Supreme Court of India
HARYANA STATE MINOR IRRIGATION TUBEWELLS CORPORATION & ORS.versusG.S. UPPAL & ORS.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 498
- Decided
- 16 April 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- R V RAVEENDRAN
Holding
The corporation's denial of the pay‑scale revision was discriminatory and unlawful; the anomaly correction must be extended to its employees and the appeals were dismissed.
Summary
The Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation, a government company, denied a pay‑scale revision to its Assistant Engineers, Sub‑Divisional Officers and Law Officers, arguing that the duties differed from those of government engineers and that the corporation faced financial loss. The employees claimed that the corporation had previously adopted the same pay scales as the Haryana Government and that a later ‘removal of anomaly’ in government pay scales (effective May 1989) should also apply to them. The High Court allowed the writ petitions, granting the revised scales. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that pay fixation is an executive function but courts may intervene when the decision is unreasonable, unjust or discriminatory. Since the corporation had already granted parity with government engineers, the anomaly correction must extend to its employees, and financial constraints were not a valid ground to deny the revision. The appeals were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the corporation's refusal to extend the 1989 pay‑scale anomaly correction to its employees is maintainable.
- Whether the courts can review administrative decisions on pay fixation and parity.
- Whether financial loss of the corporation justifies denial of pay revision.
- Whether the employees are comparable to government engineers for purposes of pay parity.
Legislation cited
- Companies Act, 1956
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16
Subjects
pay revisionpay parityadministrative lawjudicial reviewdiscriminationservice lawgovernment corporationfinancial constraintsArticles 14 and 16
Judgment
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 662
A HARYANA STATE MINOR IRRIGATION TUBEWELLS
CORPORATION & ORS.
v.
G.S. UPPAL & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9244 of 2003)
B APRIL 16, 2008 •
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]
Service Law - Pay scale - Revision in - SDOISDEIAEI
c Law Officer in appellant-Corporation- Getting same pay scales ·
as that of Government servants from time to time - Not granted
further revision by way of removal of anomaly in pay scales
given to Government servants - Claim for further revision of
pay scale - Maintainability of - Held: Maintainable - Since
pay revision extended to Government servants already
D
extended to Corporation employees, correction of anomaly ,.
in revised pay scale given to Government servants be also
made in case of Corporation employees.
Administrative Law:
E Administrative decision - Judicial review - Scope of -
Pay fixation and determination of parity in pay scales - Held:
Is a function of executive and scope of judicial review in this
regard is limited - However, Courts should interfere if such ·
action found to be unjust and prejudicial to section of
F employees and taken in ignorance of material factors.
Executive action - Revision in pay scale - Not granted
on ground that employer-Corporation running under losses
and not in situation to meet financial burden - Held: On facts,
such ground not available.
G
The pay scales of ernployees of the Corporation
including those of Engineers were revised with effect from
01.04.1979 and 01.01.1986 on the pattern of revision of
pay scales approved by the Haryana Government for its
H 662
,_
HARYANA STATE MINOR IRR. TUBEWELLS CORPN. 663
& ORS. v. G.S. UPPAL & ORS.
employees. The revision of pay scales with effect from A
01.01.1986 was also approved by the Pay Revision
Committee (PRC) constituted by the Haryana Government
·for revision of pay scales of the employees of various
public Undertakings/Boards/Corporations in its meeting
held on 21.09.1988. Revision of pay scales were made s
+ applicable to the Engineers in the Corporation w.e.f.
01.01.1986, but thereafter the Haryana Government, while
removing certain anomalies in the pay scale of the SEs,
further revised the pay scales of SEs of PWD (8 & R),
Public Health and Irrigation Department by Finance c
Department letter dated 16.05.1989. By another letter of
the said Department dated 02.06.1989, salaries of other
Engineers, such as AEEs/AEs/SDOs/SDEs (Class-I and
Class-II) were also revised with effect from 01.05.1989 by
way of removal of anomalies. Tlie revision in the pay
0
scales of the Superintending Engineers, Accounts
Officers, Circle Head Draftsmen, Divisional Head .
Draftsmen, etc. were approved, whereas the revision of
pay scales of the AEs/SDOs/SDEs was postponed and it
was decided that the matter would be examin.ed separately
by the Finance Department. E
The respondents were working on the post of AEs/
SDOs/SDEs and Law Officer in the appellant-Corporation.
Since their claim with regard to the revision of pay scales,
·was not taken up by the Standing Committee, they F
submitted repeated representations .but did not get any
relief. They filed the writ petitions before the High Court,
which was allowed. ·· ,
In appeal to this Court, appellant-Corporation
contended that the pay scales .of the respondents could G
;not be compared· and equated with the Engineers and
other employees of the three wings ()fttie PWD and other
employees of the State Government;' thafthere is apparent
difference between the duties, responsibilities an.d
reJiability. of the Engineets. working in ~he three wings of H
664 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.
A PWD as they have to work under difficult conditions and
constraints because of the developmental activities as
compared to those Engineers working in the Corporation;
that mere fact that on two earlier occasions, pay hike to
the engineers of the Government Departments attracted
B an equal pay hike for the Engineers employed with the
Corporation is no guide that may conclusively show that t
nature and duties of the two sets of employees were the
same; and that financial position of the Corporation was
weak for granting the relief to the respondents.
c Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Fixation of pay and determination of parity
in duties is the function of the Executive and the scope of
judicial review of administrative decision in this regard is
very limited. However, it is also equally well-settled that
D the Courts should interfere with the administrative
decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when
they find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust and
prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in
ignorance of material and relevant factors. [Para 16]
E [676-G; 677-A]
K. T Veerappa & Ors. v State of Karnataka & Ors. (2005)
9 sec 406 - relied on.
State Bank of India & Anr. v M.R. Ganesh Babu & Ors.
F (2002) 4 SCC 556; State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil
Secretariat Personal Staff Association (2002) 6 SCC 72; Union
of India v. S.B. Vohra (2004) 2 SCC 150 - referred to.
2. The qualifications laid down for recruitment in the
Corporation are identical to those prescribed in the
G Departments of the Government The decision of the
Government in rejecting the proposal of the Board of
Directors suffers from the vice of invidious discrimination
and cannot be sustained because the very same decision
of the Board with regard to all other employees has since
H been accepted and approved by the State Government.
HARYANA STATE MINOR IRR. TUBEWELLS CORPN. 665
& ORS. v. G.S. UPPAL & ORS.
On the scrutiny of the material on record, it is clear that fa.
the appellants did not produce any evidence on record
to establish that the working conditions, responsibilities
and nature of duties, etc. of the respondents are different
to their counter-parts working in the same categories in
the State Government, Boards and other ·corporations, B
etc. and also the persons who are working with the
Corporation on deputation. [Para 22] [679-E; 680-A, 8, C]
3. When the pay revision took place, the revised pay
scales that were given to the Engineers of the State
Government were also given to the engineers of the C
Corporation with effect from 1.1.1986 thereby maintaining
the parity. What was not extended to the Corporation
employees, which is the subject matter of the grievance,
is the further revision by way of 'removal of anomaly in
pay scales' given to AEE/AE/SDO/SDE of the St:ite D
Government with effect from 1.5.1989 by circular dated
2.6.1989 of the Finance Commissioner. When, after a pay
revision, an anomaly is found in the pay scale giv~n to a
class of Government servants and such anomaly is
rectified, it is not a new pay revision but a correction of E
the original pay revision, or an amendment to the pay
scale that has already been granted. Therefore, where the
pay revision extended to the government servants has
already been extended to the employees of the
Corporation also, it follows that any correction of anomaly F
.. in the revised pay scale given to the government servants
should also be made in the case of those who were earlier
given parity by extending the pay scale which is the
subject matter of the correction. The question whether
Corporation engineers were on par with PWD Engineers G
and should be given parity in pay scales was already
decided when the pay scale revision granted to
)
Government (PWD) engineers was extended to the
corporation Engineers also with effect from 1.1.1986. That
question did not again arise when the anomaly in the pay
H
666 SUPREME CO:.JRT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.
A revision was rectified with reference to the Government
engineers. When the anomaly in the pay scale of
Government engineers was rectified, the rectification
should apply to Corporation engineers also to maintain
the parity. [Para 23] [679-D-H; 680-A-C]
B 4. The plea of the appellant- Corporation that it is
running under losses and cannot meet the financial
burden on account of revision of scales of pay has been
rightly rejected by the High Court. Whatever may be the
factual position, there appears to be no basis for the
C action of the appellants in denying the claim of revision
of pay scales to the respondents. If the Government feels
that the Corporation is running into losses, measures of
economy, avoidance of frequent writing off of dues,
reduction of posts or repatriating deputationists may
D provide the possible solution to the problem. Be that as it
may, such a contention may not be available to the
appellants. So long as the posts do exist and are manned,
there appears to be no justification for granting the
respondents a scale of pay lower than that sanctioned
E for those employees who are brought on deputation. In
fact, the sequence of events, clearly shows that the
ell'ployees of the Corporation have been treated at par
with those in Government at the time of revisior. of scales
of pay on every occasion. It is an admitted position that
F the scales of pay were initially revised w.e.f. April 1, 1979
and thereafter on January 1, 1986. On both these ...
occasions, the pay scales of the employees of the
Corporation were treated and equated at par with those
in Government. It is thus an established fact that both were
G similarly situated. Thereafter, there was no justification in
differential treatment. The Corporation thus cannot put
forth financial loss as a ground only with regard to a
limited category of employees. It cannot be said that the
Corporation is financially sound insofar granting of
H revised pay scales to other employees, but finds financial
HARYANA STATE MINOR IRR. TUBEWELLS CORPN. 667
& ORS. v. G.S. UPPAL & ORS. [L.S. PANTA, J.]
+
constraints only when it comes to dealing with the A
respondents, who are similarly placed in the same
category. [Para 24] [681-D-H; 682-A-C]
M.M.R. Khan v. Union of India (1990) Supp. SCC 191;
Indian Overseas Bank v. I. 0.8. Staff Canteen Workers' Union
(2000) 4 sec 245 - relied on . B
..
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9244
of 2003.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 22.08.2001 of
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LP.A. c
No.725 of 1993.
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 9239 and 9248 of 2003.
D
Neeraj Kumar Jain, AAG., M.N. Krishnamani, Vikrant
Hooda, Sandeep Chatur'vedi (for Ugra Shankar Prasad), Raj
Kumar Gupta (for A.N. Bardiyar) and Rishi Malhotra (for Prem
Malhotra) for the Appearing parties .
. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. 1. These appeals, by
.
special leave, filed by Haryana State .Minor Irrigation Tubewells
Corporation & Others are directed against the common
judgment dated August 22, 2001 passed by the Division Bench
of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Letters Patent F
Appeal No. 725/1993 and Civil Writ Petition No. 5946/1994
and Civil Writ Petition No. 834/1996.
2. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the
High Court dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal filed by the G
appellants against the judgment and order dated May, 18,
1993 of the learned Single Judge passed in C.W.P.
)
No.14200/1993 and allowed C.W.P. No. 5946/1994 filed by
Chakrawarti Garg and C.W.P. No. 834/1996 of A.S. Dhir,
respondents herein.
H
668 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 6 S.C.R.
A 3. These appeals are similar in nature and they involve
identical questions of law and facts and, therefore, they are
being decided by this common judgment.
4. The facts giving rise to the filing of these appeals are
that the respondents in Civil Appeal Nos. 9244/2003 and 9248/
B 2003, at the time of filing of the writ petitions, were working on
the post of Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO}, Sub-Divisional
Engineer (SOE) and Assistant Engineer (AE) with the Haryana
State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation Ltd. (for short 'the
Corporation')- appellant No. 1, which is a Government company,
C within the meaning of that expression under the Companies Act,
1956. The respondent in C.A. No. 9239/2003 was working as
Law Officer with the Corporation. State of Haryana exercises
deep and pervasive control over the Corporation. Secretary,
Irrigation Department; Secretary, Agricultural Department;
D Secretary, Finance Department, to the Government of Haryana;
Chairman, Haryana State Electricity Board and Chief Engineer
(Canals), Irrigation Works, Haryana, were the exclusive
shareholders in the Corporation at the time of its formation in
the year 1970. The Corporation was carved out of the Irrigation
E Wing of the Public Works Department and since its inception in
the year 1970, a number of officers have been appointed to
different posts by way of deputation. There were about 27 SDOs
on deputation from the Irrigation Department working in
Corporation whose nature of duties and responsibilities were
F similar and identical to the nature and duties of the SDOs working
in the equivalent post of Corporation. Their duties were inter-
changeable and as such it was the case of the respondents ·~
before the High Court that there was no difference whatsoever
between the duties and responsibilities expected to be
G shouldered by a deputationist and by an employee of the
Corporation. The respondents pleaded before the High Court
that there was no qualitative difference between the duties and
res·ponsibilities of persons employed on the posts of SDOs,
SDEs, AEs in various departments of Haryana Government,
such as Public Works De~artment (Buildings and Roads),
H
HARYANA STATE MINOR IRR. TUBEWELLS CORPN. 669
& ORS. v. G.S. UPPAL & ORS. [L.S. PANTA, J.]
Public Health Departments, various Corporations, Haryana State A
Electricity Board, Haryana Urban Development Authority and.
several other Boards. Rule 5.1 of Part V of the Service Bye-
Laws of the Corporation reads as under:-
"1) Each post in the Corporation will carry a time scale
of pay, the present pay scale being indicated in B
Appendix II.
2) The pay scale is subject to revision by the Board, which
will, however, generally follow the pattern adopted by the
Government of Haryana from time to time." c
5. The Corporation ever since its inception in the year 1970 .
has been following the pay scales of the employees of the
Haryana Government as revised from time to time in respect of
all categories of its employees. As noticed earlier, initially, when
the Corporation was formed, almost the entire Engineering staff D
right from the rank of Chief Engineer to the rank of AEs/SDOs/
SDEs was taken on deputation from the Irrigation Department
of the State Government till the Corporation recruited its own
cadre of AEs. Qualifications and experience for recruitment and
promotion to the ranks of AEs, SDOs, Executive Engineers, E
Superintending Engineers and Chief Engineers are the same
as in the Irrigation Department. All those employees who came
on deputation on whatever post, were granted pay scales as
revised by the Haryana Government from time to time for the
Engineers in the Government Departments, like PWD (B & R}, F
Public Health and Irrigation Department. Keeping in view these
... facts, pay scales of employees of the Corporation including
those of Engineers were revised with effect from 01.04.1979
and 01.01.1986 on the pattern of revision of pay scales
approved by the Haryana Government for its employees. The
G
revision of pay scales with effect from 01.01.1986 was also
approved by the Pay Revision Committee (PRC) constituted
)
by the Haryana Government for revision of pay scales of the
employees of various public Undertakings/Boards/Corporations
in its meeting held on 21.09.1988. Revision of pay scales were
H
670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.
A made applicable to the Engineers in the Corporation w.e.f.
01.01.1986, but thereafter the Haryana Government, while
removing certain anomalies in the pay scale of the
Superintending Engineers, further revised the pay scales of SEs
of PWD (B & R), Public Health and Irrigation Department from
B Rs.3700-5000/- to Rs. 4100-5300/- vide Finance
Department letter No.6/38/3PR(FD) -27 dated 16.05.1989.
By another letter of the said Department No. 6/38/PR dated
02.06.1989, salaries of other Engineers, such as AEEs/AEs/
SDOs/SDEs (Class-I and Class-II) were also revised with effect
C from 01.05.1989 by way of removal of anomalies. The Board of
Directors of the Corporation in its 94th meeting held on
18.08.1989 decided that in view of the parity in pay scales that
had been maintained in the past between the Corporation and
their counter parts in the Haryana Government Departments,
D which was approved by the Finance Department, may be
recommended to the Public Enterprises and Investment Cell of
the Finance Department, Haryana, for their concurrence. The
names of the posts, their existing and revised pay scales are
tabulated as below:-
E Name of the Post Existing Scales Revised Scales
of Pay of Pay
Superintending Rs. 3700-5000 Rs. 4100-5300
Engineer
F Engineers Rs.2200-4000 Rs.2200-4000
AEE/AE/SDO/SDE Rs.2000-3500 Rs.3000-4500
(Class I & II) (After 5 years of
regular service)
Rs.4100-5300
(After 12 years of
G regular service)
6. The Haryana Government once again modified pay scales
of the Engineers vide letter dated 16.05.1990 with effect from
01.05.1989 as under:-
H
HARYANA STATE MINOR IRR. TUBEWELLS CORPN. 671
& ORS. v. G.S ..UPPAL & ORS. [L.S. PANTA, J.]
Name of the Post Existing Scales Revised Scales A
of Pay . of Pay .
.
Engineers Rs.2200-4000 Rs.2200-4000
AEE/AE/SDO/SDE Rs.2000-3500 Rs.3000-4500
(Class I & II) (After 5 years of (After 5 years of
B
regular service regular satisfactory
Rs.4100-5300 service)
(After 12 years of Selection Grade
regular service) Rs .41 00-5300
(After 12 years of
regular satisfactory c
service) limited
to 20% of the .
cadre posts.
. ·.
7. The Board m Directors of the Corporation considered D
and approved the adoption of the above modified scales of pay
w.e.f. 01.05.1989 in respect of the Engineers of the Corporation
in 97th meeting held on 25.06.1990, subject to the concurrence
of the Finance Department. It was further' resolved that any further
amendment/modification made by the Haryana Government in ·
the pay scales of the Engineers may also be made applicable· E
. in respect of the Corporation employees, subject to the
concurrence of the Finance Department. The proposal of the
Board of Directors of the Corporation for revision of pay scales
of the Corporation Engineers was sent to the Finance
Department and in the said proposal, it was brought to the notice F
of the Standing Committee that the revised pay scales had
already been granted to the Engineers of the Haryana Urban
Development Authority and that of the Haryana State Electricity
Board·. The proposal was placed before the Standing
Committee in its meeting that was held on 28.05.1992, which G
approved the pay scales in a selective manner. The revision in
the pay scales of the Superintending Engineers, Accounts
Officers, Circle Head Draftsmen, Divisiol'!al Head Draftsmen,
etc. were approved, whereas the revision of pay scales of the
AEs/SDOs/SDEs was postponed and it was decided that the H
672 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 6 S.C.R.
A matter would be examined separately by the Finance
Department. The claim of the respondents with regard to the
revision of pay scales, however, was not taken up by the Standing
Committee. The respondents submitted repeated
representations but they could not get any relief and the
B respondents were left with no option but to file the writ petitions
before the High Court. '
8. The Corporation contested the claim of the respondents
before the High Court by filing written statement wherein it has
been pleaded that the respondents are seeking revised pay
C scales on the pattern of Engineers of three wings of PWD of the
State Government. The proposal of the Corporation for revision
of pay scales of engineering staff was placed for consideration
of the Standing Committee in its meeting held on 15.11.1991.
The decision taken in the aforesaid meeting reads thus:
D
"It was decided to constitute a Sub-Committee comprising
of Member Secretary, Haryana Bureau of Public
Enterprises; Managing Director, Haryana State Minor
Irrigation Tubewell Corporation and Joint Secretary
Finance (Pay Revision) to review the entire staffing pattern
E along with pay scale of CORPORATION. Based on the
recommendations of the Sub-Committee, the Corporation
could submit a fresh proposal for consideration of the
Standing Committee, if need be."
F The meetings aforesaid of the Sub-Committee were held
on 16.01.1992 and 6.02.1992. Minutes of these meetings
containing recommendations of the Sub-Committee were
placed for consideration of the Standing Committee in its
meeting held on 28.05.1992 wherein it was decided as under:-
G "The revision of pay scales of posts of AEE/AE/SDO/
SDEs was postponed and it was decided that the matter
will be examined separately by the Finance Department."
It has further been stated that as the matter was under
H active consideration and had not been finally decided by the
HARYANA STATE MINOR IRR. TUBEWELLS CORPN. 673.
& ORS. v. G.S. UPPAL & ORS. [L.S. PANTA, J.]
Finance Department, no cause of action arose to the A
respondents and, therefore, the writ petition being premature
was liable to be dismissed on that sole ground. The main
defence of the Corporation in its written statement before the
High Court was that there has been a revision of pay scales of
Engineers of three wings of Public Works Department only of B
the State Government who have to carry out more arduous duties
under different conditions and constraints because of the
development activities undertaken by the State under its phased
programme and time-bound schedule, whereas the Engineers
employed by the Corporation have been discharging normal c
routine duties. It was contended that the Corporation is running
under loss and because of its financial position, the Corporation
is not in a position to equate the pay scales of its Engineers,
Law Officers and other employees equivalent to the Engineers
of the three wings of PWD and other employees working on the
D
equivalent posts of the State Government.
•
9'. The learned Single Judge, allowed the Writ Petition No.
14200/1993 which was the subject-matter of LPA No. 725/1993
before the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court
...
and held as under: E
''In view of the above, it is held that the action of the
respondents in not granting the revised scale of pay to the
petitioners with effect from May 1, 1989 suffers from the
vice of discrimination and is violative of Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution of India. The next contentions raised by F
the learned counsel for the petitioners related to the
jurisdiction of the Government to interfere in the affairs of
the Corporation. The contention is not wholly without merit.
However, in view of my decision on the first question, it
does not appear to be necessary to examine this matter G
in detail.
Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. It is held that the
petitioners will be entitled to the revised scales of pay with
effect from May 1, 1989 as has been granted to the persons
H
674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.
A working in the Corporation by way of deputation or in the
Public Works Department of the Government. The needful
shall be done within 4 months from the date of receipt of
a copy of this order. They will..be entitled to all consequential
benefits. In case, the r:i,eedful is not done within the
B aforesaid time, the petitioners shall be entitled to the
payment of arrears, etc. along with interest @ 12% per
annum from the date of accrual to the date of actual
payment. However, in the circumstances of the case, there
will be no ordrcr as to costs."
C 10. Being aggrieved, the Corporation carried the matter
in intra-court appeal before the Division Bench. During the
hearing of Letters Patent Appeal, a copy of the final decision
taken by the Government had been handed over to the Bench
vide which the Finance Committee of the Government decided
D that pay scales of the Engineers along with the doctors of Health
Department and Deputy Superintendents of Police were further
revised. It has also been clarified that the revised pay scales,
so far as engineers were concerned, were applicable to the
Engineers of PWD (three wings) only. Shri Chakrawarti Garg,
E Law Officer working with the Corporation, filed Civil Writ Petition
No. 5946/1994 and Shri A.S. Dhir, SDO of the Corporation filed
Civil Writ Petition No. 834/1996 before the Division Bench of
the High Court claiming revision of pay scales at par with the
other employees discharging same and similar duties and
F responsibilities at equivalent posts with the State Government,
Boards and Corporations. The Division Bench by impugned
order dated August 22, 2001 dismissed the Letters Patent
Appeal of the Corporation and allowed the Civil Writ Petitions
filed by Shri Chakrawarti Garg and Shri A.S. Dhir respondents
G herein. Hence, the Corporation and others have filed thes·e
appeals questioning the correctness and validity of the common
·judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr.
Neeraj Kumar Jain, learned Additional Advocate General
H appearing for the appellants, vehemently contended that the pay
HARYANA STATE MINOR IRR. TUBEWELLS CORPN. 675
& ORS. v. G.S. UPPAL & ORS. [L.S. PANTA, J.]
scales of the respondents could not be compared and equated A
with the Engineers and other employees of the three wings of
the PWD and other employees of the State Government. He
submitted that there is apparent difference between the duties,
responsibilities and reliability of the Engineers working in the
three wings of Public Works Department as they have to work s
under difficult conditions and constraints because of the
developmental activities as compared to those Engineers
working in the Corporation. As such, the findings of the High
Court granting different pay scales to the engineers and other
employees of the Corporation in violation of Articles 14 and 16 c
of the Constitution of India cannot be justified. and sustained. It
was also urged that mere fact that on two earlier occasions,
. pay hike to the engineers of the Government Departments
attracted an equal pay hike for the Engineers employed with
the Corporation is no guide that may conclusively .show that · D
nature and duties of the two sets of employees were the same.
The weak financial position of the Corporation is also being
pressed into service during the course of arguments for denying
. the relief that has been granted to the respondents by the High
Court.
E
12. The learned Additional Advocate General, in support
of his submissions, placed reliance on the judgments of this
Court in State Bank of India & Anr. v. M.R. Ganesh Babu &
Ors. [2002] 4 SCC 556; State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil
Secretariat Personal Staff Association [2002] 6 SCC 72 and F
Union of India v. S.B. Vohra [2004] 2 SCC 150.
· 13. We have gone through these decisions of this Court .
. In State Bank of India's case (supra), this Court held that equal
pay must depend upon the nature of work done. It cannot be
judged by the mere volume of work; there may be qualitative G
difference as regards reliabilityand responsibility. Functions may
. be same but the responsibilities make a difference. Often the
difference is a matter of degree and there is an element of value
judgment by those who are charged with .the administration in
fixing the scales of pay .and other conditions of service. So long H
676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.
A as such value judgment is made bona fide, reasonably on an
intelligible criterion which has a rational nexus with the object of
differentiation, such differentiation will not amount to
discrimination. The judgment of administrative authorities
concerning the responsibilities which attach to the post, and
B the degree of reliability expected of an incumbent, would be a
value judgment of the authorities concerned which, if arrived at
bona fide, reasonably and rationally, is not open to interference
by the court.
14. In 5.8. Vohra's case [supra), this Court dealing with
c the fixation of pay scales of officers of the High Court of Delhi
(Assistant Registrars) held that the fixation of pay scales is within
the exclusive domain of Chief Justice, subject to approval of
· President/Governor of the State and the matter should either
be examined by an Expert Body or in its absence by the Chief
D Justice and the Central or State Government should attend to
the suggestions of the Chief Justice with reasonable promptitude •
so as to satisfy the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
Further, it was observed that financial implications vis-a-vis
effect of grant of a particular scale of pay may not always be a
E sufficient reason and differences should be mutually discussed
and tried to be solved.
15. In State of Haryana's case (supra), this Court held
that the High Court was in error in allowing the parity in pay
scale to State Civil Secretariat PAs with Central Secretariat PAs
F merely because the designation was same, without comparing
the nature of their duties and responsibilities and qualifications
for recruitment and without considering the relevant rules,
regulations and executive instructions issued by the employer
and governing the cadre concerned.
G
16. There is no dispute nor can there be any to the principle
as settled in the above-cited decisions of this Court that fixation
of pay and determination of parity in duties is the function of the
..
Executive and the scope of judicial review of administrative
decision in this regard is very limited. However, it is also equally
H
HARYANA STATE MINOR IRR. TUBEWELLS CORPN. 677
& ORS. v. G.S. UPPAL & ORS. [L.S. PANTA, J.]
well-settled that the courts should interfere with the administrative A
decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they
find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial
to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material
and relevant factors. [see K. T. Veerappa & Ors. v. State of
Karnataka & Ors. (2006) 9 SCC 406]. B
17. Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel assisted
by Shri Raj Kumar Gupta and Shri A.N.Bardiyar appearing for
respondents in C.A. Nos. 9244/03 and 9248/03; Mr. Rishi
Malhotra, Advocate appearing for respondents in C.A. 9239/
2003, in support of the judgment of the Division Bench, C
contended that no exceptions can be taken to the well-reasoned
judgment recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court.
They submitted that the Division Bench has analysed in great
detail the factual situation and legal proposition covering the
field of controversy, therefore, there is apparently no infirmity or D
perversity in the judgment impugned in these appeals inviting
interference by this Court.
18. In order to appreciate the rival contentions of the learned
counsel for the parties, we have scrutinized the judgment of the
Division Bench of the High Court in the backdrop of the factual E
situation of the case as well as in the light of the principle
enunciated in the above-cited decisions.
19. It is well-settled that the State can make reasonable
classification if it has a nexus with the object sought to be F
achieved. It is admitted position in the present case that posts
of SDOs/SDEs/AEs can be filled up by the Corporation by any
one of the three known methods, namely, direct recruitment, on
promotion or by transfer/deputation. Once a person is appointed
to a post in a particular cadre, the source of his recruitment or G
the method of his appointment becomes irrelevant. The
Corporation has framed its Service Bye-Laws and by virtue of
Rule 5.1 of Part-V of the Service Bye-Laws, each post in the
Corporation will carry a time scale of pay; the present pay scale
being indicated in Appendix-II and further that the pay scale is H
678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.
A subject to revision by the Board, which will, however, generally
follow the pattern adopted by the Government of Haryana from
time to time. The employees of the Corporation, since its
inception in 1970, had been getting the same pay scales as
that of the employees of the Haryana Government and the Board
B of Directors having already equated the pay scales of the
Engineers of the Corporation commensurate to the pay scales
of the Government employees, but the State Government has
not concurred with the decision of the Board of Directors. By
virtue of Clause 81 (v) of the Memorandum of Association of the
c Corporation, the Directors of the Corporation in their discretion
have powers to appoint, remove or suspend such Managers,
Secretaries, Officers, Clerks, Agents and Servants of
permanent, temporary or special services, as they may from
time to time think fit, and to determine their powers and duties
D and fix their salaries or emoluments and to require security of
such amount as they think fit in such instances. The power to fix •
the salaries or emoluments of the employees of the Corporation,
thus, specifically rests with the Directors of the Corporation and
by virtue of Rule 5.1 of Part-V of the Service Bye-Laws, as
mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, the Corporation
E had favourably considered the claim of the respondents by
recommending the same scales for them, as were being given'
to their counterparts in the service of the Government
Departments. The proposal of the Board of Directors of the
Corporation for revision of pay scales to its employees came
F up before the Standing Committee in its meeting held on
28.05.1992 and the Standing Committee approved the pay
scales in a selective manner. The revision in pay scales of the
Superintending Engineers, Accounts Officers, Circle Head
Draftsmen, Divisional Head Draftsmen, etc. were approved,
G whereas the revision of pay scales of the respondents, who are
AEs/SDOs/SDEs, was postponed and it was decided that the
matter would be examined separately by the Finance
Department.
20. Th'J State of Haryana in its written statement filed before
H
HARYANA STATE MINOR IRR. TUBEWELLS CORPN. 679
& ORS. v. G.S. UPPAL & ORS. [LS. PANTA, J.]
the High Court admitted that although the technical qualifications A
of incumbents on the posts of AEs/SDOs/SDEs in various
Government Departments, Boards and Corporations are ·
identical, yet the nature of duties and responsibilities, quantum
of workload and level of technical expertise involved do vary
from organization to organization depending upon the nature of B
i
activities undertaken by the respective organizations. It is further
contended that the salary and allowances of the deputationists
of the Corporation are governed by the terms and conditions of
their deputation as decided by the Government from time to
time. Therefore, the respondents cannot be treated and equated c
at par with the similar categories of employees of the State
Government.
21. The learned Single Judge of the High Court as also
the learned Judges of the Division Bench have considered the
controversy in detail in their judgments holding the respondents D
entitled for the revision of pay scales at par with their counter-
parts working in the State of Haryana.
22. It is not in dispute that a deputationist holds the post in
a particular cadre office for the duration he remains on
deputation and is a part of that cadre. No material has been E
placed on record by the appellants to show that the
deputationists are appointed against only certain particular posts
or that they cannot be posted or transferred to the posts held by
the respondents. In fact, it is an admitted position that the posts
are mutually inter-changeable. In this situation, it is reasonable F
.....
to infer that a deputationist performs the same duties as those
performed by other persons working in the cadre. It is also an
admitted position that the qualifications laid down for recruitment
in the Corporation are identical to those prescribed in the
Departments of the Government. It is further clear that the G
respondents have continued to work in the pay scale of Rs.2000-
3500 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. As against this, their counter-parts in
the Government and also the persons, who are posted in the
Corporation by way of deputation, would get the scale of
Rs.3000-4500 on completion of five years of service and are H
680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.
A placed in the scale of Rs.4100-5300 (to the extent of 20% of
the posts) on completion of 12 years of service. The respondents
were obviously placed at a disadvantageous position. The
decision of the Government in rejecting the proposal of the Board
of Directors suffers from the vice of invidious discrimination and
B cannot be sustained because the very same decision of the
Board with regard to all other employees has since been
accepted and approved by the State Government. On the scrutiny
of the material on record, it is clear that the appellants did not
produce any evidence on record to establish that the working
C conditions, responsibilities and nature of duties, etc. of the
respondents are different to their counter-parts working in the
same categories in the State Government, Boards and other
Corporations, etc. and also the persons who are working with
the Corporation on deputation.
D 23. A careful examination shows that the issue was not
really about grant of pay scales to Corporation Engineers on
par with PWD Engineers. When the pay revision took place,
the revised pay scales that were given to the Engineers of the
State Government were also given to the engineers of the
E Corporation with effect from 1.1.1986 thereby maintaining the
parity. What was not extended to the Corporation employees,
which is the subject matter of the grievance, is the further revision
by way of 'removal of anomaly in pay scales' given to AEE/AE/
SDO/SDE of the State Government with effect from 1.5.1989
F vide circular dated 2.6.1989 of the Finance Commissioner. The
real question would be whether what is given by way of anomaly
removal in the case of Engineers of State Government, should
automatically be extended to the corresponding categories of
engineers of the Corporation. When, after a pay revision, an
G anomaly is found in the pay scale given to a class of Government
servants and such anomaly is rectified, it is not a new pay
revision but a correction of the original pay revision, or an
amendment to the pay scale that has already been granted.
Therefore, where the pay revision extended to the government
servants has already been extended to the employees of the
H
HARYANA STATE MINOR IRR. TUBEWELLS CORPN. 681
& ORS. v. G.S. UPPAL & ORS. [LS. PANTA, J.]
Corporation also, it follows that any correction of anomaly in the A
revised pay scale given to the government servants should also
be made in the case of those who were earlier given parity by
extending the pay scale which is the subject matter of the
correction. It should be borne in mind that the question whether
, Corporation engineers were on par with PWD Engineers and B
should be given parity in pay scales was already decided when
the pay scale revision granted to Government (PWD) engineers
was extended to the corporation Engineers also with effect from
1.1.1986. That question did not again arise when the anomaly
in the pay revision was rectified with reference to the Government c
engineers. When the anomaly in the pay scale of Government
engineers was rectified, the rectification should apply to
Corporation engineers also to maintain the parity.
24. The plea of the appellants that the Corporation is
running under losses and it cannot meet the financial burden on D
account of revision of scales of pay has been rejected by the
High Court and, in our view, rightly so. Whatever may be the
factual position, there appears to be no basis for the action of
the appellants in denying the claim of revision of pay scales to
the respondents. If the Government feels that the Corporation is E
running into losses, measures of economy, avoidance of
frequent wr.iting off of dues, reduction of posts or repatriating
deputationists may provide the possible solution to the problem.
Be that as it may, such a contention may not be available to the
.. appellants in the light of the principle enunciated by this Court in F
M.M.R. Khan v. Union of India [1990 Supp. SCC 191] and
Indian Overseas Bank v. 1.0.B. Staff Canteen Workers'
Union ((2000) 4 SCC 245). However, so long as the posts do
exist and are manned, there appears to be no justification for
granting the respondents a scale of pay lower than that G
sanctioned for those employees who are brought on deputation.
In fact, the sequence of events, discussed above, clearly shows
that the employees of the Corporation have been treated at par
with those in Government at the time of revision of scales of pay
on every occasion. It is an admitted position that the scales of
H
I
682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 6 S.C.R.
A pay were initially revised w.e.f. April 1, 1979 and thereafter on
January 1, 1986. On both these occasions, the pay scales of
the employees of the Corporation were treated and equated at
par with those in Government. It is thus an established fact that
both were s;milarly situated. Thereafter, nothing appears to have
B happened which may justify the differential treatment. Thus, the
Corporation cannot put forth financial loss as a ground only with
regard to a limited category of employees. It cannot be said
that the Corporation is financially sound insofar granting of
revised pay scales to other employees, but finds financial
c constraints only when it comes to dealing with the respondents,
who are similarly placed in the same category. Having regard
to the well rnasoned judgment of the Division Bench upholding
the judgment '1r.d order of the learned Single Judge, w2 ::ire of
the v:ew tha'. the impugned judgment warrants no i:>~erferer.ce
inasmuch as no ii'.egality, infirmity or error of jurisd:ct:on cou d
1
0
be shovin before us. •
25. ln t;~e result, for the reasons stated above, we find no
merit in these Jppeals. The appeals are dismissed acco~d;;;gly.
~.1·J".';~v2r, ~f'.,3 ,·::Ft::;s nre left to bem their own costs.
D.G. Appeals dismissed
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "pay revision"Sign in to search