Supreme Court Upholds Differential Grade Pay for Artificers: Manish Kumar Rai vs. Union of India (23 October 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 23 October 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 815
Judges: Abhay S. Oka, J., Ujjal Bhuyan, J.
Can the Indian Navy provide different grade pay to its technical personnel (Artificers) compared to non-technical personnel (Chief Petty Officers) even when they hold equivalent ranks? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent judgment, upholding the differential pay scales based on promotional avenues and responsibilities. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, delivered a unanimous decision dismissing the appeal filed by Manish Kumar Rai, an Artificer in the Indian Navy.

Case Background

The appellant, Manish Kumar Rai, was employed as an Artificer III in the Indian Navy. Artificers are technical personnel, categorized under the “X group,” while non-technical sailors fall under the “Y group” and “Z group.” Following the implementation of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations, a dispute arose regarding the grade pay of Artificers in classes I, II, and III. While all personnel with a pay scale of S-9 were placed in pay band-2 with a grade pay of Rs. 4200, Artificers in classes I, II, and III, despite being in pay band-2, were granted a grade pay of only Rs. 3400. This discrepancy led the appellant to file a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, which was later transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court challenging the lower grade pay. The High Court directed the respondents to examine the grievance. After the Naval Headquarters rejected the representation, the appellant filed another writ petition, which was then transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, and a subsequent review petition was also rejected. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the 6th Central Pay Commission recommendations and their application to different categories of sailors in the Indian Navy. The appellant argued that Artificers of classes I, II, and III, who hold a relative rank of Chief Petty Officer, should receive the same grade pay of Rs. 4200 as Chief Petty Officers in the non-technical branch. The respondents, however, contended that the grade pay was determined based on promotional avenues and responsibilities, with Chief Artificers being the promotional post for Artificer III.

The court also considered Regulation 247 of Reg Navy Part III, which deals with the ranking and command structure of naval personnel. Clause (1) of Regulation 247 provides that the crews of Indian Naval Ships shall rank and command after Naval Cadets according to this Regulation. Clause (2) lists the ranks in descending order of command, and Clause (3) specifies how sailors of the same rank command each other. The court also considered Navy instructions No. 2/S/96, which provided that Artificers III and Chief Artificers have relative ranks of Chief Petty Officer.

The court also considered Navy Order 100/67 which deals with the seniority of Artificers vis-a-vis non-Artificers. It records that Artificers of Class III and above are Chief Petty Officers and will rank and command with Chief Petty Officers of the other branches depending upon their seniority as Chief Petty Officers.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant contended that the Gazette Notification dated 30th August 2008 stipulates that the pay bands and grade pay for the same ranks in both technical and non-technical groups should be the same.
• The appellant pointed out that Chief Petty Officers, who belong to the non-technical branch, receive a grade pay of Rs. 4200, while Artificers of classes I, II, and III, despite holding equivalent ranks, receive only Rs. 3400.
• The appellant relied on Navy instructions No. 2/S/96, which state that Artificers III and Chief Artificers have relative ranks of Chief Petty Officer.
• The appellant argued that upon promotion to the rank of Artificer III, the Artificer sailors are appointed as Chief Petty Officers by a warrant issued by the President of India.
• The appellant relied upon clarification issued by the Chief of the Naval Staff by a letter dated 5th September 1977 clarifying that Artificers of class III and above are Chief Petty Officers.
• The appellant relied upon a communication issued by the Director of Personnel in Naval Headquarters dated 16th November 2000 (Annexure P -I) which stated that the relative rank of Artificers 3rd/2nd/1st Class and Chief Artificers is that of a Chief Petty Officer.
• The appellant argued that the denial of grade pay of Rs. 4200 to Artificers of classes I, II, and III is discriminatory.
• The appellant relied on the cases of Union of India & Ors. vs. D.G.O.F. Employees Association and Anr. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1471] and Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation Ltd. & others vs. G.S. Uppal & Ors. [(2008) 7 SCC 375] to support his arguments.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The respondents argued that Artificers of grade III are considered equivalent to Chief Petty Officers (non-technical) only when they are promoted to the post of Chief Artificer.
• The respondents contended that the grade pay of Artificers of ranks III to I is lower than that of Chief Artificers because they are below the rank of Chief Artificer.
• The respondents stated that the grade pay given to Artificers of rank I to III is higher than Petty Officers’ grade pay but lower than that of the Chief Artificer/Chief Petty Officer (non-technical).
• The respondents submitted that the Chief Artificer is a promotional post for Artificers of Class III, and Artificers work under the command of the Chief Artificer.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues in the judgment. However, the core issue was whether the differential grade pay given to Artificers of classes I, II, and III compared to Chief Petty Officers was justified, considering their relative ranks and responsibilities.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The following authorities were considered by the court:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Regulation 247 of Reg Navy Part III: The court used this regulation to establish the command structure, noting that Chief Artificers have command over Artificers of classes I to III.
• Navy instructions No. 2/S/96: The court acknowledged this instruction but clarified that it was for seniority purposes and not for determining grade pay.
• Navy Order 100/67: The court referred to this order to clarify that the equivalence of Artificers of Class III and above to Chief Petty Officers was only for seniority purposes.
• Union of India & Ors. vs. D.G.O.F. Employees Association and Anr. [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1471]: The court did not discuss this authority in detail.
• Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation Ltd. & others vs. G.S. Uppal & Ors. [(2008) 7 SCC 375]: The court did not discuss this authority in detail.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the hierarchical structure within the Indian Navy and the different promotional avenues available to Artificers and Chief Petty Officers. The court emphasized that while Artificers of classes I, II, and III may have a relative rank equivalent to Chief Petty Officers for seniority purposes, the Chief Artificer holds a higher command and is a promotional post for Artificer III. The court also noted that the promotional avenue available to Chief Artificer is of Master Chief Artificer -II, whereas the Chief Petty Officer has a promotional avenue to the post of Master Chief (PO) – II. Both Master Chief Artificer -II and Master Chief (PO) -II have been given the same grade pay of Rs.4600. The court concluded that the differential grade pay was justified based on these factors.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the appellant’s argument that Artificers of classes I, II, and III hold a relative rank equivalent to Chief Petty Officers. However, the court emphasized that the Chief Artificer has command over these Artificers. The court also noted that Chief Artificer is a promotional post for Artificer III, and the promotional avenues for Chief Artificers and Chief Petty Officers are different. The court, therefore, rejected the appellant’s argument that the grade pay should be equal, holding that the differential grade pay was justified based on the command structure and promotional avenues.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “The contention that seniority status of Artificers vis -a-vis non-artificers is ambiguous and unresolved is incorrect. The Regulation 247 of Reg Navy Part III and Navy Instruction 2/96 clearly lays down that the relative rank of Artificers 3rd/2nd/1st Class and Chief Artificers is that of a Chief Petty Officer.”
• “Therefore, it is apparent that the Chief Artificer’s rank has command over Artificers of classes I to III. Even assuming that Artificers of grades III, II, and I are equivalent to Chief Petty Officers, the Chief Artificers have command over them.”
• “Therefore, there is neither any illegality nor arbitrariness in giving grade pay to Artificers III to I which is more than the grade pay of Artificer IV but less than the grade pay of Chief Artificers.”

The judgment was unanimous, with both Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan agreeing on the decision. There were no dissenting opinions.

Key Takeaways

• Differential grade pay for different categories of employees can be justified based on promotional avenues and responsibilities, even if they hold equivalent ranks for seniority purposes.
• The court will consider the hierarchical structure and command within an organization when determining the validity of pay scales.
• Seniority does not automatically equate to equal pay; other factors such as promotional opportunities and command structure are also relevant.

Directions

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

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment analysis in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that differential grade pay for different categories of employees can be justified based on promotional avenues and responsibilities, even if they hold equivalent ranks for seniority purposes. This judgment clarifies that seniority alone does not mandate equal pay and that other factors such as promotional opportunities and command structure are also relevant considerations. The judgment does not change any previous position of law, but reinforces the principle that pay scales can be differentiated based on factors beyond rank.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Armed Forces Tribunal’s decision. The court found no illegality or arbitrariness in the differential grade pay provided to Artificers of classes I, II, and III compared to Chief Petty Officers, emphasizing the differences in command structure and promotional avenues. The judgment underscores the importance of considering hierarchical structures and promotional opportunities when determining pay scales in organizations.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Category: Pay Scales

Child Category: Armed Forces Tribunal

Parent Category: Indian Navy

Child Category: Artificers

Child Category: Chief Petty Officer

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Category: Regulation 247 of Reg Navy Part III

FAQ

Q: What was the main issue in this case?
A: The main issue was whether the Indian Navy was justified in providing different grade pay to Artificers (technical personnel) compared to Chief Petty Officers (non-technical personnel), even when they held equivalent ranks for seniority purposes.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court upheld the differential grade pay, ruling that it was justified based on the different promotional avenues and responsibilities of Artificers and Chief Petty Officers.

Q: Why were Artificers getting a lower grade pay than Chief Petty Officers?
A: Although they held equivalent ranks for seniority purposes, Artificers of classes I, II, and III were given a lower grade pay because they were below the rank of Chief Artificer, who is a promotional post for Artificer III. The Chief Artificer also has command over Artificers of classes I to III.

Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment clarifies that seniority alone does not mandate equal pay. Other factors such as promotional opportunities and command structure are also relevant considerations when determining pay scales in organizations.

Q: What is the implication of this judgment for other government employees?
A: This judgment reinforces the principle that pay scales can be differentiated based on factors beyond rank, such as promotional avenues and responsibilities. This may have implications for other government employees in similar situations.