Supreme Court overturns High Court ruling on pay scale parity for Research Assistants: Dr. P.N. Shukla vs. Union of India (30 November 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 30 November 2023

Citation: (2023) INSC 1047

Judges: Hima Kohli, J., Rajesh Bindal, J.

Can an employee in a government organization, who is part of a defined cadre and governed by specific service rules, be granted a higher pay scale than their colleagues based solely on their educational qualifications, even if they are performing the same duties? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning Research Assistants in the Commission for Scientific and Technical Terminology (CSTT). The core issue revolved around the legality of granting a higher pay scale to one Research Assistant (later redesignated as Assistant Scientific Officer) with a medical degree, while other Research Assistants with different educational backgrounds were denied the same benefit, despite all belonging to the same cadre and performing similar duties. The Supreme Court bench comprised of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Rajesh Bindal, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Rajesh Bindal.

Case Background

The case involves several Research Assistants at the Commission for Scientific and Technical Terminology (CSTT), including Dr. P.N. Shukla (Appellant No. 1) and others (Appellants No. 2 to 6), who were initially recruited under the Central Hindi Directorate (Research Assistant) Recruitment Rules, 1980. The respondent No. 4, also a Research Assistant with a medical background, was later granted a higher pay scale, leading to a dispute. The appellants challenged this decision, arguing that all Research Assistants, regardless of their specific subject matter expertise, were part of the same cadre, performed similar duties, and were governed by the same rules. The core of the dispute arose when the respondent No. 4 was granted a higher pay scale, and Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA), based on a misinterpretation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission’s recommendations, which were intended for medical officers, not research assistants.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants initially filed an Original Application (OA) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, seeking pay parity with Respondent No. 4. This OA was withdrawn with the liberty to file a comprehensive representation before the competent authority. After the rejection of their representation, the appellants filed another OA, which was also withdrawn. Subsequently, a third OA was filed challenging the rejection order. The Tribunal dismissed this OA, and a review application was also dismissed. The appellants then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi, which was also dismissed, upholding the Tribunal’s decision. The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision, stating that the higher pay scale granted to Respondent No. 4 was justified due to his medical qualification. This decision was then appealed before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case is primarily governed by the Central Hindi Directorate (Research Assistant) Recruitment Rules, 1980, as amended in 1993. These rules prescribe the qualifications and experience required for the post of Research Assistant in various subjects, including medicine. The Fifth Central Pay Commission’s report also plays a role, particularly paragraph 52.33, which deals with pay scales of doctors in the Indian Systems of Medicine & Homeopathy (ISM&H). However, the Court notes that the relevant paragraphs for CSTT employees were 71.15 to 71.17. The court also notes that the Central Civil Services Rules 1997, as per the First Schedule, Part -A, the corresponding scale of ₹2200 -4000 was 8000 -13500.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that they were recruited under the same 1980 Rules as Respondent No. 4 and were part of the same cadre.
• They contended that all Assistant Scientific Officers, regardless of their subject, performed similar duties and had interchangeable job profiles.
• The appellants highlighted that Respondent No. 4 was not practicing medicine and therefore, the reliance on para 52.33 of the Fifth Central Pay Commission’s report, which pertained to doctors, was misplaced. They argued that the relevant paras were 71.15 to 71.17 of the report.
• They pointed out that the order upgrading Respondent No. 4’s pay scale was issued while he was on deputation and that the subsequent creation of an ex-cadre post for him was illegal.
• They argued that the Non-Practicing Allowance (NPA) granted to Respondent No. 4 was also illegal, as he was not performing clinical duties.
• They cited the order dated 08.09.2021 issued by CSTT showing that the job profile of all the Assistant Scientific Officers were interchangeable.

Union of India’s Arguments:

• The Union of India argued that Respondent No. 4’s lien was maintained while he was on deputation and that his higher pay scale was granted after examination by the competent authority and with the approval of the Ministry of Finance.
• They contended that the post of Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) was different from other posts due to the required medical qualification, justifying the higher pay scale.
• The Union of India submitted that the creation of an ex-cadre post was a valid executive order.

Respondent No. 4’s Arguments:

• Respondent No. 4 argued that his medical degree was a professional qualification that distinguished him from other Research Assistants and justified his higher pay scale.
• He relied on the Fifth Central Pay Commission’s recommendations, stating that his pay scale should be equivalent to that of other officers with similar medical qualifications.
• He submitted that the post of Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) was unique and could not be equated with other posts.
• He pointed out that the Sixth Central Pay Commission had recommended that the post of Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) be filled on a contractual basis due to lack of promotional avenues.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

1. Whether the respondent No.4, being a part of the same cadre, could be granted a higher pay scale than his colleagues by relying on the recommendations of the Commission which were not applicable to him.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Legal Provisions:

• Central Hindi Directorate (Research Assistant) Recruitment Rules, 1980: These rules govern the recruitment and service conditions of Research Assistants in CSTT.
• Fifth Central Pay Commission Report, paras 52.32 to 52.34: These paragraphs discuss the pay scales of physicians in Indian Systems of Medicine & Homeopathy (ISM&H).
• Fifth Central Pay Commission Report, paras 71.15 to 71.17: These paragraphs discuss the pay scales of employees working in CSTT.
• Central Civil Services Rules 1997: The court referred to the First Schedule, Part -A, which specifies the corresponding pay scales.
• Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) Rules, 2014: These rules were notified to govern the post of Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine).
• Senior Scientific Officer (Medicine) Rules, 2014: These rules were notified to govern the post of Senior Scientific Officer (Medicine).

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• D.S. Parvathamma v. A. Srinivasan [(2003) 4 SCC 705]: The Court did not find this case helpful to the Union of India’s arguments, as the facts were different.
• A.K. Dass v. National Federation of Cooperative Sugar Factories Ltd. and others [(1994) 2 SCC 520], Union of India and others v. M.V. Mohanan Nair [(2020) 5 SCC 421], and Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and another v. Bal Krishan Sharma and others [(2022) 1 SCC 322]: The Court did not find these cases helpful to the respondent No.4’s arguments, as the facts were different.
• Ajit Kumar Bhuyan and others v. Debajit Das and others [(2019) 12 SCC 275]: The Court found this case helpful to the appellants’ arguments.

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision, holding that the higher pay scale granted to Respondent No. 4 was illegal. The Court found that the authorities had misinterpreted the Fifth Central Pay Commission’s recommendations and had shown undue favor to Respondent No. 4. The Court also held that the creation of an ex-cadre post for Respondent No. 4 was without legal basis. The Court noted that the respondent No. 4 was not performing clinical duties, and therefore not entitled to NPA. The Court also noted that the respondent No. 4 was not interested in serving his parent organization and was more interested in getting a higher pay scale while going on deputation. The court stated that the authorities were hand in gloves with the respondent No. 4 to somehow grant him a higher pay scale.

The Court observed:

“From the aforesaid conduct of the respondent No. 4, it is evident that despite being selected as a Research Assistant [re-designated as Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine)], he was not interested to serve his parent organisation but was more interested in getting a higher pay scale while going on deputation.”

“The favouritism shown to the respondent No. 4 is evident from the fact that a portion of recommendations made by the Commission which were relied upon to grant him a higher pay scale , were with reference to the Indian System of Medicines and Homeopathy for the Medical Officers working at different levels.”

“From the facts, as have been noticed above, in our opinion, the authorities were hand in gloves with the respondent No. 4 to somehow grant him a higher pay scale and repeatedly action was taken in that direction.”

The Court emphasized that a single post in the same cadre could not be isolated and granted a higher pay scale based solely on qualifications. The Court directed the recovery of the excess amount paid to Respondent No. 4, and also held that the officers involved in the decision-making process of granting undue benefit to the respondent No.4 should be equally liable to reimburse the exchequer.

The Court further noted that the post of Assistant Scientific Officer (Medicine) was still governed by the 1980 Rules, where no designation of Senior Scientific Officer (Medicine) was available. The Court also noted that the Senior Scientific Officer (Medicine) Rules, 2014 were framed for a single post of Senior Scientific Officer (Medicine) in CSTT.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the perception that the authorities had acted with favoritism towards Respondent No. 4. The Court emphasized the following points:

• Misapplication of Pay Commission Recommendations: The Court found that the authorities wrongly applied the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission, which were meant for medical officers, not research assistants.
• Undue Favoritism: The Court highlighted that Respondent No. 4 was given special treatment and was granted a higher pay scale without any legal justification. The court noted that the respondent No. 4 was not interested in serving his parent organization and was more interested in getting a higher pay scale while going on deputation.
• Illegal Ex-Cadre Post: The Court noted that the creation of an ex-cadre post for Respondent No. 4 was illegal and without any legal basis.
• Violation of Service Rules: The Court observed that the authorities had violated the service rules by granting a higher pay scale to one employee in the same cadre. The court noted that a single post in the same cadre could not be isolated and granted a higher pay scale based solely on qualifications.
• Recovery of Excess Payment: The Court directed the recovery of the excess amount paid to Respondent No. 4, as well as the officers involved in the decision-making process of granting undue benefit to the respondent No.4.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s decision was influenced by both the factual aspects of the case and the legal principles involved. The Court focused on the factual aspects of the case, such as the misapplication of the Pay Commission recommendations and the undue favoritism shown to Respondent No. 4. The Court also focused on the legal principles involved, such as the violation of service rules and the illegal creation of an ex-cadre post.

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• Pay Parity: Employees in the same cadre, governed by the same rules, should receive equal pay unless there are justifiable differences in their duties and responsibilities.
• Misinterpretation of Rules: Authorities must correctly interpret and apply rules and recommendations, especially those related to pay scales.
• Favoritism: Undue favoritism towards one employee, which results in financial benefits, is illegal and will be struck down by the courts.
• Recovery of Illegal Payments: Authorities are empowered to recover any illegal payments made to employees, and officers involved in the decision-making process of granting undue benefit to the employee are equally liable to reimburse the exchequer.
• Ex-Cadre Posts: Creation of ex-cadre posts must have a legal basis and cannot be done merely to justify an illegal pay scale.
• Importance of Service Rules: Service rules must be strictly followed, and any deviation from them must have legal justification.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the recovery of the excess amount paid to Respondent No. 4. The Court also held that the officers involved in the decision-making process of granting undue benefit to the respondent No.4 should be equally liable to reimburse the exchequer.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that employees in the same cadre, governed by the same rules, should not be granted different pay scales based solely on their qualifications, unless there are justifiable differences in their duties and responsibilities. The Court also held that the creation of an ex-cadre post to justify an illegal pay scale is also illegal. This judgment reinforces the principle of equal pay for equal work and emphasizes the importance of adhering to service rules and regulations. The judgment also emphasizes that the authorities must correctly interpret and apply rules and recommendations, especially those related to pay scales. The judgment also emphasizes that undue favoritism towards one employee, whichresults in financial benefits, is illegal and will be struck down by the courts. This case clarifies the limitations on granting differential pay scales within the same cadre based on qualifications alone, and underscores the importance of adhering to service rules and avoiding favoritism.