Supreme Court Denies Pension Upgrade Based on ‘Equal Pay’ Principle: State of Madhya Pradesh vs. R.D. Sharma (2022)

Date of the Judgment: 27 January 2022
Citation: [Not Available in the provided text]
Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J. and Bela M. Trivedi, J.
Can a retired government employee claim a pension upgrade based on a pay scale revision that occurred after their retirement? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the limits of the ‘equal pay for equal work’ principle in the context of pension benefits. The court held that a retired officer cannot claim the benefit of an upgraded pay scale introduced after their retirement, even if the nature of work was argued to be similar. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and Justice Bela M. Trivedi, with the opinion authored by Justice Bela M. Trivedi.

Case Background

The case revolves around R.D. Sharma, a retired Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF) from the Madhya Pradesh cadre, who retired on December 31, 2001. After his retirement, the Indian Forest Service (Pay) Rules, 2007 were amended in 2008. The 2008 amendment created an upgraded post of Head of Forest Force in each state cadre, with a higher apex scale of Rs. 80,000. Mr. Sharma requested a revision of his pension to reflect this new apex scale, arguing that his previous role as PCCF was essentially the same as the upgraded post. The Government of India rejected his request, which led to a legal battle.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) initially dismissed R.D. Sharma’s claim for a pension revision. However, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur overturned the CAT’s decision, ruling that R.D. Sharma was eligible for the higher pension based on the principle of “equal pay for equal work.” The State of Madhya Pradesh then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court initially disposed of the Special Leave Petition (SLP) with liberty to the State to approach the High Court for correction of records. After the High Court dismissed the Review Petition, the State again approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of the Indian Forest Service (Pay) Rules, 2007, as amended by the Indian Forest Service (Pay) Second Amendment Rules, 2008. Specifically, sub-rule 1 of Rule 3 of the Amended Rules of 2008 is relevant, which states:

“(1) Pay-Bands and Grade Pays: – The pay bands and grade pays admissible to a member of the Service and the dates with effect from which the said pay bands and grade pays shall be deemed to have come into force, shall be as follows:
…
(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 );
Note 2: The post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest in the apex scale shall be filled by selection form amongst the officers holding the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest in the State cadre in the HAG + Scale of Rs. 75500 -(annual increment @ 3%) -80000.”

The rules stipulate that the apex scale of Rs. 80,000 was fixed for the upgraded post of Head of Forest Force, effective from September 27, 2008, and was to be filled by selection from amongst the officers holding the post of PCCF in the State cadre in the HAG + Scale. The Supreme Court also considered 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 effect on September 27, 2008, and R.D. Sharma had retired in 2001, therefore, he was not eligible for the apex scale benefit.
• The upgraded post of Head of Forest Force was to be filled by “selection,” not automatically, and the principle of “equal pay for equal work” was not applicable.
• The State contended that the High Court erred by stating that R.D. Sharma was working as PCCF, Head of the Forest Force, when the upgraded post was created only in 2008.

Respondent 1 (R.D. Sharma) Arguments:

• R.D. Sharma argued that officers appointed as PCCF were also appointed as Head of the Forest Department before the 2008 amendment.
• He contended that the work and responsibilities of a PCCF and the upgraded post of Head of Forest Force were the same, justifying the application of “equal pay for equal work.”
• He submitted that the upgraded post was not a new post but an upgrade of the existing PCCF post, therefore, he was eligible for the pension as per the apex scale.

Respondent 2 (Union of India) Arguments:

• The Union of India supported the State of Madhya Pradesh, arguing that the benefit of upgradation of an existing post cannot be given to a pensioner who had already retired before such upgradation.

Submissions Table:

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The core issue framed by the Supreme Court was:

“whether the High Court while exercising its powers of superintendence under Article 227 of 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

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Supreme Court relied on Sudhakar Baburao Nangnure Vs. Noreshwar Raghunathrao Shende 2020 (11) SCC 399* to hold that the present appeals were maintainable. The Court relied on K.S. Krishnaswamy & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr. 2006 (13) SCC 215* to state that the benefit of upgradation of an existing post cannot be given to a pensioner who had already retired before such upgradation. The Court distinguished State of Punjab and Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh and Ors. 2017 SCC 148* and held that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” was not applicable in the present case. The Court relied on Secretary, Finance Department Vs. West Bengal Registration Service Associations and Ors. 1993 Supl. 1 SCC 153* to hold that the equation of post and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary. The Court relied on State of Haryana and Anr. Vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association 2002 (06) SCC 72* to hold that “equal pay for equal work” is not a fundamental right.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

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

• The specific language of the 2008 amendment, which clearly stated that the upgraded post of Head of Forest Force was to be filled by selection and was effective from September 27, 2008.
• The principle that pay scales and job evaluations are primarily the domain of the executive, and the judiciary should only intervene in cases of grave error.
• The fact that the “equal pay for equal work” principle does not apply to a situation where a post is upgraded and filled by selection after an employee’s retirement.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the argument that the post of PCCF and the upgraded post of Head of Forest Force were the same, stating that if that were the case, there would have been no need to create an upgraded post. The court emphasized that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction under Article 227 by interfering with the Tribunal’s order without any jurisdictional error or failure of justice. The court quoted:

“It is well -settled l egal position that the power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors.”

The Court also observed:

“The apex scale of Rs. 80,000/- was fixed for the upgraded post designated as the Head of Forest Force w.e.f. 27th September, 2008 and was to be filled up by way of selection and not as a matter of course.”

The Court further noted:

“It is needless to say that filling up a post by selection would always require a process of screening the eligible employees, and cannot be automatic on the basis of seniority.”

Key Takeaways

• The principle of “equal pay for equal work” does not automatically extend to pension benefits, especially when a post is upgraded and filled by selection after an employee’s retirement.
• Pay scale revisions and job evaluations are primarily the responsibility of the executive, and courts should not interfere unless there is a clear error or injustice.
• High Courts should exercise their power of superintendence under Article 227 sparingly and only when subordinate courts or tribunals have exceeded their jurisdiction.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court other than setting aside the High Court orders.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” does not apply to pension benefits when a post is upgraded and filled by selection after an employee’s retirement. This judgment reinforces the principle that pay scales and job evaluations are primarily the responsibility of the executive, and the judiciary should not interfere unless there is a clear error or injustice. The judgment clarifies that the power of superintendence under Article 227 should be exercised sparingly and only when subordinate courts or tribunals have exceeded their jurisdiction.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh, setting aside the High Court’s orders. The court held that R.D. Sharma was not entitled to the pension benefits of the upgraded post of Head of Forest Force as he had retired before the post was created and the principle of “equal pay for equal work” was not applicable to his case. The judgment clarifies the limits of judicial intervention in pay scale matters and reinforces the importance of adhering to the specific rules governing pension benefits.