Supreme Court Upholds Pay Parity for Andaman & Nicobar Police Constables: Union of India vs. A. Rayer (2017)

Date of the Judgment: November 24, 2017

Citation: (2017) INSC 1009

Judges: Kurian Joseph, J. and Amitava Roy, J.

Can the government deny pay parity to police constables in Andaman & Nicobar Islands when an internal committee has recommended it? This is the question the Supreme Court addressed in a recent judgment, upholding the decision of the High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal. The case revolves around the implementation of the Anomaly Committee’s report, which suggested that constables in Andaman & Nicobar Islands should receive the same pay scale as their counterparts in Delhi. The bench, comprising Justices Kurian Joseph and Amitava Roy, unanimously dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India, thereby affirming the pay parity.

Case Background

The case originated from a dispute regarding the pay scales of police constables in the Union Territory of Andaman & Nicobar Islands. The constables argued that they should receive the same pay as Delhi Police Constables, citing the recommendations of the Anomaly Committee, which was set up by the Government to address such discrepancies. The matter was initially brought before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which ruled in favor of the constables. This decision was subsequently upheld by the High Court of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair. The Union of India then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The matter was first brought before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which ruled in favor of the constables, stating that they should be given the same pay scale as the Delhi Police Constables, based on the Anomaly Committee’s recommendations. The Union of India appealed this decision to the High Court of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair. The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision and also imposed a default cost at the rate of 8% per annum as a condition for stay of operation of the Judgment. The Union of India then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the implementation of the recommendations of the Anomaly Committee, which was set up by the Government itself. While the decision of the Anomaly Committee is not binding on the Government, the Court considered whether it should interfere with the concurrent findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court on the implementation of the report. The Court also referred to Article 136 of the Constitution of India, which deals with the Supreme Court’s power to grant special leave to appeal.

Arguments

Appellant’s (Union of India) Arguments:

• The learned counsel for the appellants argued that a classification between matriculate and non-matriculate employees in pay fixation is permissible, citing the Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court in State of Mysore Vs. P. Narasinga Rao, reported in AIR 1968 SC 349.
• The appellants contended that the decision of the Anomaly Committee is not binding on the Government, relying on the judgment in Union of India Vs. Arjun Jyoti Kundu & Ors., reported in (2007) 7 SCC 472.

Respondent’s (A. Rayer & Ors.) Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the Anomaly Committee, set up by the Government, had recommended treating the Police Constables in Andaman & Nicobar Islands at par with Delhi Police Constables.
• The respondents supported the concurrent findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court, which had ordered the implementation of the Anomaly Committee’s report.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues but considered the following:

• Whether the Supreme Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court.
• Whether the implementation of the Anomaly Committee’s report, which recommended extending the same pay scale of Delhi Police Constables to the constables of the Union Territory of Andaman & Nicobar Islands, was correct.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The 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 Court acknowledged the principle in State of Mysore Vs. P. Narasinga Rao, AIR 1968 SC 349*, that classification between matriculate and non-matriculate employees is permissible, but clarified that the case at hand did not concern such a classification.
• The Court also acknowledged the principle in Union of India Vs. Arjun Jyoti Kundu & Ors., (2007) 7 SCC 472*, that the decision of the Anomaly Committee is not binding on the Government. However, it did not find this sufficient reason to overturn the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the concurrent findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court. The Court emphasized that the Anomaly Committee, which was set up by the Government itself, had recommended pay parity for the constables in Andaman & Nicobar Islands with those in Delhi. The Court also noted that the issue was not about classification between matriculate and non-matriculate employees, which was the main contention of the appellants. The Court also considered that the Anomaly Committee itself was set up by the Government.

Fact:Law

Logical Reasoning:

The Court did not find any justifiable ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court. The Court stated, “In our considered view, we do not find any justifiable ground to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.” The Court also noted that the Anomaly Committee was set up by the Government itself, “The Anomaly Committee itself has been set up by the Government.” The Court further clarified that the issue was not about classification between matriculate and non-matriculate employees, “The question before us is not of classification between the matriculate and non-matriculate.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court upheld the pay parity for police constables in Andaman & Nicobar Islands with those in Delhi, based on the Anomaly Committee’s recommendations.
• The Court emphasized that it would not interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts unless there was a justifiable reason to do so.
• The decision highlights the importance of implementing recommendations made by government-appointed committees.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the arrears should be paid to the concerned constables within six months from the date of the judgment. If the arrears are not paid within this period, the order on costs by the High Court would stand revived. The Court also clarified that no further extension of time would be granted.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Supreme Court will not interfere with the concurrent findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court on the implementation of a government-appointed committee’s report unless there is a justifiable reason to do so. This case reinforces the principle that recommendations of government-appointed committees should be given due consideration and implemented, especially when they pertain to matters of pay parity. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India, upholding the concurrent findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court. The Court affirmed that the police constables in Andaman & Nicobar Islands are entitled to the same pay scale as their counterparts in Delhi, based on the recommendations of the Anomaly Committee. The Court also directed that the arrears should be paid within six months, failing which the order on costs by the High Court would be revived.