Supreme Court Upholds Pay Disparity Between Ministerial and Executive Police Staff in Madhya Pradesh: S.H. Baig & Ors. vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (25 September 2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 25 September 2018

Citation: Not Available

Judges: S.A. Bobde, J., L. Nageswara Rao, J.

Can employees of the ministerial staff of the police department claim equal pay with the executive staff, simply because they were given police ranks? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, ruling against the claim for pay parity. This case revolves around the long-standing dispute between the ministerial and executive branches of the Madhya Pradesh Police regarding pay scales. The core issue is whether the ministerial staff, despite being granted police ranks, are entitled to the same pay and benefits as their counterparts in the executive force. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice S.A. Bobde and Justice L. Nageswara Rao, with Justice L. Nageswara Rao authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The dispute began with the creation of new Police Ranks (Ministerial) in the State Police Force on 5th November 1967, under Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861. Ministerial employees, including Head Clerks, Assistant Clerks, Accountants, and Record Keepers, were given police ranks but continued to draw salaries in their existing pay scales. While they received uniform grants and maintenance allowances similar to the executive branch, they were not entitled to house rent or conveyance allowances. From the beginning, there was a pay disparity between the ministerial and executive branches, which continued through various pay revisions, including the “Tarachand Pay Scales” in 1961 and the “Faquir Chand Pay-Scales” in 1973. The Chaudhary Pay Commission in 1982 explicitly stated that it could not recommend pay scales equivalent to the Executive Force for the ministerial employees.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The recruitment of ministerial employees was governed by the M.P. Police Regulations, framed under the Police Act, 1861. The State Government created new Police Ranks (Ministerial) under Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861. The M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1983, which came into force on 1st April 1981, based on the Chaudhary Commission’s recommendations, also played a crucial role. Rule 7 of the 1983 Rules deals with the fixation of initial pay in the revised scale. Specifically, Rule 7(1)(b)(iv) states:


“(iv)- Ad hoc increase sanctioned to certain categories of Government servants in Police, Home Guard, Jail and Excise Department, except the ad hoc increase allowed to Ministerial Staff of Police Department.”


This rule explicitly excludes the ad hoc increase allowed to the Ministerial staff of the Police Department from being considered for pay revision.

Arguments

The Appellants, the Ministerial employees, argued that:

• ✓ They became members of the Police Force as per the Memorandum dated 5th November 1967, and therefore, cannot be discriminated against.
• ✓ There should be no difference between Ministerial employees and members of the Executive Force, as they were provided with similar facilities like Uniform Grant and Uniform Maintenance Allowance.
• ✓ Their posts were re-designated, with Peons becoming Constables (M), Daftaris becoming Head Constables (M), and so on, implying equal status.
• ✓ They relied on the judgments of the Tribunal in the cases of Tripathi and Duraphe, where ad hoc increment was given to the basic pay.
• ✓ Some of the Ministerial employees were assigned work in the Executive Police Force and some were appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police.
• ✓ Ministerial staff is also assigned duties of Executive Police Force during elections.

The Respondents, the State of Madhya Pradesh, argued that:

• ✓ The Memorandum dated 5th November 1967, clearly stated that Ministerial employees would continue to draw the same emoluments even after enrolment under the Police Act, 1861.
• ✓ The Chaudhary Pay Commission did not recommend pay scales equivalent to the Executive Force for the Ministerial employees.
• ✓ Rule 7(1)(b)(iv) of the M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1983, explicitly excludes the ad hoc increase allowed to the Ministerial staff of the Police Department for the purpose of pay revision.
• ✓ The judgments in Tripathi and Duraphe’s cases were only regarding the inclusion of ad hoc increment to the basic pay and not for a higher pay scale.
• ✓ The duties performed by the Ministerial staff are different and less rigorous compared to the Executive Force.
• ✓ The qualifications for appointment, mode of recruitment, and training for Ministerial and Executive staff are different.
• ✓ The members of the Ministerial (E) branch do not discharge executive functions.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court addressed the following key issues:

1. Whether the Ministerial employees of the Police Department in the State of Madhya Pradesh are entitled to pay parity with the members of the Executive Force in the Police Department.
2. Whether the Ministerial employees are entitled to the benefit of ad hoc increase for the purpose of revision of pay.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

✓ Randhir Singh v. Union of India [1982] 1 SCC 618: The Supreme Court cited this case to support its view that even if persons hold the same rank and have similar duties, they can be placed in different pay scales.

✓ State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh Ors. [2017] 1 SCC 148: The Supreme Court cited this case to support its view that even if persons hold the same rank and have similar duties, they can be placed in different pay scales.

✓ Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861: The Court referred to this provision to establish the legal basis for the creation of new Police Ranks (Ministerial) by the State Government.

✓ Rule 7(1)(b)(iv) of the M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1983: The Court relied on this rule to demonstrate that the ad hoc increase allowed to the Ministerial staff of the Police Department cannot be taken into account for the purpose of revision of pay, thus justifying the denial of pay parity.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the explicit terms of the 1967 memorandum and the 1983 Pay Rules, which clearly differentiated between the pay scales of the ministerial and executive staff. The court emphasized that despite the grant of police ranks, the ministerial staff’s emoluments were not revised to be on par with the executive force. The court also took into account the recommendations of the Chaudhary Pay Commission, which had explicitly stated that it could not recommend pay scales equivalent to the Executive Force for the ministerial employees.

The court’s reasoning was heavily based on the legal provisions and the explicit terms of the relevant documents, indicating a strong emphasis on the legal framework over the factual aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the arguments for equal pay based on the grant of police ranks and the assignment of some executive duties to ministerial staff. However, it rejected these arguments, emphasizing the explicit terms of the 1967 memorandum and the 1983 Pay Rules, which differentiated between the pay scales of the ministerial and executive staff. The court also relied on the fact that the Chaudhary Pay Commission did not recommend pay scales equivalent to the Executive Force for the ministerial employees.

The court’s decision was based on a strict interpretation of the relevant rules and regulations, and it did not find sufficient grounds to grant pay parity to the ministerial staff.

The Supreme Court’s decision can be summarized as follows:

• ✓ The Ministerial employees were given police ranks by the Memorandum dated 5th November, 1967, but their emoluments continued to be different from the Executive Force.
• ✓ The Chaudhary Pay Commission did not recommend pay scales equivalent to the Executive Force for the Ministerial employees.
• ✓ Rule 7(1)(b)(iv) of the M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1983, explicitly excludes the ad hoc increase allowed to the Ministerial staff of the Police Department for the purpose of pay revision.
• ✓ The method of recruitment, qualifications for appointment, duties, and responsibilities of the Ministerial and Executive staff are different.
• ✓ The principle of equal pay for equal work does not apply in this case because the qualifications, mode of recruitment, training, duties and responsibilities are not similar.

“It was categorically mentioned in the Memorandum dated 5th November, 1967 that the Ministerial employees will continue to draw the same emoluments even after the enrolment under the Police Act, 1861. Therefore, merely because police ranks were given to Ministerial employees, they cannot claim parity of pay.”

“The recommendation made by the Chaudhary Pay Commission which was reflected clearly in the Rules disentitles the Appellants from claiming the benefit of being given one scale higher than the corresponding revised pay-sale.”

“In this case the qualifications for appointment, mode of recruitment, training, the duties and responsibilities not being similar, the Appellants are not entitled for the relief of equal pay.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

The judgment has the following practical implications:

• ✓ Ministerial staff in the Madhya Pradesh Police Department will not be entitled to the same pay scales as the Executive Force.
• ✓ The principle of “equal pay for equal work” will not apply in cases where the qualifications, mode of recruitment, training, duties and responsibilities are not similar.
• ✓ The judgment upholds the importance of explicit terms in government memorandums and pay rules in determining pay scales.
• ✓ The judgment clarifies that the grant of police ranks to ministerial staff does not automatically entitle them to the same pay and benefits as the executive force.
• ✓ The judgment emphasizes the importance of following the recommendations of pay commissions and the specific rules governing pay revisions.

Directions

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

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no discussion on any specific amendment in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the grant of police ranks to ministerial staff does not automatically entitle them to the same pay and benefits as the executive force, especially when the relevant rules and regulations explicitly differentiate between their pay scales. This judgment reinforces the principle that pay parity claims must be based on similarity in qualifications, mode of recruitment, training, duties, and responsibilities, and not merely on designation or rank. There is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Ministerial employees, upholding the High Court’s decision that they are not entitled to pay parity with the Executive Force. The Court emphasized the explicit terms of the 1967 memorandum and the 1983 Pay Rules, which clearly differentiated between the pay scales of the ministerial and executive staff. The judgment reinforces the importance of following the recommendations of pay commissions and the specific rules governing pay revisions.