Supreme Court Upholds Differential Pay Scales for Junior Design Officers and Civilian Technical Officers: Union of India vs. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association (22 February 2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 22 February 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 152
Judges: Hon’ble Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi

Can the judiciary interfere with the pay scales set by expert bodies like the Pay Commission? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the pay scales of Junior Design Officers (JDOs) and Civilian Technical Officers (CTOs) in the Indian Navy. The core issue was whether the High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) were correct in equating the pay scales of JDOs with CTOs, despite the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi, with Justice Bela M. Trivedi authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The Indian Navy created the cadre of Design Officers in 1965 to meet specific functional requirements in Naval dockyards, training establishments, and other technical directorates. The drawing staff belonged to various disciplines, including Construction, Electrical, Engineering, and Armament. Group ‘B’ gazetted posts were designated as Junior Design Officers (JDOs) for Construction, Electrical, and Engineering disciplines, and as Civilian Technical Officers (CTOs) (Design) for Armament disciplines.

Until the Fifth Central Pay Commission, all pay scales across disciplines and grades were uniform. However, after the Fifth Pay Commission’s recommendations, CTOs were given a pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000, while JDOs received a pay scale of Rs. 7450-11500. The respondent-association, representing JDOs, argued that since the feeder cadre pay scales were the same across all disciplines, the JDOs should also receive the same pay scale as CTOs. This led to a representation to the appellant, which was rejected by the Ministry of Finance. The respondent-association then filed an Original Application (O.A.) before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT).

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Initially, the Ministry of Finance rejected the respondent-association’s representation for the grant of a revised pay scale. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) directed the appellant to reconsider the parity of pay scales between JDOs and CTOs. After reconsideration, the Ministry of Finance again rejected the proposal. The respondent-association then filed O.A. No. 2228 of 2006 before the CAT, which was allowed. The CAT set aside the Ministry’s order and directed the appellant to grant JDOs the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000, equivalent to CTOs. The appellant challenged this order in the High Court of Delhi, which dismissed the writ petition and upheld the CAT’s order. The Union of India then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court considered the legal position that the courts should not interfere with the complex issues of evaluating the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts, and of fixing the pay scales. It emphasized that this task is best done by expert bodies like the Pay Commission. The Court referred to several precedents to support this position.

The Court observed that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a court of law. But equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The principle of “equal pay for equal work” has no mechanical application in every case. Article 14 of the Constitution of India permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who were left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved.

The Court also noted that the classification of posts and determination of pay structure comes within the exclusive domain of the executive, and the Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions (Union of India):

• The posts of JDOs and CTOs are governed by different sets of rules, with higher qualifications for recruitment/promotion for CTOs.
• The probation period for CTOs is longer than that of JDOs.
• The duties and responsibilities attached to the posts of CTOs are more onerous, varied, and challenging compared to JDOs.
• CTOs also exist in other streams like R&D with the pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000.
• The pay scales were fixed based on specific recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission.

Respondent’s Submissions (Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association):

• The Fifth Pay Commission ignored that JDOs and CTOs (Design) had the same pay scales from the beginning due to similar duties and responsibilities.
• Senior Foremen were granted the pay scale of Rs. 7450-11500, while JDOs supervised their work.
• The department itself supported the case of JDOs, recommending an upgrade of their pay scale.
• Up to the Fourth Pay Commission, both posts had the same pay scale.
• Upgrading the pay scale of JDOs would not have a cascading effect, and the financial implications were not significant.
• The essential qualifications and promotional avenues in both cadres were similar.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main question before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in equating the posts of JDOs with CTOs.
2. Whether the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in fixing the pay scales of JDOs equivalent to that of CTOs, in disregard of the legal position that the Courts should not interfere with the complex issues of evaluating the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts, and of fixing the pay scales.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

On the principle that courts should not interfere in pay scale matters:

• State of U.P. and Others Vs. J.P. Chaurasia and Others [1989(1) SCC 121] (Supreme Court of India) – The Court held that the equation of posts or pay must be left to the executive government and expert bodies like the Pay Commission.
• Union of India and Others Vs. Makhan Chandra Roy [1997 (11) SCC 182] (Supreme Court of India) – The Court followed the ratio of J.P. Chaurasia.
• Secretary, Finance Department and Others Vs. West Bengal Registration Service Association and Others [1993 Suppl. (1) SCC 153] (Supreme Court of India) – The Court reiterated that the equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary.
• Union of India through Secretary, Department of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and Anr. Vs. T.V.L.N Mallikarjuna Rao [(2015) 3 SCC 653] (Supreme Court of India) – The Court reiterated that the classification of posts and determination of pay structure comes within the exclusive domain of the executive.

On the principle of “equal pay for equal work”:

• State of Haryana and Others Vs. Charanjit Singh and Others [2006 (9) SCC 321] (Supreme Court of India) – The Court held that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” is not an abstract doctrine and that equal pay must be for equal work of equal value.

On the value of file notings:

• (2009) 15 SCC 705 – The Court held that a noting recorded in the file is merely an expression of opinion by a particular officer, and by no-stretch of imagination, such noting could be treated as a decision of the Government.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on the authorities to support its position that the judiciary should not interfere with the pay scales fixed by expert bodies like the Pay Commission. The Court followed the ratio of State of U.P. and Others Vs. J.P. Chaurasia and Others [1989(1) SCC 121]* and Union of India and Others Vs. Makhan Chandra Roy [1997 (11) SCC 182]* which held that the equation of posts or pay must be left to the executive government and expert bodies like the Pay Commission. The Court also relied on Secretary, Finance Department and Others Vs. West Bengal Registration Service Association and Others [1993 Suppl. (1) SCC 153]* to reiterate that the equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary. The Court also relied on Union of India through Secretary, Department of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and Anr. Vs. T.V.L.N Mallikarjuna Rao [(2015) 3 SCC 653]* to reiterate that the classification of posts and determination of pay structure comes within the exclusive domain of the executive. The Court also followed the ratio of State of Haryana and Others Vs. Charanjit Singh and Others [2006 (9) SCC 321]* that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” is not an abstract doctrine and that equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The Court also relied on (2009) 15 SCC 705* to hold that a noting recorded in the file is merely an expression of opinion by a particular officer, and by no-stretch of imagination such noting could be treated as a decision of the Government.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the principle that the judiciary should not interfere with the pay scales fixed by expert bodies like the Pay Commission. The Court emphasized that the determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive, and the judiciary should only intervene in cases of grave error or arbitrariness. The Court also considered the differences in the recruitment rules, qualifications, probation periods, duties, and responsibilities of JDOs and CTOs, concluding that these differences justified the differential pay scales.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the arguments made by the respondent that the pay scales of JDOs and CTOs were initially the same, and that the department itself had supported the upgradation of JDOs’ pay scales. However, the Court rejected these arguments, noting that the Fifth Pay Commission had made a conscious decision to differentiate the pay scales, and that file notings are merely opinions and not government decisions. The Court also considered the principle of equal pay for equal work, but concluded that the principle did not apply in this case due to the differences in the nature of work, duties, and responsibilities of JDOs and CTOs.

The Court stated, “The equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the Executive and not of the Judiciary.” The Court also stated, “The Courts therefore should not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions.” Further, the Court stated, “The classification of posts and the determination of pay structure, thus falls within the exclusive domain of the Executive, and the Courts or Tribunals cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service.”

Key Takeaways

• The judiciary should not interfere with pay scales fixed by expert bodies like the Pay Commission unless there is a grave error or arbitrariness.
• The determination of pay scales is primarily the function of the executive.
• Differences in recruitment rules, qualifications, probation periods, duties, and responsibilities can justify differential pay scales.
• File notings are merely opinions and not government decisions.
• The principle of “equal pay for equal work” does not apply in cases where there are differences in the nature of work, duties, and responsibilities.

Directions

The Supreme Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders passed by the High Court and the Tribunal. The appeal was allowed accordingly.

Specific Amendments Analysis

N/A

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the judiciary should not interfere with the pay scales fixed by expert bodies like the Pay Commission, and that the determination of pay scales is primarily the function of the executive. This judgment reaffirms the existing legal position and does not introduce any new doctrines or legal principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Union of India, setting aside the orders of the High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Court held that the Tribunal and High Court had erred in equating the pay scales of Junior Design Officers (JDOs) with Civilian Technical Officers (CTOs). The Court emphasized that the determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and expert bodies like the Pay Commission, and the judiciary should not interfere unless there is a grave error. The Court upheld the differential pay scales fixed by the Fifth Central Pay Commission for JDOs and CTOs.