Holding

All ministerial staff of the NDMC, being a unified cadre, must receive the same SS Committee pay scales and equal ex‑gratia payments; any differential treatment is arbitrary and unconstitutional.

Summary

The New Delhi Municipal Committee (NDMC) treated its non‑technical (ministerial) staff as a unified cadre, but granted higher Shiv Shankar Committee (SS) pay scales and ex‑gratia payments only to those posted in its electricity wing, citing the pattern followed by the Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (DESU). Staff in the general wing and civil engineers challenged this as discriminatory, arguing that equal work should receive equal pay. The Delhi High Court upheld a scheme of seniority‑cum‑option for the electricity wing, which the Supreme Court found arbitrary and not grounded in any statutory distinction. The Court held that all ministerial staff of the NDMC are entitled to the same SS Committee pay scales and equal ex‑gratia payments, rejecting the NDMC's differentiated treatment. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeals of the general‑wing staff, ordered uniform payment from 1 June 1982, and dismissed the NDMC’s appeals and the civil engineers’ petitions.

Issues considered

Whether the NDMC can differentiate pay scales and ex‑gratia payments for ministerial staff within a unified cadre across its three wings.
Whether the principle of equal pay for equal work applies to the NDMC’s ministerial staff.
Whether civil engineers can claim parity with electrical engineers in pay scales.
Whether the NDMC’s resolutions creating ex‑cadre posts and a seniority‑cum‑option scheme are legally valid.
Whether financial constraints justify discriminatory pay treatment.

Legislation cited

Subjects

equal pay for equal workdiscriminationunified cadrepay scalesex‑gratia paymentcivil vs electrical engineersDelhi municipal bodiesShiv Shankar Committeeseniority cum optiondeputationadministrative law

Judgment

A R.D. GUPTA & ORS. ETC.
v. 0
LT. GOVERNOR. DELHI ADMN. & OR S. ETC.

AUGUST 7. 1987

B (0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.]

Civil Services-Pay Scales-Rates recommended for DESU
employees-Whether can be made applicable to NDMC employees--
Ministerial staff-All sections-To be treated a/ike--Entitlement to
same pay scales-Civil engineers in Electricity wing-Whether can
c claim parity with electrical engineers.

In the Union Territory of Delhi there are two main civic bodies
viz. the New Delhi Municipal Committee and the Delhi Municipal
Corporation. The NDMC was constituted under the Punjab Municipal
D Act, 1913 to discharge all civic functions including supply of water and
electricity in the area falling within its jnrisdiction. The Delhi Munici-
pal Corporation was constituted in pursuance of the Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act, 1957.

E The NDMC forming a compact unit, had divided its civic work
into various departments. Besides technical staff, it also engaged non-
technical staff such as Municipal staff, clerks etc. The non-technical
staff constituted one unified cadre, liable to transfer from one depart-
ment to another with common seniority.

F The set up of the MCD was, however, different consisting of three
separate and independent wings viz. the electricity, the general and the
water, sewage and disposal wings. The electricity wing was designated
as the Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking and its employees were
governed by a separate cadre and seniority list. Similarly, the general
wing, performing other general civic duties and functions, and the third
G wing concerning with distribution of water and disposal of sewage etc. ).

To satisfy the demands of the employees of the MCD, NDMC etc.
the Government accepted the recommendations of the Third Pay
Commission. The New Delhi Municipal Committee as well as the
general wing of the Municipal Corporation, Delhi accepted the pay
H scales recommended by the Third Pay Commission. However, the tech-
808
R.D. GUPTA v. LT. GOVERNOR 809

nical staff of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking were not satisfied and A
claimed higher scales of pay. The Government, therefore, constituted a
Committee known as the Shiv Shankar Committee to go into the ques-
tion ofrevision of pay scales etc. of the technical staff of the DESU. The
Committee submitted its report in 1973. Subsequently, the DESU
agreed to revise the pay scales of the non-technical staff also to the level
+- recommended by the S.S. Committee. B

The New Delhi Municipal Committee, by its Resolution dated
19.10. 73, decided to give the benefit of the revised scales to the technical
and ministerial staff working in its electricity wing as, in its view, such
staff were performing same or similar functions and duties performed
by the staff of DESU and hence parity should be maintained, and by c
Resolution dated 7.1.1974, it decided to give the benefit with effect from
1.4. 72.

Two of the employees of the general wing filed a writ petition
before the High Court for quashing the Resolution dated 7 .1.1974
which sought to implement the earlier Resolution of 19.10.1973. The D
Higli' Court held that the Resolution was discriminatory in nature, and
restrained the implementation of the Resolution till the NDMC con-
sidered afresh the question of revision of pay scales for all sections of the
ministerial staff after giving an opportunity to them.

In compliance with the above directions, the NDMC passed a E
revised Resolution dated 25.6.1975 treating all the non-technical staff
as equal and granting uniform pay scales at the rates recommended by
the Third Pay Commission and not at different rates for different
wings. This Resolution was again challenged by some of the affected
members of the electricity wing before the High Court, which disposed
it of on the assurance given by the NDMC that the whole position would F
be reviewed after giving all the parties including the ministerial staff of
the electricity wing due notice of the matter.

The Letters Patent Appeal, originally filed hy the NDMC, and in
which some of the affected employees of the electricity wing had got
-{ themselves impleaded as appellants, was allowed and the judgment of G
the Single Judge was set aside as it had been rendered without all the
necessary parties being before the Court. The Special Leave Petition
filed in the Supreme Court hy two staff members of the general wing
was dismissed in limine.

The NDMC, after giving opportunity to all sections of the emp- H
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R.

A loyees to make their representation passed a Resolution on 27.6.78
constituting the electricity wing w.e.f. 1.S.78 composed of pump drivers,
welders, carpenters, mechanics and 496 posts of ministerial stalT, carry-
ing scales of pay as per the S.S. Committee report and benefit of ex-
gratia on DESU pattern, and treated these as ex-cadre posts and to be
filled on deputation basis on rotation, for a period of three years in one -+
a spell.

Three writ petitions were filed in the High Court contending (a) ~
that the ministerial staft' should be treated on par with their counter-
parts in the electricity wing in the matter of pay and allowances, (b)
that, as there was no dift'erence between the civil and electrical
C engineers, civil engineers should be equated with the electrical
engineers on DESU pattern, and (c) that since the employees of DESU y
were being paid ex-gratia amount the staft' in the general wing should
also be paid likewise.

The High Court, while upholding the order of the NDMC,
D modified the placement of the ex-cadre posts in the overall set-up. It \~
evolved a Scheme according lo which the S.S. Committee scales were to
be given only to those who opted to work in the electricity department
and the posts were to be filled on the basis of seniority-cum-option. It
further directed that since higher scales of pay was linked with the
service rendered in the electricity wing, S.S. Committee scales should
E be paid to all those who had worked in the electricity wing during the
period subsequent to June 1975 till 30th May, 1982, that such payment --'i..-
would not amount to discriminatory payment and that after the 30th
May, 1982 the postings should be done in accordance with seniority·
cum-option formula. It also held that the civil engineers could not seek '-"
parity with electrical engineers in the electricity wing in the matter of
F pay scales as the junior engineers (Civil) had no common seniority with
the electrical engineers in the electricity wing, that the posts were not
interchangeable and that they could not draw comparison with the
employment pattern of DESU because it was a separate and indepen·
dent entity unlike the electricity wing of the NDMC and that the nature
of the duties performed by the electrical engineers and civil engineers
G was dift'erent. ·~ ·

Upholding the refusal of the NDMC to grant ex-gratia payment to
the staft' of the general wing, it directed the NDMC to treat the amount
already paid "as one-time special ad hoc payment not serving as a
precedent."
H
R.D. GUPTA v. LT. GOVERNOR 811

·--.i In the appeals before this Court it was contended on behalf of the A
•
mlniaterlal staff in the general wing that the electricity wing was not a
distinct and independent unit entitled to have its own scales or pay, that
the ministerial staff of the NDMC belonged to a unified cadre and the
staff members were liable to transfer from one branch to another and,
as such, the NDMC could not create a cadre within a cadre and fix a
different 1eale of pay for thot1e In the carved out cadre, that the nature or B
t duties performed by the ministerial staff In all the three units was more
or less similar, if not identical, and hence the well-established rule of
'1- . equal pay for equal work should govern the staff members, that Instead
of restrlct1n11 the payment of S.S. Committee pay scale! to the 496
ex·cadre posts In the electricity wlna and directing the NDMC to fill up
those posts on the basis of seniority-cum-option, the High Court should
have directed the NDMC to give the S.S. Committee pay scales to all the
c
'"( members of the ministerial staff and also pay ex·gratla payment and
should not have directed the NDJ\1C to treat the ad hoc payment as one
time special ad hoc payment and refrain from recovering the said
amount.
D
-I judgment The NDMC, in turn, filed two appeals against the High Court
dlrectln11 the payment at S.S. Committee ocales for the period
from June 197$ to May, 1982 and filllng up the ministerial posts In the
electricity wln1 on senlorlty·cum·optlon basis instead of a three years
deputation basis on rotational system and payment of arrears of pay ek.
and for giving up the proceedings for recovery of the ad hoc payment E
towards ex·gratla payment and contend.in11 that the Government or any
~ State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution had a right
under law to create new departments or new cadres with different
scales of pay and hence the appellants could not Impugn the action of

t
the NDMC ltr treatln11 the ministerial staff In the electrical wing di!Te·
rently and 11ivlng them pay 1cales as per S.S. Committee Report. F

On behalf of some of the staff' members In the general wing, It was
contended that since the NDMC co1111tltuted an Integrated unit with
common fund, common bud11et etc., the Hl1h Court ouaht not to have
sustained the payment of ex·gratla amount to only thoH persons work·
ing In the electricity wing and water works wing and should have made G
4 the payment applicable to all or to none.

In the writ petition and appeal filed on behalf or the Assistant and
Junior EnR1neers (Civil), It was contended that there could not be any
discrimination between civil engineers and electrical engineers and
since the NDMC followed the pattern of 11eales or pay adopted by DESU H
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R.

A which paid the Civil Engineers according to S.S. Committee pay scales
they were as much entitled as the electrical engineers to be paid accord-
ing to the S.S. Committee pay scales and also for payment of ex-gratia
amount.

Allowing the appeals of the employees in the general wing and
B dismissing the appeals and WP of NDMC and the engineers (civil), -t
this Court, \

HELD: I. I All sections of the ministerial staff should be treated
alike and all of them should be entitled to the same scales of pay for the
work of ec1ual nature done by them. [825C]
c I.2 Merely because a member of the ministerial staff had been
given a posting in the electricity wing either due to force of circumst-
ances or due to voluntary preferment, he cannot stand on a better or
higher footing or in a more advantageous position than his counter-
parts in the general wing. The ministerial staff in the NDMC constitute
D a unified eadre with a common recruitment policy, a common recruit-
ment agency a common seniority list, and the posts in the three
wings are inter-changeable and postings are made from the
common pool according to administrative convenience and exigencies
of service and not on the basis of any distinct policy or special
qualification. [8258, 8248, 825A]
E
I.3 The only reason which prompted the NDMC to pass the re-
solution was that since DESU had implemented the S.S. Committee pay
scales for its technical and non-technical staff, the NDMC should also
follow suit in so far as its electricity wing is concerned. In doing so, the

F
NDMC had failed to bear in mind several distinguishing features between
its set up and the set up of the DESU and its staff pattern and the
staff pattern ofDESU. [825G]

The NDMC is governed by the Punjab Municipal Act, wbile
l
the DESU is governed by the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.
The set-up of the NDMC is that of an integrated unit comprising all the
G three wings while the set-up under the Municipal Corporation Act of
the MCD is that its three wings have to function as distinct and indepen-
dent units. Such being the case, the DESU is a separate and independent
unit of MCD and constituted an independent body. The DESU has its
own budget and consequently it has freedom without reference to the
other units. In contrast, the NDMC's revenue is the income derived
H from all the three wings of it and the expenses are governed by a common
R.D. GUPTA v. LT. GOVERNOR 813

-_, budget. Apart from the diference in the set-up, the ministerial staff in A
the NDMC are comprised in a unified cadre and the posts in the three
wings are transferable and inter-changeable which is not so in the case
of the staff of the DESU. [82SH, 826A]

1.4 There is no room whatsoever for treating the electricity wing
+· of the NDMC on par with the DESU and adopting the pattern of pay B
scales implemented by DESU and the decision taken by the NDMC
originally to place the non-technical staff in the electricity wing on a
higher footing and give them alone the S.S. Committee pay scales can-
not be legally sustained. The action of the NDMC clearly suffered from

- the vice of arbitrariness and discrimination. [826B-D J

2.1 The NDMC has no legal ground to project any justification of
c
its action in making the posts in the electricity wing as ex-cadre posts
and giving the benefit of S.S. Committee pay scales only to persons
serving in those posts. [828A]

2.2 The resolution only sought to provide all the members of the D
staff the benefit of the higher scales of pay for a period of three years at
some point of time in their service provided they opted to serve in the
electricity wing but it did not pro~ide an answer for the criticism that
there was no justification to treat ~he ministerial staff in the electricity
wing on a higher footing than the rest of the staff and give them a higher
scale of pay. [826F-G J E

2.3 The proposal would perpetuate the imbalance in the pay
scales between the different sections of the staff working in the three
wings of the NDMC. The system of deputation would lead to a long
period of wait for large sections of the staff before getting postings in the
electricity wing on deputation basis. The staff members would have to F
forego the higher scales of pay and come back to the lesser scales when
the period of deputation was over. The insistence on the staff members
being entitled to deputation service in the electricity wing only if they
exercised their option to work in that wing introduces an element of
compulsion among the members comprised in a unified cadre. These
factors vitiate the revised propsoal of the NDMC to make 496 posts as G
ex-cadre and to fill them up on deputation basis hy adopting a rota-
tional cnm option system. [826G-H, 827A-B]

3. The scheme formulated by the High Court cannot be sustained
or accepted. The High Court, apart from laying itself open to the criti·
cism that it had gone beyond its power in formulating the scheme, has H
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987) 3 S.C.R.

A failed to provide for equal benefits for all the members of the ministerial
staff. If the electricity wing is to be filled up on the basis of seniority
cum option, those who had served earlier in the electricity wing would
get a distinct advantage over the rest ot the ministerial staff including
the senior members in the matter of higher pay-scales. Besides, the
seniority cum option system would give grater benefit to some and ,
B lesser benefit to some depending upon their age etc. Moreover, the 4
Insertion of the option clause would introduce an element of compulsion
and make it appear that the staff working in the electricity wing ·~·
perform more onerous and more skilled duties and hence they stand on
a higher footing. It would also lead to packing all the senior members of
the staff in the electricity wing and denuding the other two wings of the
C services of the senior ministerial staff. [827C-F)

4. Merely because some of the Civil engineers are assigned to do
civil engineers' work in the electricity wing It cannot be said that they
are not different from the electrical engineers and that they should be
paid higher scales of pay. In the matter of promotions etc., they are
D governed by the common seniority Ust maintained for civil engineers
and their posting to the electricity wing cannot make them a separate
class hy themselves. They cannot compare themselves with the civil
engineers working In DESU because that is a separate and distinct unit,
and all the engineers working therein constitute a single unit. There Is
no disparity of scales of pay between civil engineers working in
E the electricity wing and those working in the other wings. It cannot,
therefore, be said that there is discrimination in the matter of pay
scales. [828H, 829A-C]
5. The pattern of payment of ex-gratia payment adopted by the
MCD cannot have any binding force on the NDMC because the three
F units of the MCD are different and diltlnct entities whereas the three
wings otthe NDMC are inter-dependent wings of the lntearated Munici·
pal Committee. [830A]
6.1 In the absence of justiliahle reasons of compulsive nature, the
payments whether as salary or as ex1!ratia amounts have to be on the same
and equal basis and not differently for the different wings. All the
G ministerial staff working in the NDMC are entitled to get pay scales as
per S.S. Committee report and are also entitled to be given ex-gratia
payment likewise. The grant of S.S. Commitee pay scales to only the
staff working in the electricity wing or the grant of ex-gratia payment to
only the staff working In the electricity wing and the water works wing
cannot be legally sustained as it sufTers from the vice or dlacrlmina-
H lion. [830B, 831C]
R.D. GUPTA v. LT. GOVERNOR 815
., 6.2 There should be uniformity not only in payment of S.S. Com- A
mittee pay scales and the ex-gratia payment to the staff working in all
the wings or departments of the NDMC but the payment should also be
made from a date common to all. [831D]

[In so far as payment of uniform salary to all the ministerial staff
as per S.S. Committee pay scales and payment of ex-gratia payment is B
+-- concerned, the NDMC will give effect to this judgment with effect from
1st June, 1982. The amount involved should be distributed equally
1' amongst all the ministerial staff and not conf'med to the ministerial staff
of the electricity wing alone. In view of the financial committment in-

- volved the NDMC is permitted to pay the difference in scales of pay and
ex-gratia amount between June 1, 1982 to July 31, 1987 in three equal
instalments within a period of15 months.] [831F-H]
c
'Y
Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982] 3 SCR 298; Dhirendra
Chamoli v. Staie of U.P., [1986] 1 SCC 637; P. Ramachandra Iver v.
Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 541, Reserve Bank of India v. N.C.
Paliwal, (1977] 1 SCR 377 and Reserve Bank of India v. C.N. Sahas- D
~ ranaman, [1986] (Suppl.) SCC 143, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2969
of 1983 etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 17 .5. 1982 of the Delhi High E
Court in Civil Writ No. 1231 of 1979.
-.r-
G. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, Govinda
Mukhoty, Dr. Y.S. Chitale, V.D. Misra, M.K. Ramamurthi, N.C.
Talukdar, Mrs. C.M. Chopra, B.P. Maheshwari, R.S. Rama, M.A.
Krishnamurthy, N.L. Kakkar, Dr. Meera Aggarwal and R.C. Misra F
for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

NATARAJAN, J. The genesis for these appeals by special leave,
1- the special leave petition and the petition under Article 32 of the G
Constitution is the grant of pay scales at the rates recommended by the
Shiv Shanker Committee for the employees of the Delhi Electricity
Supply Undertaking to only a section of the ministerial staff of the
New Delhi Minicipal Committee who happened to be working in the
electricity wing of the said Committee at the relevant time. There is a
good deal of factual material and historical background to be covered H
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] 3 S.C.R.

A for a full and proper appreciation of the contentions of the appellants Y
and the petitioners on the one hand and the respondents on the other
in these appeals and petitions. We will, therefore, concern ourselves
with that exercise before taking up the contentions of the parties.

In the Union Territory of Delhi there are two main civic bodies I
B viz. the New Delhi Municipal Committee (for short of NDMC) and the -..+
Delhi Municipal Corporation (for short the MCD). The NDMC com-
prises of New Delhi as it existed prior to 1947 and was constituted·
under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. The NDMC discharges all
civic functions including supply of water and electricity in the areas
falling within its jurisdiction. In 1957 the Delhi Municipal Corporation
c Act came to be enacted and in pursuance !hereof, the Delhi Municipal
Corporation was constituted amalgamating within itself a few other
smaller civic bodies which existed independent of the NDMC and the y
resultant position was that the rest of the areas fell within the jurisdic-
tion of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

D The NDMC, forming a compact unit, had divided its civic work
into various departments. Besides engaging technical staff the NDMC Y-·
engaged non-technical staff such as Municipal staff, clerks e'tc, for
working in the various departments including the electricity and water-
supply departments. In so far as the non-technical staff are concerned,
they constitute one unified cadre and are liable to transfer from one
E department to another. They are governed by a common channel of
seniority, in respect of each class of employees with common seniority
list. '"'"""·-

The set up of the MCD is, however, different since the Delhi
Municipal Corporation Act provides for the constitution of three sepa- ',-
F rate and independent wings viz. the electricity, the general and the
water, sewage and disposal wings. The electricity wing came to be
designated as the Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (hereinafter
referred to as DESU) and is governed by an independent budget and
headed by a separate and independent General Manager and its emp-
loyees are governed by a separate cadre and a separate seniority list.
G The general wing of the MCD performs the other general civic duties ~
and functions. The third wing is concerned with the distribution of
water and the disposal of sewage etc. and it is also independent of the
general wing.

To satisfy the demands of the employees of the MCD, NDMC
H etc. the Government accepted the report of the Third Pay commission
R.D. GUPTA v. LT. GOVERNOR [NATARAJAN ,J.l 817

appointed by it and the pay scales, as recommended by the Pay Com- A
mission were accepted by the NDMC as well as the general wing of the
MCD. The technical staff of DESU claimed higher scales of pay as
they were not satisfied with the pay scales recommended by the Pay
Commission. The Government, therefore, constituted a Committee
known as the Shiv Shanker Committee (hereinafter the S.S. Commit-
t tee for short) to go into the question ofrevision of pay scales etc. of the B
technical staff alone of DESU and the Committee submitted its report
in 1973. The non-technical or ministerial staff of DESU who were not
covered by the report of the S.S. Committee demanded and agitated
that they should also be granted pay at the rates recommended by the

- S.S. Committee. The DESU conceded the demand of the minisiterial
staff at its meetings held in May 1973 and decided to revise the pay C
scales of the non-technical staff also working in DESU to the level
recommended by the S.S. Committee.

Since the technical and ministerial staff working in DESU were
granted the SS Committee pay scales by the MCD, the NDMC was of
the view that the technical and ministerial staff working in the electri- D
city wing of NDMC should also have the benefit of revised pay scales
recommended by the SS Committee. This view was taken on the
assumption that the staff working in the electricity wing of the NDMC
were performing the same or similar functions and duties as those
performed by the staff of DESU and hence parity of pay and
allowances should be maintained. Accordingly, the NDMC passed a E
-X--· Resolution No. i54 on 19. JO. 1973 that the benefits of pay and
allowances as per SS Committee Report be given to the staff of the
electricity wing of NDMC. By another Resolution dated 7. i. !974 the
NDMC decided to giv() the benefit of the revised pay scales with effect
from i .4. 72 to fall in line with the actions of the DESU.
F
The grant of SS Committee pay scales to only those members of
the ministerial staff working in the electricity wing brought about dis-
contentment amount the staff working in the general wing of the
NDMC. They claimed they should also be paid at the rates prescribed
by the SS Committee and not as per the scales of pay recommended by
--1- the Third Pay Commission. Two of the employees of the general wing G
filed a writ petition W. No. 307 of 1974 against NDMC and the Delhi.
Administration praying for quashing of the Resolution dated 7. I. 1974
for implementing the earlier Resolution passed in favour of the staff ot
the electricity wing. Prakash Narain, J. (as he then was) did not quash
the Resolution but instead issued a writ of prohibition against the
NDMC not to implement the Resolution. The learned Judge held that H

•
818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R.
y
A the Resolution was discriminatory in nature but since the staff working
in the electricity wing had not been made parties and furthermore the
petitioners had not filed the petition in a representative capacity, the
proper course would be to forbear the implementation of the Resolu-
tion by the NDMC till such time the NDMC considered afresh the
question of the revision of pay scales for all sections of the ministerial
B staff in accordance with law. ~

In compliance with the directions of the learned Judge the
NDMC considered the matter afresh and taking into consideration its
financial constraints, it passed a revised Resolution on 25.6.75 which
resulted in all the non-technical staff being treated equal and being
granted uniform pay scales at the rates recommended by the Third Pay
c Commission and not at different rates for different wings. This resolu-
tion lead to discontent amount the ministerial staff of the electricity
wing since their pay scales were reduced to the rates recommended by
the Third Pay Commission. Consequently, some of the affected mem-
bers of the electrical wing filed a writ petition CW No. 1388 of 1975
D before the Delhi High Court challenging the Resolution of the NDMC
dated 25.6. 75. The High Court disposed of the writ petition on 18.2. 77
on the assurance given by the NDMC that the whole position would be
reviewed after giving all the parties including the ministerial staff of
the electricity wing due notice of the matter. As against the judgment
of Prakash Narain, J. the NDMC also filed a Letters Patent Appeal.
E However, in view of the subsequent Resolutions that had been passed
the NDMC withdrew itself from the appeal. But at the instance of
some of the affected employees of the electricity wing who had got
themselves impleaded as appellants, the appeal was allowed on the
short ground that the judgment of the learned single judge could not
be sustained as it bad been rendered without all the necessary parties
F being before the court.

The two staff members of the general wing who had originally
filed CW No. 307 of 1974 filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP No. 3597
of i978) against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High
Court in LPA No. 78 of 1975. This Court dismissed the special leave
G petition in limine with an observation that it was hoped that the +.-
NDMC would comply with the direction of the Delhi High Court that
it should evolve a formula satisfactory to all sections of the ministerial
staff working in the different wings of the NDMC and if the revised
scheme formulated by the NDMC was not satisfactory to any section
of the staff, it would be open to the affected party to seek appropriate
H reliefs from the High Court once again .

•
R.D. GUPTA v. LT. GOVERNOR [NATARAJAN ,J.I 819

The NDMC after giving opportunity to all sections of the emp- A
loyees to make their representations, passed a resolution on 27.6. 1978
constituting the electricity wing with effect from 1.5.78 or such subse-
quent date as may be fixed with 28 posts of pump drivers, two posts
of welders, 3 posts of carpenters and one post of pump mechanic and
\ 496 posts of ministerial staff and to give all of them scales of pay as per
·~ SS Committee Report. The NDMC further resolved as follows:- B

"D. 496 posts referred to above will be treated as ex-cadre posts
and will be filled on deputation basis on rotation, the period
of deputation in one spell being three years. These posts will
- be in SS Committee's scales and will carry the benefit of
ex·gratia of DESU pattern.
c
E. An equal number of posts may be created in general wing to
form deputation reserve.

F. The employees holding the ex-cadre posts from the date of
constitution of the wing will be entitled to have their pay fixed D
in the SS Committee scales or would draw deputation allo·
wance as permissible under normal rules. During the period
of deputation they will continue to remain as members of the
unified cadre and will be eligible for promotion to higher
posts on that basis.
E
G. While the existing vacancies in the ex-cadre categories will be
filled straightaway on seniority-cum-option basis, the exist-
ing incumbents will hold the ex-cadre posts for a period of
y three years from the date of constitution of the wing on depu·
talion basis. On expiry of the three years, one third of them
with longest stay will be replaced'every year by transfer from F
the general wing on the basis of seniority cum option. Such of
the existing incumbents who become due for promotion to
higher post will have to forego their deputation, if they
accept the promotion and will be transferred to general
wing."
G
The above resolution was not to the liking of the ministerial staff
working in the electricity wing and hence one Shri R. Chaudhary and
190 other staff members in the electricity wing filed a Writ Petition
CW No. 4072 of 78 under Article 32 of the Constitution before this
Court but withdrew the same as the Court was not inclined to grant
admission. Thereafter three petitions under Article 226 of the H
820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R.

A Constitution viz. CW Nos. 1231. 557 & 280 of 1978 came to be filed in
the Delhi High Court. In CW No. 1231of1979, some of the petitioners
were Junior Engineers (Civil) some of the petitioners were Assistant
Engineers (Civil) and some of the petitioners were Draftsman (Civil).
While the grievance of the ministerial staff among the petitioners was
that they should be treated on par with the ministerial staff of the I
B electricity wing in the matter of pay and allowances the grievance of \
the Junior and Assistant Engineers (Civil) and Draftsman (Civil) was
that none of their posts was borne on the cadre of the electricity wing
albeit on a transferable basis as there is no difference between the Civil
Engineers and the Electrical Engineers as they attend to the civil
engineering works in the electricity wing also and it is for that reason -
C the civil engineers in DESU have been equated with the electrical
engmeers.

In so far as CW No. 280 of 1979 is .concerned, the petition
pertained to the grant of ex-gratia payment to only a section of the
NDMC employees. Ever since 1972, the employees and their unions
D were demanding ex-gratia payment on the ground that since the emp-
loyees of DESU were being paid -ex-gratia amount, they should also
be paid likewise. The Delhi Administration, by its letter dated 1.2. 72
permitted the NDMC to make ex-gratia payment to the employees of
the electricity wing on the same lines as was being followed in DESU.
Similarly, on 7.2.1973, the Delhi Administration permitted the grant
E of ex-gratia payment to the employees working in the Water Supply &
Sewage Disposal wing of the NDMC also on the ground their counter-
parts in the Water Supply & Sewage Disposal undertaking in the MCD
were being paid ex-gratia amount. The ministerial staff in the general
wing who were not granted the ex-gratia payment raised a protest.
Eventually, the NDMC passed a resolution at its meeting held on
F 25.7.1977 that ex-gratia payment be made to all employees of common
categories such as clerks, superintendents etc. and that the payment be
made subject to the conditions that the employees will refund the
amount if the proposal was not approved by the Delhi Administration.
Subsequently, it turned out that the Delhi Administration did not
approve the proposal of paying ex-gratia amount to all the employees
G as the expenditure would cast a heavy burden on the finances of the +--
NDMC and furthermore it will lead to similar demands being raised by
employees in the other local bodies of Delhi. Consequently, the
ND MC called upon the staff of the general wing to refund the ad hoc
payment of Rs.300 given by way of advance towards ex-gratia pay-
ment. To challenge the negation of ex-gratia payment to them CW No.
H 280 of 1978 was filed.
R.D. GUPTA v. LT. GOVERNOR [NATARAJAN ,J.) 821

The High Court rendered a common judgment covering all the A
three Writ Petitions. The High Court took the view that the contention.
of the ministerial staff that all of them, irrespective of the department
of their work should be paid as per SS Committee Report failing which
none should be paid at that rate was an extreme stand and cannot
therefore be accepted, The High Court was of the opinion that the
+ impugned resolution of the NDMC was acceptable to the extent it B
reflected the desire of the NDMC to grant SS Committee scales of pay
to as a large section of the staff as possible and to that extent the
resolutioJil was a beneficial measure for the ministerial staff. The High
Court al~o held that since the NDMC wanted to equate the electricity
wing with the DESU, it is but proper that only those members of the
ministerial staff who were prepared to work in the electricity wing can c
be given the SS Committee pay scales and not the others, who prefer-
red to remain in. the general wing itself. ·However, in so far as the
decision of the NDMC to introduce a system of deputation on rota-
tional basis to the electricity wing is concerned, the High Court was of
the view that the proposal may work hardship to the ministerial staff
both ways i.e. in seniority being overlooked at the time of the deputa- D
tion posting and secondly in the emoluments getting reduced after the
period of deputaton was over and as such a more fair and equitable
formula in accordance with service jurisprudence should be evolved.
In accordance with that view, the High Court evolved the following
formula to be adopted by the NDMC:-
E
"We, therefore, feel that in accordance with the equality
principle the proper approach would be that SSC scale will
be given amongst the ministerial staff only to those persons
y (a) who would opt to work in the electricity department.

(b) it would be given strictly in accordance with the seni- F
ority, i.e. to say the option will first be asked from the
senior persons and if they are agreeable to work in the
electricity wing they will be posted there and be eligible to
get the higher SSC scale. If and when any vacancy arises
either because of promotion or retirement or any other
eventuality the post will be filled up on the same principle G
of seniority cum option. Thus a unified principle and rule
will apply to all the ministerial staff, namely that the senior
most person working in the electricity cell will be eligible to
get the SSC scale. No question of discrimination will thus
arise, because the electricity cell will be automatically
manned by the senior most of the ministerial staff. Thus no H
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R.

A ministerial staff is discriminated against because each
would be eligible in his own turn of seniority. This would
really amount to as if a separate department of the electri-
city wing has been constituted."

8 The High Court, while therefore upholding the order of the NDMC _j
modified the placement of the ex-cadre posts in the over-all set up and ·
also suggested the manner in which the posts should be filled up viz. on
the basis of seniority cum option. Thereby, the High Court has done .-f'
away with the rotational system every three years and further directed
that since the higher scale of pay was linked up with the service
rendered in the electricity wing, the SSC scales should be paid to all
C those who had worked in the electricity wing during the period subse-
quent to June 75 till 30.5.82, that such payment will not amount to y
discriminatory payment and that dter 30.5.82 the postings should be
made in accordance with the seniority cum option formula.

D In so far as the engineers (Civil) and draftsman (Civil) are con-
cerned, the High Court declined to sustain their grievance. The High )'>-
Court noticed that the Junior Engineers (Civil) have no common
seniority with the electrical engineers in the electricity wing, that the
posts are not interchangeable and that they cannot draw comparison
from the employment pattern of engineers in DESU because the
E DESU was a separate and independent entity unlike the electricity
wing of the NDMC, that the nature of duties performed by the electri-
cal engineers and civil engineers was different and for all these reasons --.... -
the High Court held that the.civil engineers cannot seek parity with the
electrical engineers in the elctricity wing in the matter of pay scales.

The last question to be dealt with by the High Court pertained to
F
the refusal to grant ex-gratia payment to the staff of the general wing.
The High Court saw justification in the payment of ex-gratia payments
to the employees in the electricity wing and the water supply and
sewage disposal wing alone because of the nature oHheir duties and
because of the precedent afforded by the MCD in granting such pay-
G ment to the staff of the DESU and the Water Supply and Sewage
Disposal Department. However, the High Court took into considera-
tion the long delay that had occurred and the hardship that would
result to the employees of the general wing by complying with the
order of refund and therefore directed the NDMC to treat the pay-
ment of Rs.300 "as one time special ad hoc payment not serving as a
H precedent" and refrain from recovering the said amount.
R.D. GUPTA v. LT. GOVERNOR (NATARAJAN ,J.] 823

It is in this situation the appeals and petitions have come to be A
filed. CA No. 2969 of 1973 has been filed by the members of minisitc-
rial staff in the general wing to contend that instead of restricting the
payment of SS Committee pay scales to the 496 ex-cadre posts in the
electricity wing and directing the NDMC to fill up those posts on the
basis of seniority cum option, the High Court should have directed the
t NDMC to give the SS Committee pay scales to all the members of the B
ministeriarstaff. Likewise the appellants would contend that the High
Court should have directed the NDMC to pay them also ex-gratia
payment and should not have directed the NDMC to treat the ad hoc
payment "as one time special ad hoc payment" and refrain from recov-
- ering the said amount. The NDMC in turn has filed two appeals CA
No. 2971 of 19S3 and CA No. 2970 of 1983. The former appeal has C
been filed against that part of the judgment relating to CW 1231 of
1979 wherein the High Court had directed payment at SS Committee's
scales for the period June 1975 to May 1982 and also directed ministe-
rial posts in the electricity wing to be filled up on seniority cum option
basis instead of a three years deputation basis on rotational system.
Likewise the direction of the High Court to give up the proceedings for D
recovery of the ad hoc payment towards ex-gratia payment is also
impugned in the appeal. Civil Appeal No. 2970 of 1983 is directed
against that portion of the judgment relating to CW 557 of 1979 which
has been filed by the non-technical staff of the electricity wing praying
for payment of arrears of pay for the total period subsequent to the
sanction. CA No. 6074 of 1983 has been filed by the Assistant E
Engineers (Civil) & Junior Engineers (Civil) to contend that the High
Court should have sustained their claim for parity with the electrical
engineers in the electricity wing and directed the NDMC to pay them
y also ;it the SS Committee pay scales and also to give them ex-gratia
payment as in the case of all the persons employed in the electricity
wing. SLP NO. 11270 of 1982 has been filed by some of the staff F
members in the general wing to contend that since the NDMC
constituted an integrated unit with common fund, common budget
etc., the High Court ought not to have sustained the payment of ex-
gratia amount to only those persons working in the electricity wing and
should have made the payment applicable for all or to none. As com-
-of man questions are raised in this petition, special leave is granted and G
the appeal shall be assigned a number. WP NO. 9256 of 1983 has been
filed by the Assistant & Junior Engineers (Civil) to contend that there
cannot be any discrimination between Civil Engineers and Electrical
Engineers and as such they are as much entitled as the electrical
engineers to be paid according to SS Committee pay scales and also for
payment of ex-gratia amount. H
824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R.

A We will now take up for consideration the merit of the conten-
tions of the parties in the appeals and petitions. As we propose to deal
with the several contentions of the parties in the course of our discus-
sion in the judgment, we do not think it necessary to set out the
contentions of the parties separately.

B We will first take up for consideration the case of the appellants ,-f
in CA No. 2969 of 1983 viz. the ministerial staff in the general wing of
the NDMC. Mr. Mukhoty learned counsel for the appellants urged
before us that the electricity wing of the NDMC is not a distinct and
independent unit entitled to have its own scales of pay and secondly
the ministerial staff of the NDMC belong to a unified cadre and the
staff members are liable to transfer from one branch of the NDMC to
C another and as such the NDMC cannot create a cadre within a cadre y,
and fix different scales of pay for those in the carved out cadre. It was
further urged by him that the nature of the duties performed by the
ministerial staff in all the three wings of the NDMC is more or less
similar, if not ·identical, and hence the well-established rule of equal
D pay for equal work should govern the staff members. In support of his
argument the learned counsel relied on the decisions of this Court in
Randhir Singh v. Union of India, [1982] 3 SCR 298; Dhirendra
Chamo/i v. State of U.P., [1986] 1SCC637 and P. Ramachandra Iyer
v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 541.

E Controverting the arguments of Mr. Mukhoty, Mr. Misra,
learned counsel fot the NDMC and Mr. Ramamurthy, learned counsel
for the non-technical staff working in the electrical wing, argued that
the Government or any State within the meaning of Article 12 of the
Constitution has a right under law to create new departments or new y
cadres with different scales of pay and hence the appellants. cannot
F impugn the action of the NDMC in treating the ministerial staff in the
electrical wing differently and giving them pay scales as per SS Com-
mittee Report. In support of their arguments, the learned counsel
placed reliance on the decisions in Reserve Bank of India v. N. C.
Paliwal, [ 1977] l SCR 377 & Reserve Bank of India v. C.N. Sahasrana-
man, l 1986] (Suppl.) SCC 143.
G
On a consideration of the matter we find the grievance of the
ministerial staff of the general wing to be well founded. Admittedly,
the ministerial staff in the NDMC constitute a unified cadre. The
recruitment policy for the selection of the ministerial staff is a common
one and the recruitment is also done by a common agency. They are
H governed by a common seniority list. The ministerial posts in the three
R.D. GUPTA v. LT. GOVERNOR [NATARAJAN ,J.) 825

wings of the NDMC viz. the general wing, the electricity wing and the A
water works wing are interchangeable posts and the postings are made
from the common pool according to administrative convenience and
exigencies of service and not on the basis of any distinct policy or
special qualifications. Therefore, it would be futile to say that merely
because a member of the ministerial staff had been given a pasting in
the electricity wing, either due to force of circumstances or due to B
voluntary preferment, he stands on a better or higher footing or in a
more advantageous position than his counter parts in the general wing.
It is not the case of the respondents that the ministerial staff in the
electricity wing perform more onerous or more exacting duties than
- the ministerial staff in the general wing. It therefore follows that all
sections of the ministerial staff should be treated alike and all of them c
held entitled to the same scales of pay for the work of equal nature
done by them. This Court has held in Randhir Singh's case that the
mere fact that persons belong to different departments of the Govern-
ment cannot by itself be a sufficient circumstance to justify different
scales of pay and that "where all things are equal, that is, where all
relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts D
may not be treated differentially in the matter of their pay merely
because they belong to different departments." In Dhirendra
Charnoli's case, the principle was reiterated and it was held that when
"the persons engaged by the Nehru Yuvak kendras performed the same
duties as those performed by class IV employees appointed on regular
basis against sanctioned posts, it is difficult to understand how the E
-r Central Government can deny to those employees the same salaries
and conditions of service as class IV employees regularly appointed
against sanctioned posts. To the same effect is the decision rendered in
P. Ramachandra lyer's case which related to discriminatory treatment
being meted out to three Professors employed by the Indian Council of
Agriculture Research. F

It is relevant at this juncture to scrutinise the reason which
impelled the NDMC to pass the resolution in 1973 for giving the SS
Commitee pay scales to the staff of the electricity wing alone. The only
reason which prompted the NDMC to pass the resolution was that
since DESU had. implemented the SS Committee l'ay scales for its G
technical and non-technical staff, the NDMC should also follow suit in
so far as its electricity wing is concerned. In doing so, the NDMC had
failed to bear in mind several distinguishing features between its set up
and the set up of the DESU and its staff pattern and the staff pattern of
DESU. The NDMC, as already stated, is governed by the Punjab
Municipal Act while DESU is governed by the Delhi Municipal H
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 3 S.C.R.

A Corporation Act, 1957. The set up of the' NDMC is that of an
integrated unit comprising all the three wings while the set up under
the Municipal Corporation Act of the MCD is that its three wings have
to function as distinct and independent units. Such being the case, the
DESU is a separate and independent unit of MCD and constitutes an
independent body. The DESU has its own budget and consequently it
B has freedom of action without reference to the other units. In contrast, ·-f
the NDMC's revenues is the income derived from all the three wings of
it and the expenses are governed by a common budget. Having regard
to all these factors, there is no room whatever for treating the electri-
city wing of the NDMC on part with the DESU and adopting the
pattern of pay scales implemehted by DESU. Apart from the differ-
ence in the set up, it has also to be borne in mind that the ministerial
c staff in the NDMC are comprised in a unified cadre and the posts in y
the three wings are transferable and interchange-able which is not so in
the case of the staff of the DESU. If regard is had to all these factors,
the decision taken up the NDMC originally to place the non-technical
staff in the electricity wing on a higher footing and give them alone the
D SS Committee pay scales cannot be legally sustained. The action of the
NDMC clearly suffered from the vice of arbitrariness and dis·
crimination.

That takes us to the validity of the further resolutions passed by
the NDMC. When it was directed by the High Court to reconsider the
E matter in the light of the grievances expressed by the staff of the
general wing, the NDMC decided to make 496 posts in the electricity
wing ex-cadre posts and fill up those posts on deputation basis com-
bined with a rotational system to be enforced once in every three
years. By the revised resolution, fair distribution of higher pay benefits
was sought to be given to all the ministerial staff, but nevertheless the
F vice of discrimination as between the staff of the electricity wing and
the staff of the general wing continued to persist. The resolution only
sought to provide all the members of the staff the benefit of the higher
scales of pay for a period of three years at some point of time in their
service provided they opted to serve in the electricity wing but it did
not provide an answer for the criticism that there was no justification
G to treat the ministerial staff in the electricity wing on a higher footing
than the rest of the staff and give them a higher scale of pay. Secondly,
the proposal would perpetuate the imbalance in the pay scales between
different sections of the staff working in the three wings of the NDMC.
Thirdly, the system of deputation would lead to a long period of wait
for large sections of the staff before getting postings in the electricity
H wing on deputation basis. Fourthly, the staff members would have to
R.D. GUPTA v. LT. GOVERNOR [NATARAJAN .J.] 827
·"(
forego the higher scales of pay and come back to the lesser scales when A
the period of deputation was over. Lastly, the insistence on the staff
, members being entitled to deputation service in the electricity wing
only if they exercised their option to work in that wing introduces an
element of compulsion amont the members comprised in a unified
cadre. These factors vitiated the revised proposal of the NDMC to
\.. make 496 posts as ex-cadre posts and to fill them up on deputation B
basis by adopting a rotational cum option system.

"' The High Court realised in some measure the vitiating features
present in the revised scheme evolved by the NDMC. However,

- instead of deprecating the scheme in its entirety, the High Court has
tried to formulate a scheme of its own. The High Court has taken the c
view that the 496 posts ex-caderised in the electicity wing can be
'-( treated as special or senior posts which can be filled up on the basis of
seniority cum option. The High Court, apart from laying itself open to
the criticism that it had gone beyond its powers in formulating a new
scheme, has failed to provide for equal benefits for all the members of
the ministerial staff. If the electricity wing is to be filled up on the basis D
~ of seniority cum option, those who had served earlier in the electricity
wing would get a distinct advantage over the rest of the ministerial
staff including the senior members of the matter of higher pay-scales.
Besides, the seniority cum option system would give greater benefit to
some and lesser benefit to some depending upon their age etc.
Moreover, the insertion of the option clause would introduce an ele- E
men! of compulsion and make it appear that the staff working in the
-,,..- electricity wing perform more onerous and more skilled duties and
hence they stand on a higher footing. It would also lead to packing all
the senior members of the staff in the electricity wing and denuding the
)' other two wings of the services of the senior ministerial staff. For all
these reasons we find the scheme formulated by the High Court also F
cannot be sustained or accepted.

The NDMC itself had fully realised at one point of time that its
original resolution was not fair to all the members of the ministerial
staff and hence it reconsidered the matter and rP,solved that the benefit
"r' of higher pay should either be given to all the staff or to none and as its G
finances did not permit the former option, it was obliged to adopt the
latter option and hence all the staff members would be uniformly paid
at pay scales recommended by the Third Pay Commission. The NDMC
was however forced by the Delhi Municipal Administration to treat
the electricity wing as a different unit and to restrict the grant of
higher pay scales only to that unit. In as much as the ground put H
828 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987) 3 S.C.R.

A forward by the NDMC to discriminate between the ministerial staff ' in
the general wing and the electricity wing is lack of funds and not on the
ground of any distinction between the two wings, the NDMC has no
legal ground to project in justification of its action in making the posts
in the electricity wing as ex-cadre posts and giving the benefit of SS
Committee pay scales only to persons serving in those posts.
B -1.·
We are, therefore of the view that the appellants in CA No. 2969
of 1983 are entitled to succeed in their appeal. We will deal with the -~
manner in which they should be given relief; after considering the
other appeals and petitions.

c Our next concern will be to deal with CA No. 6074 of 1983 and -
WP No. 9266 of 1983 which have been filed by the Junior Engineers
(Civil) and Assistant Engineers (Civil). Their grievance is that though
they are on par with the Electrical Engineers except that the nature of
their technical services differ, their services are treated as inferior or as
less skillful and they are deprived the benefit of SS Committee pay
D scales. They would contend that the civil engineering works designed
and executed by them constitute an integral part of the work of the
electrical wing and hence they cannot be discriminated in the matter of
fixation of their scales of pay. The last contention is that since the
NDMC has followed the DESU pattern of scales of pay, the Civil
Engineers are also entitled to the SS Committee pay scales because the

....-
E DESU pays its civil engineers accordingly. Dr. Chitale appearing for
the Civil Engineers strenuously argued that since the Civil Engineers
have been equated with the Electrical Engineer& by DESU, the
NDMC also must give parity of treatment for all the Civil Engineers
and give them the benefit of the higher scales of pay. We do not feel
persuaded to accept the contention of Dr. Chitale. The case of the
y
F Civil Engineers does not stand on the same footing as that of the
ministerial staff. This is because of several factors adverted to below.
As has been pointed out by the High Court the Civil Engineering
department is a separate and self-contained one and the civil engineers
are transferred within the civil engineering unit itself i.e. from one
division to another by the Chief Engineer (Civil). The Civil Engineers
G posted in the water works division are not paid according to the SS
Committee pay scales. The Junior Engineers (Civil) do not have any
common seniority with the electrical engineers and the posts are not
inter-transferable. All the engineers, in whichever wing or department
they are posted, are paid according to the pay scales recommended by
the Thi.rd Pay Commission. There is no discrimination in payment of
H salary as between them. Merely because some of the Civil Engineers
R.D. GUPTA v. LT. GOVERNOR [NATARAJAN ,J.I 829

are assigned to do civil engineering works in the electricity wing they A
cannot be heard to say that they are not different from the electrical
engineers and that they should be paid higher scales of pay. In the
matter of promotions etc. they are governed by the common seniority
list maintained for Civil Engineers. As such their posting to the elec-
tricity wing cannot make them a separate class by themselves. It is of
I- no avail to the Civil Engineers to compare themselves with the Civil B
Engineers working in DESU because DESU is a separate and distinct
unit and all the engineers working therein constitute a single unit.
Unlike in the case of the ministerial staff, there is no disparity of scales
of pay between Civil Engineers working in the electricity wing and the
Civil Engineers working in the other wings. Such being the case the
appellants and petitioners herein have no basis to contend that they C
have been discriminated in the matter of fixation of pay scales.

We are therefore of the view that C.A. No. 6074 of 1983 and'
W.P. No. 9266 of 1983 should fail.

We are lastly left with the controversy regarding the payment of D
ex-gratia amount by the NDMC only to those employees who are
working in the electricity wing and the water works wing. We have
already set out the history as to how ex-gratia payment was sanctioned
to the staff members of the electricity wing and then the water works
wing and why it was not extended to the general wing etc. By way of an
ad hoc arrangement, the NDMC had given an advance of Rs.300 for E
the period ending with 31.3. 1976 subject to the approval of the Delhi
Administration. As the Delhi Administration declined to give its ap-
proval, the NDMC called upon the concerned staff to refund the ad
hoc payment of Rs.300 in fifteen monthly instalments. To challenge
the denial of ex-gratia payment to them, the affected staff had filed
CW No. 2807 of 1979. The High Court, it may be remembered, had F
sustained the stand of the NDMC but nevertheless directed the
NDMC to treat the ad hoc payment as a special payment and to desist
from recovering it.

We are unable to appreciate the reasoning of the High Court and
....,, sustain its conclusion on this aspect of the matter. The High Court has G
I failed to see that no rational or acceptable reason is put forward for
justifying the ex-gratia payment only to the ministerial staff working in
the electricity wing and the water works wing and denying the same to
the staff working in the general wing. The only reason given is that the
payment of ex-gratia amount is patterned on the lines of the DESU
and the Water Suply and Sewage Disposal Undertaking of the MCD. H
830 SUPREME COURT REPORTS l 1987] 3 S.C.R.

A The pattern of payment adopted by the MCD cannot have any binding y·
force on the NDMC because the three units of MCD are different and
distinct entities whereas the three wings of the NDMC are inter-
dependent wings of an integrated Municipal Committee. Therefore, in
the absence of justifiable reasons of a compulsive nature the
payments, whether as salary or as ex-gratia amount have to be on the
B same and equal basis and not differently for the different wings of the ~
NDMC. In fact, what all we have said regarding the payment of
uniform pay at the scales recommended by SS Committee would ·-1-
sq uarely appaly to the payment of ex-gratia amount also. Hence CA
No. 2969 of 1983 and SLP No. 11270 of 1982 (S.C.A. No. 1688
of 1987) deserve to succeed.
c In the light of our conclusion, the two appeals CA NO. 297 I and
2970 of 1983 filed by the NDMC have to fail in so far as the main issues
'are concerned. Mr. Misra, learned counsel for the NDMC contended
before us that it was open to the NDMC to constitute different cadres
among its employees as laid down in Paliwal's case and furthermore
D the grant of SS Committee pay scales and ex-gratia payments to all the
employees would seriously affect the finances of the NDMC. The deci- r
sions in Reserve Bank of India v. C. Pa/iwal (supra) & Reserve Bank
of India v. C.N. Sahasranaman (supra) relied on by Mr. Misra are of
no assistance in this case because what we are concerned is whether
diferent pay scales and allowances can be given to a section of the staff
E when they belong to a unified cadre and are governed by common
recruitment policy, common seniority list and common transfer policy.
It was urged by the learned counsel that the High Court was not
justified in directing payment at the SS Committee pay scales for the
employees of the electricity wing from June 1975 to May 1982 as that
would result in the NDMC paying Rs.51,98,079 and in addition the
F payment of the arrears calculated on the difference in pay with refer-
ence to the SS Committee pay scales for the period between 1.4. 1972
to 30.9.1973 would cost another Rs.7,30,062 thus in all casting a finan-
cial burden of more than Rs.50 lakhs on the NDMC. In the view we
propose taking of the matter in the light of our conclusions, this grie-
vance does not call for discussion.
G
Mr. Ramamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the members of
the staff working in the electricity wing voiced forth the grievance of
those employees. The straight and simple argument of the learned
counsel was that in the controyersy between the ministerial staff of the
general wing on the one hand and the NDMC on the other, the staff of
h the electricity wing who had been granted revised pay scales at the SS
R.D. GUPTA v. LT. GOVERNOR INA'I'ARAJAN J.l 831

Committee rates have not been paid their due share of the salary and A
that they are entitled to be paid salary at the revised rate from 1.4. 1972
failing which at least from 1982 onwards. The argument though
appealing by itself cannot be accepted because then it would mean that
the staff members of the electricity wing would be scoring an
advantage over their fellow employees in the general wing merely
!-because they were by accident or by compulsion working in the elec- B
tricity wing at the relevant time the impugned resolution,; came to be
passed by the NDMC.

In the result we hold that all the ministerial staff working in the

- NDMC are entitled to get pay scales as per SS Committee Report and
likewise all of them are entitled to be given ex-gratia payment. The c

"° grant of SS Committee pay scales tu only the staff working in the
electricity wing or the grant of ex-gratia payment to only the staff
working in the electricity wing and the water works win11 cannot be
legally sustained as it suffers from the vice of discrimination. As a
consequence of these findings it follows that there should be·
uniformity not only in the payment of the SS Committee pay scales and D
4 the ex-gratia amount to the staff working in all the wings or depart-
ments of the NDMC but the payment should also be made from a date
common to all. However, having regard to the long lapse of time and
the financial implications involved in the matter it will not be fair and
proper to direct the NDMC to pay all the members of the staff at SS
Committee rates from 1.4. 72 to 30. 9. 73 and from June 1975 to May E
~ 1982. But at the same time we cannot also totally deprive the staff,
particularly those who have been looking forward to receiving higher
scales of pay granted by the NDMC, and the benefit of the ex-gratia
"-'" payments. We, therefore, direct that the sum of Rs.59, 10, 160 and the
"If agreed amount of ex-gratia payment be equally distributed, among all
the members of the staff, with such adjustments by deductions as may F
be required to be made in the case of persons who have received
payment in excess of their share under the above-said formula. In so
far as payment of uniform salary to all the ministerial staff as per SS
Committee pay scales and payment of ex-gratia amount is concerned,
the NDMC will give effect to our judgment with effect from !st June
"!' 1982 since the High Court's direction for payment extends upto the G
end of May 1982 and in respect of which payment we have directed the
amount involved to be distributed equally among all the ministerial
staff and not confine it to the ministerial staff of the electricity wing
alone. Taking into consideration the financial commitment involved
for the NDMC, it is permitted to pay the difference in the scales of pay
and ex-gratia amount between the period 1.6.82 to 31. 7 .87 in three H
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1987] 3 S.C.R.
y·
A equated instalments within a period of 15 months from the date of our
judgment. The Delhi Administration will give the necessary sanction
to the NDMC for disbursement of funds and payment of arrears and
future pay in accordance with our judgment.

In the result CA No. 2969 of 1983 and (SLP No. 1127 of 1982) .
B numbered as CA No. 1688 of 1987 will stand allowed to the extent ..f
relief is given. CA Nos. 2970 of 1983 and 2971 of 1983 filed by the
NDMC and CA No. 6074 of 1983 and WP No. 9266 of 1983 filed by the
engineers (civil) will stand dismissed.

C
There will be no order as to costs in all the appeals and the writ
petition. -
N.P.V.