Supreme Court of India
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSION &ANR.versusT.V.L.N. MALLIKARJUNA RAO
- Citation
- 2014 INSC 850
- Decided
- 9 December 2014
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- S MUKHOPADHAYA
Holding
DEO Grade‑A employees are not entitled to the Grade‑B pay scale merely on the basis of qualifications or service, and the classification and pay structure do not violate Articles 14 and 16.
Summary
The Union (Secretary, Department of Personnel) appealed against several High Court and CAT orders that had granted Data Entry Operator (DEO) Grade‑A employees the higher pay scale of Grade‑B on the basis of their qualifications or length of service. The Court examined whether the classification of DEO posts and the pay scales prescribed by the 1989 Office Memorandum violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and whether the principle of equal pay for equal work applied. It held that the classification and pay structure are matters within the exclusive domain of the Executive and do not breach constitutional equality provisions. Grade‑B is a promotional grade that requires six years of experience in Grade‑A, and mere educational qualification or seniority does not confer entitlement to the higher scale. Consequently, the earlier Tribunal and High Court decisions granting the higher pay were set aside.
Issues considered
- The classification of Data Entry Operator posts and the pay scales prescribed by the 1989 Office Memorandum, whether they violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
- Whether DEO Grade‑A employees are entitled to the Grade‑B pay scale on the basis of educational qualification or length of service.
- Whether the principle of equal pay for equal work applies to DEO Grade‑A and Grade‑B posts.
- Whether the Tribunal or High Court can review the executive's decision on pay structure absent a constitutional violation.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16, s. Article 309
Subjects
service lawclassification of postspay structureequal pay for equal workArticles 14 and 16Central Administrative TribunalpromotionData Entry Operator
Judgment
[2014] 13 S.C.R. 149
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL, A
PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSION &ANR.
v. .
T.V.L.N. MALLIKARJUNARAO
(Civil Appeal No. 10862 of 2014)
DECEMBER 09, 2014.
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND
PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]
Service law - Posts of Electronic Data Processing -
c
Reorganization of the posts - Data Entry Operators (DEO)
Grade A to Grade D - DEO Grade A seeking placement in
the DEO Grade B on the basis of their educational
qualification - Held: Grade B is a promotional grade and D
.only those DEO Grade A who have 6 years of experience are·
eligible for such promotion - The promotional grade and
entry grade cannot have the same pay scale and in absence
of declaration that rationalization of pay scale of Electronic
Data Processing posts was illegal, no such benefit could be E
granted - DEOs Grade-A are not entitled for higher scale of
pay as applicable to Grade B w.e.f. 1.1.1986 or thereafter
merely on the basis of their qualifications or for the fact that
they have completed theirperiod of requisite service.
Administrative law - Classification of posts and F
determination of pay structure - Scope of interference -
Discussed.
Constitution of India, 1950 -Article 14 - Difference in
p,ay scales based on educational qualifications, nature ofjob, G
responsibility, accountability, qualification;· experience and
manner of recruitment does not violate Article 14 of the
Constitution oflndia - In the instant case, in view of the nature
of duties, .responsibilities and accountability prescribed in
H
149
150 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 13 S.C.R.
A the various Grades of DEOs, classification of DEOs in
different grades is not violative any right of equality
guaranteed u!Arts.14 and 16- Service law.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
B HELD: 1. The classification of posts and
determination of pay structure comes within the
exclusive domain of the Executive and the Tribunal
cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Executive in
prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular
C service. There may be more grades than one in a
particular service. The Government on consideration of
the report submitted by the Committee, issued Office
Memorandum dated 11.9.1989 prescribing therein
different pay scales and different grades of Data Entry
D Operators besides the mode and manner of recruitment
to and qualifications for each entry grade post as well
as eligibility and experience for promotional grades. The
·Court or the Tribunal, would be exceeding its power of
judicial review if it sits in appeal over the decision of the
E Executive in the matter ofprescribing the pay structure
unless it is shown to be in violation of Articles 14and16
of the Constitution of India. Difference in pay scales
based on educational qualifications, nature of job,
F responsibility, accountability, qualification, experience
and manner of recruitment does not violate Article 14 of
the Constitution of India. [Paras 26, 27][169-B-F]
2. Considering the educational qualifications
prescribed under the Office Memorandum dated
G 11.9.1989 and the rules for appointment to the posts of
Data Entry Operators, Grade-Band the order assigning
duties, classification of Data Entry Operators in different
grades, does not violate any right of equality guaranteed
by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution nor does it violate
H
SECY., DEPT. OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSION v. 151
T.V.L.N. MALLIKARJUNARAO
the constitutional protection against hostile or arbitrary A
discrimination. Therefore, no exception can be taken to
the difference in the pay structures of entry grade of Data
Entry Operators and the ·next higher grades. In these
cases, both the Tribunals and the High Court failed to
notice that before rationalization of the posts, i.e. prior B
to 1986 there were in existence two grade of operators,
Junior Key Punch Operators in the scale of Rs.260-400
and Senior Key Punch Operators in the scale of Rs.350-
560. The pay scales of these posts were revised to 950·
1500 and Rs.1200-2040 respectively w.e.f. 1.1.1986. In C
view of reorganization of Electronic Data Processing
posts the Key Punch Operators and other posts which
had lower pay scale of Rs.260-400 was revised to Rs.950·
1500. Their posts were re-designated as Data Entry
0
Operators Grade-A with benefit of other revision of the
scale of Rs.1150-1500. In fact double benefit was granted
to them w.e.f. 1.1.1986 i.e. one revision in the scale of
Rs.950-1500 as they were entitled as per
recommendation of Pay Revision Committee and the E
other revision w.e.f. same date i.e. 1.1.1986 in the scale
of Rs.1150-1500 on the recommendation of the
Committee set up by the Department of Electronics
which was accepted by the Government of India vide
Office Memorandum dated 11.9.1989. It is only those F
Senior Key Punch Operators who were in the higher
scale of Rs.350-560 having qualification of graduate and
whose scale was revised to 1200-2040 w.e.f. 1.1.1986.
Irrespective ofthat different Benches of the CAT without
discussing the nature of job, responsibility, G
accountability and status and rank of the one or other
posts of different Data Entry Operators i.e. Grade-A or
Grade-B held that they were performing similar duties
and are hence entitled for equal pay and eligible for
H
152 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 13 S.C.R.
A Rs.1350-2200 on the principle of equal pay for equal
work. Both the Tribunal and the High Court also failed to
notice that the Data Entry Op~rator Grade-B in the pay
scale of Rs.1350-2200 is a promotional grade and only
those who have six years of experience are eligible for
B such promotion. The promotional grade and entry grade
cannot have the same· pay scale and in absence of
declaration that rationalization of pay scale of Electronic
Data Processing posts made by Office Memorandum
dated 11.9.1979 is illegal, no such benefit could have
C been granted. [Para 28][169-H; 170-A·H; 171-A·D]
Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical
Sciences and Ors. (1989) 2 SCC 235: 1989 (1)
SCR 957; Shyam Babu Verma & Ors. v. Union of
D India & Ors. (1994) 2 SCC 521 : 1994 (1)
SCR 700 - relied on.
Case Law Reference:
1989 (1) SCR 957 relied on Para 29
E 1994 (1) SCR 700 relied on Para 30
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
10862 of 2014. ·
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.10.2009 of the
F High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ Petition No. 3195
of 2009.
WITH
C. A. Nos. 10863-10864, 10865, 10866 and 10867 of
G 2014.
Mukul Rohtagi, A.G., Tushar Mehta, ASG, Mrs. Indra
Sawhney, Wasim Quadri, Rajiv Nanda, Ms. Sushma Suri,
Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Surya Kant, B. Krishna Prasad for the
H Appellants.
SECY., DEPT. OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSION v. 153
T.V.L.N. MALLIKARJUNA RAO [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
M. N. Krish.namani, Sr. Adv., Nitin S. Tambwekar, B. S. A
Sai, K. Rajeev, G. Ramakrishna Prasad, Ramesh K. Mishra,
Govind Jee, Prashant Bhushan, Mrs. Geetha Kovilan, P.R.
Kovilan, Anup Jain, S. K. Verma, M. P. Dixit, Abhishek Vikas
forthe Respondent.
B
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1: Delay
condoned. Leave granted.
2. The respondents who were posted in different
departments in the Ministries of Union of India as Data Entry C
Operator Grade 't>:., moved applications before the Central
Administrative Tribunals for grant of pay scale of Rs.1350-2200
with effect from 1•t January, 1986. The Tribunal allowed the
applications. The judgment and orders passed by the Tribunal
0
having affirmed by the High Court are under challenge in these
appeals.
3. The facts leading to the cases are as follows:
A number of posts of Electronic Data Processing were E
created in the· different departments of Ministries of the
Government of India. Persons were appointed against such
Electronic Data Processing posts with different no.menclatures
likewise Key-Punch Operator, Punch Verifying Operator,
Planning Assistant, Punch-cum-Verifier, Technical Assistant, F
Punch-cum-Verifier (Hollerith), etc.
4. Fourth Central Pay Commission made a suggestion
in paragraph 11.45 of its report that the department of
Electronics should examine the matter and suggest
reorganisation of existing Ele.~tronic Data Processing posts G
and prescribe uniform pay scales and designations in
consultation with ~he Department of Personnel & Training. In
pursuance of.above suggestion, a Committee had been set
up by the Department of Electronics in November, 1986. After
H
154 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.
A careful consideration of the recommendations made by the
said Committee, Government of India has decided to introduce
pay structure for Electronic Data Processing posts by Ministry's
O.M. No.F.7(1 )/IC/86(44 )dated 11th September, 1989, relevant
portion of which reads as follows:
B "No.F.7(1)/IC/86(44)
Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Expenditure
Implementation Cell
c
New Delhi, dated 11'h Sept: 89
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Sub: Rationalisation of pay scales of Electronic Data
Processing posts:
D
The undersigned is directed to refer to the
recommendations of Fourth Central Pay Commission
contained in paragraph 11.45 of the Report wherein it
was suggested that the department of Electronic should
E examine and suggest reorganisation of existing
Electronic Data Processing posts and prescribe
uniform pay scales and designations in consultation
with the Department of Personnel. In pursuance of
above suggestion, a Committee had been set up by
F Department of Electronics in November, 1986. After
careful consideration of the recommendations made
by this Committee, Government of India has decided
to introdvce following pay structure for Electronic Data
Processing posts:-
G s. Designation Pay.scale
No. OfDOSt
1. Data Entry Rs.1150-1500 This will be entry
Operator Grade for Higher
Grade 'A' Secondary with
knowledge of Data
H Entry work.
SECY., DEPT. OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSION v. 155
T.V.L.N. MALLIKARJUNA RAO [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
A
2. Data Entry Rs.1350-2200 This will be entry
Operator grade tor graduate
Grade 'B' with knowledge of
Data Entry work of
promotional Grade
for Data Entry B
Operator Grade 'A'
3. Data Entry Rs.1400-2300 Promot1ona1 Grade
Operator
Grade 'C'
4. Data Entry Rs.1600-2660 promotional Grade
Operator c
Grade 'D'
5. Data En tty Rs.2000-3500 Promotional Grade
Operator
. Grade•£!
Data ProcessmwProarammma staff
-1. Data Rs.1600-2260 Entry Grade tor D
Processing Graduates With
Assistant Diploma/cert.'!1cate Ill
Grade 'A' Computer
Aoo/fcations.
2. Data Rs. 2000-3200 Promotional Grade
Processing E
Assistant
Grade 'B'
3. Programmer Rs.2375-350Q Direct Entry for
. holders of Degree m
Engineering or post-
. graduation m F
Science/Maths etc. or
post graduation Ill
computer
AppHcalion
-· Or
By promotion from G
Data Processing
Assistant Grade 'B'
4. Senior Rs. 3000-4500 Promotional Grade
Prdarammer
H
156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.
A 2. All Ministers/Department having Electronic Data
Processing posts under their administrative control will
review the designation~ pay scales and recruitment
qualification of their posts and revise the same in
consultation with their Financial Advisor to the extent
B necessary as per pay structure indicated in para 1
above. Where it is found necessary to revise the pay
scale of existing post notification will be issued by
concerned Ministry/Department and copy of the
notification and order will be sent to Implementation Cell
c and Department of Expenditure. The revised pay scales
will be operative from the date of issue of notification
by concerned Ministry/Department.
3. If as a result of above review, pay scale of any post
D undergoes a change the pay of existing incumbents
will be fixed as per fundamental Rule 23 read with FR
22(a)(ii).
4. The review suggested in para 2 above will be made
only with reference to existing Electronic Data
E Processing posts and it will not be necessary to create
all the grades in all Ministries/Departments, as it will
depend on requirements of user Department. If
Ministry/Department proposes to create any grade
which is not existing at present it will be done with
F
approval of financial advisors and subject to procedures
laid down for the purpose.
5. The qualification~ etc. indicated against each grade
in para 1 above are only illustrative and Departments/
G
Ministries will carry out the review of existing EDP posts
in accordance with recruitment rules as already
prescribed by them. To ensure uniformity in regard to
Recruitment Rules for the EDP posts, Department of
H
"
SECY., DEPT. OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSION v. 157
T.V.L.N. MALLIKARJUNA RAO [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.)
Personnel & Training is being requested to devise A
model Recruitment Rules which can be adopted by
Ministry/Department."
5. The Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry
of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Government of s
India by O.M. No.AB 14017/75/89-Estt.(RR) dated 131h
February, 1990 forwarded a copy of the Model Recruitment
Rules for various categories of posts in the Electronic Data
Processing Discipline. The Model Recruitment Rules are
based on the suggestions contained in the Department of C
Expenditure's O.M. No.F.7(1 )/IC/86(44) dated 11 1h September,
1989. In the said Model Recruitment Rules the following grades
of Data Entry Operators with scales of pay and ·qualifications
were shown:
D
S. Designation Pay scale
No. OflJOSt
1. Data Entry Rs.1150- This Will be ent1y
Oper.ator 25-1500 Grade for Higher
Grade 'A' Secondary with
knowledge of Data
Entr;work. E
Direct Recruitment.
2. Data Entr; Rs.1350- This will be entry
Operator 30-1440- grade for graduate
Grade 'B' . 40-1800- with knowledge of
EB-50- Data Entry work of
2200 promotional Grade for F
Data Entry Operator
Grade 'A' failing which
by transfer on
deputation. and
percentage by direct
recruitment. . G
3. Data Entry Rs.1400- Promotional Grade
Operator 40-1800- from Data Entry
Grade 'C' EB-50- Operator Grade 'B'
2300 failing which by
transfer on
den11tation. H
158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014]13S.C.R.
A 4. Data Entry Rs.1600- Promotional Grade
·-
Operator 50-2300- from Data Entry
Grade D' EB-60- Operator Grade c
2660 failing which by
transfer on
deoutation.
B 5. Data Rs.1600- Degree of a
Processing 50-2300- recognized University
Assistant EB-60- or equivalent wi!!J
Grade~· 2660 Science.
Mathematics,
Econonucs.
c Commerce. StatlstJcs.
Direct recruitment
6. The President of India in exercise of powers conferred
by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India issued
a Rule from Department of Revenue, Government of India
D regulating the method of recruitment to Group 'C' (Technical)
posts in the Electronic Data Processing Discipline of the field
formations of the Central Board of Excise and Customs,
Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, commonly known
as the Electronic Data Processing, Discipline (Group 'C'
E Technical Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1992 notified on 3rd April,
1992. Therein the scales of pay, qualifications of appointment,
source of recruitme.nt, etc. were shown as follows:
s. Designarion Pay scale
No. of oosr
F 1. Data Entry' Rs. 1150-25- Thfs 1,•,.-.11 be e1i·tr:v Grade
Ooerator 1500 for H1gher Secor1r:Jary
G'rade 'A 'rVtth kno~·..1edge of Data
Er;trv l'iOrk.
Direct Recr,;1t"'erct.
2. Data Entry Rs. 1350-30- T111s ~·1,I/ oe entry" grade
Operator 1440-40-1800- for craduaie ~'lft,'•
G Grade 'B EB-50-2200 kno 1.'i1ed9e of Data Entry
~·:/ork of prornot:o ..-a,1
Grade for [.lat a Entrv
Operator Gtade ;,, I
farhng .,•;n:cn by transfer
011 deputation, ar:a
percentage oy direct
recnl'ittnent
H
SECY., DEPT. OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSION v. 159
T.V.L.N. MALLIKARJUNARAO [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
Ptor~;o:(ot;Bi
1
:,.yyn
G·:-ai..·~e
A
3. Data Entrv- ."Is. 1400-4G-
()tJerator 180i)-EB-50- Data Entry Oper.etot·
G'rade 'C' 2300 Graefe 'B' fa1iina '!lf~·;ch·
b_!l transfer or-: ..
dep1.datiort
4. Data E.tuy Rs. 16CG~50- Prornotional Grade f:om
Opfra_tor 2300-EB-60- Data Et:·trv Ooe(Btor B
Grade '[Y 2660 Grade 'C' "ta1}inc' ~1/h.ch
by trarrsfe( on ..
deoutat.io:"I.
5. [Jata Rs. 1600-50- Decree of a recocn;zed
Ptor;essi:1c; 2300-EB-60- Un7vers,;ty or equTvaient
.Assistant~ 2660 . 11.i~f; Sc·~:er~-ce.
Grade- 'A Met,:1ematics . c
Econotn!cs. Corntrjerce.
Statistics. Ouec:
recn1itrn ent.
7. In the Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry D
of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, a Rule under
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution was already existing
for Non-Ministerial Group 'C' Posts, namely, the Staff Selection
Commission (Non-Ministerial, Group 'C' Posts of Technical
Assistant (Hollerith) and Puncher-cum-Verifier (Hollerith) E
Recruitment Rules 1978. The aforesaid Rules, 1978 was
superseded by- the Staff Selection Commission (Electronic
Data Processing Group 'C' Posts of Data Entry Discipline)
Recruitment Rules, 1996. It was notified on 1Q•h October, 1996.
In the said Rules again similar scales of pay, qualifications, F
method of recruitment, etc. were shown which are as follows:
s. Designation Pay scale
No. of {)OSt
1. Data E'rrtly
G
F!s. 1150-25- T/1is ~vNf be entry G_rade
Operator 1500 for Hich·e." Seconcfac,,.
Grade A. Vidh know" edge Of c;af8
Ent,./· 1//on1(
CXrect Recrurt:nent.
H
160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.
A
2 Data E11t1y Rs. 1350.30. Tl:.s 1•r.ll be entry grade
Operato,. 1440-40- for crad<Jate ,,. ·=~
11' ~' I
Grade 'B 180C-EB-50- knm~ledg~ of Data
2200 Emry work of
promotional Grade for
B
Data Entry Ooerator
Grade A ~'lrth 6 years
.. ,
regular ser,-ice 1 C/J'J1r.9
wh1c/1 b/ transfer on
deputatior.. a:;d
percentage bf d;rect
recrurtment.
3. Data Entty ,qs. 1400-40- Promot:onal Grade from
c Ooerator 1800-EB-50- Data Ent1y Ooerator
Grade ·c 2300 Grade B 'ltith 3 veers
regular ser1ice fading
'//htc1~ bf transfer or1
deputation
4 Data E,ntry Rs 1600-50- Promot.011a.1 Grade from
D Operator 2300-EB-60- Data Entry Operator
Grade D 2660 Grade ·c fa!'l;ng ~,,,1,~:cn
bf transfer 011
de.outat10·1.
5. Data Rs. 1600-oO- Degree of a recogn;zed
Process mg 2300-EB-60- u.1.\1ers·ly or equ11ai'enl
Ass1.sta1:t 2660 '1\'1th Science.
E Grade 'A' A(atl?en1at:cs.
Econornics. Corn:1ierce.
Stat;st cs. Di:f:Ct
··ec,~u·,Jn1er:t.
8. From the Office Memorandum and Rules, as noticed
F above, the following facts emerge:
(i) In view of the recommendations of Fourth Central
Pay Commission (paragraph 11.45 of the Report), the
Government of India constituted a Committee to suggest
the reorganisation of existing department of Electronic
G
Data Processing posts such as Data Entry Operator
which were in the scale of pay of Rs.950-1150.
(ii) By Office Memorandum dated 11 1h September,
1989, pursuant to the aforesaid suggestions the
H
SECY., DEPT. OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSION v. 161
T.V.L.N. MALLIKARJUNA RAO [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
Government of India decided to introduce pay structure A
for Electronic Data Processing posts with separate
nomenclatures that is: (i)Data Entry Operator Grade 'A'
- Rs.1150-1500 with entry Grade for Higher Secondary
with knowledge of Data Entry work; (ii) Data Entry
Operator Grade 'B' - is promotional post of Data Entry B
Operator Grade 'A', similarly Data Entry Operator Grade
'C' is promotion post of Data Entry Operator Grade 'B'
and Data Entry Operator Grade 'D' is promotion post of
Data Entry Operator Grade 'C' and Data Entry Operator
Grade 'E' is promotional post of Data Entry Operator C
Grade 'D'.
For such promotion, the person is not only required to
be qualified but mustfulfill experience condition in the lower
grade for promotion to the higher post. D
9. The higher post of Data Entry Operator Grade 'B' in
the scale of pay of Rs.1350-2200 and higher posts of Data
Entry Operator Grade 'C' and Data Entry Operator Grade 'D'
can be filled up by promotion on the recommendation of Staff
Selection Committee. The person having qualification and E
experience cannot claim promotion to the higher post, his turn
of promotion comes when a vacancy arises or in case there is
a cause of action.
10. Cases before Central Administrative Tribunal F
After rationalisation of pay scales of Electronic Data
Processing posts as Data Entry Operator, number of persons,
who were working against lower posts of Key~Punch Operator
in the scale of pay of Rs.950-1500 and redesignated as Data
Entry Operator Grade'/\, claimed that they are entitled for the G
scale of pay of Rs.1350-2200. Central Administrative Tribunal
Benches situated in different States, passed contradictory
orders. In many of the cases reliefs were granted by allowing
the scale of pay of Rs.1350-2200 to those who are designated H
162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.
A as Data Entry Operator Grade 'A' whereas some claims were
rejected as well. Some of the examples are as follows:
(i) Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench,
Orissa in OA No.24911991 had granted the pay scale
of Rs. 1350~2200 to Data Entry Operator Grade '.4 '. The
B
SLP filed against the same was dismissed summarily
on 15fh May, 1994.
(ii) Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad
Bench, Gujaratin Y.B. Vishnu Prasad & Ors. v. U.0.1. &
c Ors. by judgment dated 1s1 September, 1999 also
granted prayer directing the authorities to pay· the
applicants scale of pay of Rs.1350-2200.
(iii) Central Administrative Tribunal. Hyderabad Bench
in OA No. 95711990 by judgment dated 101hDecember,
D
1992 allowed the benefits in favour of the employees-
Data Entry Operators.
(iv) Identical relief was granted by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench.
E
(v) OA which was preferred before the Principal Bench
of Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi was,
however, dismissed.
(vi) Many of the petitions against the aforesaid
F judgments by which Union of India moved before the
Supreme Court were dismissed in limine.
(vii) The Central Administrative Tribunal Tribunal,
Jabalpur Bench in M.H. Bag &Ors. Vs. UOI &Ors. (OA
No. 142 of 95) allowed similar benefits referring the
G
decisions of different Benchs of Central Administrative
Tribunal of different States.
11. The appellants-Union of India, Secretary, Department
of Personnel & Training, Ministry of Public Grievances and
H
SECY., DEPT. OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSION v. 16'3
T.V.L.N. MALLIKARJUNA RAO [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
Pensions and another brought to the notice of this Court the A
following judgments and order passed by the different Benches
Central Administrative Tribunal:
(i) Judgment dated 28.09.1999 passed by CAT Jabalpur
Bench in 0.A.No.14211995;
B
(ii)Judgment dated 01.10.2001 passed by CAT
Lucknow Bench in O.A.No.15012001;
(iii)Judgment dated 27. 04. 2004 passed by CAT
Mumbai Bench in 0.A.No.73712002;
c
(iv)Judgment dated 19. 12. 2006 passed by CAT Madras
Bench in O.A.No.352 to 35412005
12. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench
by judgment dated 7th November, 2008, however, dismissed
the 0 .A. No.870 of 2007. The said order was challenged before D
the High Court. The High Court of Judicature at Madras by
judgment dated 14th October, 2009, referring to the different
orders passed by the various Central Administrative Tribunal.
Benches allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent- E
T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao.
13. In view of the decisions passed by the different
Benches of Central Administrative Tribunal, some confusion
appears to have taken place in the Department of Central
Government. By its Circular No.CG DA No.EDP /113/ll(PC) I ·F
vol.14 dated 4th January, 2006, the office of Controller General
of Defence Accounts intimated thatthe pay of the DEOs Grade
A & B has to be fixed from 1.1.86 or from the date of
appointment whichever is later and arrears are to be drawn
accordingly. The. said letter does not show that such decision G
has been taken by the Union of India or under proviso to Article
309 of the Constitution of India.
H
164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.
A 14. Case of respondents/applicants before the
Central Administrative Tribunal:
Respondent-T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao, pursuant to Key-
Punch Operators examination 1989, was appointed on 11th
B September, 1989 as Key-Punch Operator. He was
redesignated as Data Entry Operator Grade 'f\ w.e.f. 16th
November, 1992. He submitted a representation on 11 t11 March,
1994 for seeking placement in the Data Entry Operator Grade
'B' on the basis of his education qualification and the same
c was rejected by letter dated 25th July, 1994 on the ground that
the post of Data Entry Operator Grade 'B' in Staff Selection
Commission is a promotional post of Data Entry Operator
Grade 'A'. Merely, on account of higher educational
qualification one could not claim higher post.
D 15. Against the order of rejection dated 25th July, 1994,
respondent- T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao moved before the
Central Administrative Tribunal. The contention of the
respondent in the said case was that he should be given Data
Entry Operator Grade 'B' right from his initial appointment as
E he was Graduate on the date of applying for the post and that
in view of O.M. dated 11t11 September, 1989 Data Entry
Operator Grade-B would be entry grade for graduates. The
case was registered before Central Administrative Tribunal,
F Madras Bench as 0.A. No.870 of 2007 which was dismissed
on merit by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 7tri November,
2008. Against the said judgment of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, respondent.T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao filed Writ
Petition NO .3195 of 2009 before the High Court of Judicature
G at Madras. The Division Bench of the Hi.gh Court by the
impugned judgment dated 14th October, 2009 set aside the
judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal and allowed
the writ petition directing the appellants to grant benefit of pay
scale of Rs.1350-2200 w.e.f. the date of initial appointment of
H
SECY., DEPT. OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSION v. 165
T.V.L.N. MALLIKARJUNA RAO [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
the respondent along with all consequential benefits in ,view of A
the decisions of the different Benches of the Central
Administrative Tribunal.
16. Respondents- S.D. Bhangale, S.H. Patil and R.P.
Joshi were appointed as Punch and Verifier Operators in the B
Ordnance Factory, under the Ministry of Defence, Government
of India. One of them was appointed on 201h September, .1988
as Punch and Verifier Operator in the pay scale of Rs,950-
1500. After reorganization of Electronic Data Processing
Posts, the respondents were redesignated as Data Entry c
Operators Grade 'P.:,. On 101h June, 1999, the respondents were
promoted to the post of Data Entry Operators Grade 'B' in the
pay scale ofRs.4500-7000 w.e.f. 1Oth June, 1999. After about
two years of their promotion, respondents-S.d. Bhangale and
others made representation to grant them pay scale of D
Rs.1350-2200 from their initial date of appointment. However,
having not been granted such relief, the respondents filed
O.A.Nos.231 and 240 of 2003 before the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench with prayer to extend .
benefits of pay scale of Rs.1350-2200 from the date of their E
initial appointment as Punch and Verifier Operators. On
contest, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench
by its detailed common judgment and order dated 23rd July,
2004. dismissed the original applications filed by the
respondents-S.D. Bhangal~ and others~ However, the said F
order has been set aside by the Division Bench of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay by the impugned judgment
dated 281h August, 2009 by referring to different decisions
rendered by different Benches of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, as affimied by the judgment passed by the High Court. G
17. Respondents - V. Ambi, Thirunavukkarasu, A.
Selvaraj and R. Ravi, were appointed in Heavy Alloy Penetrator
Project (HAPP) under the Ministry of Defence, Government of
India as Planning Assistant on casual basis w.e.f. 161h H
166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.
A November, 1989, 25th August, 1988 and 201hSeptember, 1.989
in the then pay scale of Rs.950-1500, later on their services
were regularized. At the time of their appointment in HAPP, it
was a Joint Venture project of Defene"e Research and
Development Organization and in 1990 HAPP was transferred
B to Ordnance Factory Board and their services were
regularised. On 81hNovember, 1996, the Ministry of Defence
re-designated the Planning Assistant to Data Entry Operator
Grade 'A' with higher pay scale of Rs.1150-1500. The
aforesaid respondents moved before the Central
C Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A.No.432of1997
seeking pay scale of Rs.1600-2660 w.e.f. 11'h September,
1989. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench
dismissed the said original application by order dated 22nd
D July, 1999. The respondents jointly filed O.A.No.701 of2009.
By judgment dated 3rd September, 2010, Central
Administrative Tribunal in OANo.701 of2009 passed certain
directions following the judgment of the High Court of Bombay
in a similar matter. The appellants were directed to grant pay
E scale of Rs. 1350-2200 to the respondents. Being aggrieved,
the appellants filed a writ petition being W.P. No.6342 of 2011
before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. By the impugned
judgment dated 171hMarch, 2011 the Division Bench of the
High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the writ petition.
F 18. Respondent- Sunjay Gurvekar was appointed on 11th
January, 1990 as Puncher-cum-Verifier in the office of Staff
Selection Commission, Department of Personnel and Training,
Ministry of Public Grievance and Pensions in the pay scale of
R.950-1500. He was redesignated as Data Entry Operators
G Grade 'Pi. He also moved before the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Bangalore Bench for similar relief. The Central
Administrative Tribunal by the order dated 121hMarch, 2010
allowed the said O.A.No.99 of 2007. On challenge made by
the appellant-Union of India, Division Bench of High Court of
H
SECY., DEPT. OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSION v. 167
T.V.L.N. MALLIKARJUNA RAO [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
Kamataka, by the impugned judgment dated 22"d September, A
2010 dismissed the writ petition.
19. Similar is the case of the respondents - Satyendra
Prasad and others, who were initially appointed against certain
technical posts and were later redesignated as Data Entry
8
. Operators Grade 'Pl. They sought for similar relief by filing
O.A.No.1104 of 2002 before the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Patna Bench. The Central Administratiye Tribunal,
Patna Bench by order dated 29th May, 2009 directed the
appellants to pay the respondents scale of Data Entry Operator c
Grade 'Pl w,e.f. 1.1.1996 while mentioning that arrears will be
restricted to one year before the filing of O.A. The said order
was challenged by the appellant-Union of India before the
Patna High Court. A Division Bench of the Patna High Court,
by the impugned judgment dated 22nd February, 2012 D
dismissed the writ petition being C.W:J.C. No. 17230 of 2009.
. 20. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellants submitted that the post of Data Entry Operator
Grade 'B' with pay scale of Rs.1350-2200 is higher post and
the respondents have no right to claim the higher pay scale E
merely on the ground that they are Graduates and that they
were performing similar duties.
21. On the other hand, according to the respondents, in
view of differenJ decisions rendered by the Central F
Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, etc. they have been
rightly allowed the pay scale of Rs.1350-2200 from the due
date.
22. It was further contended on behalf of the respondents
that the appellants having already implemented the orders of G
the various Benches of the Central Administrative Tribunal as
affirmed by the High Court, they cannot discriminate between
those who have already been granted the benefits and the ·
respondents herein. Reliance was placed on one another H
168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.
A judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal as
affirmed by the High Court.
23. We have considered the rival contentions raised by
the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the
material placed on record.
8
24. Prior to 1986 there were in existence two grades of
operators viz. Junior Key Punch Operators in the scale of
Rs.260-400 and Senior Key Punch Operators in the scale of
Rs.350-560. The pay scales of all these posts was revised to
C Rs.950-1500 and Rs.1200-2040 respectivelyw.e.f. 1.1.1986
pursuant to recommendation made by the Fourth Pay
Commission. These posts came to be re-designated as Data
Entry Operator, Grade-A and Data Entry Operator, Grade-Bin
the scale of Rs.1150-1500 and Rs.1350-2200 respectively
D pursuant to the Office M~morandum dated 11.9.1989 whereby
the Electronic Data Processing Posts have been reorganized.
25. With a view to consider different pay scale on the
recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission, a
E Committee was constituted to suggest reorganization of the
existing Electronic Data Processing Posts. On the
recommendation, the Government of India vide Office
Memorandum dated 11.9.1989 made the following restructure
for Electronic Data Processing Posts:
F
S.No. Designation of Pay Scale Qualification!Source of Entry
the post Data
Entry Operator
1 Data t:ntry 1150-1500 Ihis will be entry grade for higher
Operator Grade-A secondary with knowledge of
Data Entry work.
G 2 Data Entiy mo-2200 This will be entiy grade for
Operator Grade-8 graduates with knowledge of
Data Entry work - Promotional
grade for Data Entry Operator
Grade.A.
H
SECY., DEPT. OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSION v. 169
T.V.L.N. MALLIKARJUNA RAO [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
Subsequently, Rules under proviso to Article 309 of the A
Constitution of India has been framed. From the aforesaid
memorandum and Rules it is clear that qualification for Data
Entry Operator Grade-A is higher secondary whereas the
qualification for Data Entry Operator Grade-B is graduation
and it is a promotional post from Data Entry Operator Grade- B
A persons who have six years of experience.
26. The classification of posts and determination of pay
structure comes within the exclusive domain of the Executive
and the Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the c
Executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a
particular service. There may be more grades than one in a
particular service.
27. The Government on consideration of the report
submitted by the Committee, 'issued Office Memorandum D
dated 11.9.1989 prescribing therein different pay scales and
different grades of Data Entry Operators besides the moqe
and manner of recruitment to and qualifications for each entry
grade post as well as eligibility and experience for promotional
grades. The Court or the Tribunal, in our opinion, would be E
exceeding its power of judicial review if it sits in appeal over
the decision of the Executive in the matter of prescribing the
pay structure unless it is shown to be in violation of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitutio'l'l of India.
F
Difference in pay scales based on educational
qualifications, nature of job, responsibility, accountability,
qualification, experience and manner of recruitment does not
violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
28. Before the CAT, Bombay Bench a chart dated G
8.1.1999 was produced wherein certain additional duties were
listed which were to be performed by Data Entry Operators
Grade-B over and above the duties assigned/prescribed for
Data Entry Operators Grade-A were listed. Considering the H
170 SUPREME (;OURT REPORTS [2014] 13S.C.R.
A educational qualifications prescribed under the Office
Memorandum dated 11.9.1989 and the rules for appointment
to the posts of Data Entry Operators, Grade-P, and the order
assigning duties, we are of the view that classification of Data
Entry Operators in different grades, does not violate any right
B of equality guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
nor does i.t violate the constitutional protection against hostile
or arbitrary discrimination. Therefore, no exception can be
taken to the difference in the pay structures of entry grade of
Data Entry Operators and·the next higher grades. CAT
C Benches in most of the impugned orders had failed to notice
the background of rationalization of pay scales of Electronic
Data Processing Posts. In these cases, both the Tribunals
and the High Court failed to notice that before rationalization
D of the posts, i.e. prior to 1986 there were in existence two grade
of operators, Junior Key Punch Operators in the scale of
Rs.260-400 and Senior Key Punch Operators in the scale of
Rs.3~0-560. The pay scales of these posts were revised to
950-1500 and Rs.1200-2040 respectively w.e.f. 1.1.1986. In
E view of reorganization of Electronic Data Processing posts
the Key Punch Operators and other posts which had lower
pay scale of Rs.260-400 was revised to Rs.950-1500. Their
posts were re-designated as Data Entry Operators Grade-A
with benefit of other revision of the scale of Rs.1150-1500. In
F fact double benefit was granted to them w.e.f. 1.1.1986 i.e.
one revision in the scale of Rs.950-1500 as they were entitled
as per recommendation of Pay Revision Committee and the
other revision w.e.f. same date i.e. 1.1.1986 in the $cale of
Rs.1150-1500 on the recommendation of the Committee set
G up by the Department of Electronics which was accepted by
the Government of India vide Office Memorandum dated
11.9.198g. It is only those Senior Key Punch Operators who
were in the higher scale of Rs.350-560 having qualification of
graduate and whose scale was revised to 1200-2040 w.e.f.
H
SECY., DEPT. OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSION v. 171
T.V.L.N. MALLIKARJUNA RAO [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
1.1.1986. Irrespective of that different Benches of the CAT . A
without discussing the nature of job, responsibility,
accountability and status and rank· of the one or other posts of
different Data Entry Operators i.e. Grade-A or Grade-B held
that they were performing similar duties and are hence entitled
for equal pay and eligible for Rs.1350-2200 on the principle of B
equal pay for equal work. Both the Tribunal and the High Court
also failed to notice that the Data Entry Operator Grade-Bin
the pay scale of Rs.1350-2200 is a promotional grade and
only those who have six years of experience are eligible for
such promotion. The promotional grade and entry grade cannot C
have the same pay scale and in absence of declaration that
rationalization of pay scale of Electronic Data Processing posts
made by Office Memorandum dated 11.9.1979 is illegal, no
such benefit could have been granted.
D
29. Both the Tribunal and the High Court also failed to
notice the statutory rules framed under proviso to Article 309
of the Constitution of India issued by the order of the President
of India vide notification dated 3rd April, 1992 and notification
dated 10.10.1996 from Department of Personnel and Training, E
Ministry of Personnel, P.G. and Pensions.
Both the Tribunal and the High Court also erred in ignoring
the law laid down by this Court in plethora of judgments that
the "principle of equal pay for equal work" is not always F
applicable even if duties and functions are of similar nature.
In Mewa Ram Kanofia v. All India Institute of Medical
Scier.1:es and others, (1989) 2 SCC 235 this Court has inter
alia held as follows:-
"5. While considering the question of application of G
principle of "Equal pay for equal work" it has to be borne
in mind that it is open to the State to classify employees
on the basis of qualifications, duties and responsibilities
of the posts concerned. If the classification has • H
172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 13 S.C.R.
A reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be
achieved, efficiency in the administration, the State
would be justified in prescribing different pay scale but
if the classification does not stand the test of reasonable
nexus and the classification is founded on unreal, and
B unreasonable basis it would be violative of Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution. Equality must be among
the equals. Unequal cannot claim equality.
7. Even assuming that the petitioner performs similar
c duties and functions as those performed by an
Audiologist, it is not sufficient to uphold his claim for
equal pay. As already observed, in judging the equality
of work for the purposes of equal pay, regard must be
had not only to the duties and functions but also to the
o educational qualifications, qualitative difference and the
measures of responsibility prescribed for the respective
posts. Even if the duties and functions are of similar
nature but if the educational qualifications prescribed
for the two posts are different and there is difference in
E measure of responsibilities, the principle of "Equal pay
for equal work" would not apply ........... "
30. It was further re-affirmed in a three-Judge Bench
judgment of this Court in Shyam Babu Verma & Others v.
F Union of India & Others, (1994) 2 SCC 521 wherein the
Court held:
9 ............... The nature of work may be more or less
the same but scale of pay may vaty based on academic
qualification or experience which justifies classification.
G The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' should not
be applied in a mechanical or casual manner.
Classification made by a body of experts after full study
and analysis of the work should not be disturbed except
for strong reasons which indicate the classification
H
SECY., DEPT. OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES & PENSION v. 173
T.V.L.N. MALLIKARJUNA RAO [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
made to be unreasonable. Inequality of the men in A
different groups excludes applicability of the principle
of 'equal pay for equal work' to them. The principle of
'equal pay for equal work' has been ex§lmined in State
of M.P. v. Pramod Bhartiya1 by this Court. Before any.
direction is issued by the Court, the claimants have to B
establish that there was no reasonable basis to treat
them separately in matters of payment of wages or
salary. Then only it can be held that there has been a
discrimination, within the meaning of Article 14 of the
Constitution." C
31. In fact the case of Shyam Babu Verma was similar
to the present case. In the said case the Third Pay
Commission placed Pharmacists Grade-B into two categories
and prescribing two scale of pay - (i) For fully qualified D
pharmacist who possess the qualification mentioned under
the Act and (ii) For unqualified Pharmacists, those covered by
clause (d) of Section 31 of the Act. The said recommendation
was given effect from 1.1.1973. In the said case it was urged
on behalf of the petitioners that based on the · principle of E
equal pay for equal work they were entitled to the pay scale of
Rs.330-550 which was the scale of pay to the other
Pharmacists. In the said case after making the above said
observation this Court further held:
F
"10. In the facts of present case there is no scope for
applying the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' when
the petitioners belong to a separate category of
Pharmacists with reference to the qualifications
prescribed under the Act. According to us, there is no G
element of arbitrariness in the decision of the
respondents to implement two scales of pay for two
categories of Pharmacists Grade-a. It does not violate
any of the provisions of the Constitution calling for
interference by this Court. J:l
174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2014] 13 S.C.R.
A 11. Although we have held that the petitioners were
entitled only to the pay scale of Rs 330-480 in terms of
the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission
w.e.f. Januwy 1, 1973 and only after the period of 10
years, they became entitled to the pay scale of Rs 330-
B 560 but as they have received the scale of Rs 330-560
since 1973 due to no fault of theirs and that scale is
being reduced in the year 1984 with effect from January
1, 1973, it shall only be just and proper not to recover
any excess amount which has already been paid to
c them. Accordingly, we direct that no steps should be
taken to recover or to adjust any excess amount paid
to the petitioners due to .the fault of the respondents,
the petitioners being in no way responsible for the
same."
D
32. In view of the findings recorded above we hold that
Data Entry Operators Grade-A are not entitled for Scale of
pay of Rs.1350-2200 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 or thereafter merely on
the basis of their qualifications or for the fact that they have
E completed their period of requisite service. We further hold
that any decision rendered by any Tribunal or any High Court
contrary to our decision is wrong. Further in view of the reasons
and findings recorded above while we hold that the
respondents are not entitled to the benefit as they sought for
F before the Tribunal or the High Court, all the impugned orders
passed by the CAT Benches and the High Courts in favour of
the respondents being illegal are set aside.
33. The appeals are allowed. No costs.
G
Devika Gujral Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "service law"Sign in to search