in the State cadre in the HAG + scale of Rs.75,500/- (annual increment @ 3%) – 80,000/-.”

The court also noted, “Since the respondent no. 1 had retired as the PCCF in the year 2001 that is much prior to the coming into force of the Amended Rules, 2008, his claim to get the benefit of the apex scale as per the said rules was thoroughly misconceived.”

Further, the court observed, “The High Court in the impugned orders passed in Writ Petition as well as in the Review Petition had thoroughly misdirected itself by applying the principle of “equal pay for equal work” placing reliance on the decision of this court in case of State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh and Ors. 2017 SCC 148, which had no application to the facts of the present case.”

Key Takeaways

• Pension benefits are generally determined by the rules in force at the time of retirement.
• The principle of “equal pay for equal work” cannot be applied to claim pension benefits for posts not held during service.
• Upgradation of posts and pay scales are primarily an executive function, and courts should be cautious in interfering.
• High Courts should exercise their power of superintendence under Article 227 sparingly, and only in cases of clear jurisdictional errors by subordinate courts or tribunals.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders passed by the High Court and allowed the appeals.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that pension benefits are determined by the rules in force at the time of retirement, and the principle of “equal pay for equal work” cannot be applied to claim benefits for posts not held during service. This judgment reinforces the principle that the determination of pay scales is an executive function and that courts should be cautious in interfering with such decisions. It also clarifies the scope of the High Court’s power of superintendence under Article 227, emphasizing that it should not be used to correct mere errors but only jurisdictional errors of subordinate courts or tribunals. There is no change in the position of law, but the judgment reinforces the existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court, in this case, overturned the High Court’s decision, holding that a retired forest officer was not entitled to a pension upgrade based on the principle of “equal pay for equal work” for a post he did not hold during his service. The Court emphasized that the upgraded post was to be filled by selection and that the respondent had retired before the rules came into effect. This judgment reinforces the principle that pension benefits are determined by the rules in force at the time of retirement and that the courts should not interfere with the executive’s decisions on pay scales unless there is a clear error.