Holding

The constitution of the Pay Grievance Redressal Committee by the State Government is not illegal or invalid, and the High Court’s directions are upheld with specified modifications.

Summary

The Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers and Assistant Engineers Association challenged the State Government’s decision to downgrade the pay scales of 52 categories of posts without providing notice or a hearing, alleging violation of natural justice. The High Court directed the State to constitute a Pay Grievance Redressal Committee (PGRC) to reconsider the anomalies identified after the One‑Man Commission’s recommendations. The State and the employees appealed to the Supreme Court, which examined whether the constitution of the PGRC was lawful and whether the High Court’s directions were proper. The Court held that the State’s formation of the PGRC was a valid exercise of its discretion, that any procedural infirmities could be remedied, and that earlier financial benefits could not be recovered. It upheld the High Court’s directions with modifications, appointed a new Chairman for the PGRC, fixed the honorarium, and ordered the State to constitute the Committee promptly. The appeals were disposed of without any order as to costs.

Issues considered

Whether the State Government’s constitution of a Pay Grievance Redressal Committee (PGRC) is illegal or invalid.
Whether the reduction in pay scales without notice and hearing violates the principles of natural justice.
Whether the High Court’s direction to set up a PGRC can be affirmed or modified.
Whether amounts already paid to employees can be recovered following the PGRC’s recommendations.

Subjects

pay scalepay grievance redressal committeenatural justicecentral pay commissionservice lawpay anomalystate governmentemployee rights

Judgment

[2019] 14 S.C.R. 1011 1011

TAMIL NADU RURAL DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS AND A
ASSISTANT ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION
v.
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No.10029 of 2017) B
NOVEMBER 28, 2019
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Service Law:
Pay – Constitution of Pay Grievance Cell – For removal of C
anomalies in the pay scale of employees in question – Pursuant to
recommendations regarding pay-scale of State Government
employees in consonance with recommendations made by Central
6th Pay Commission – Initially one man Commission was appointed
to remove anomaly in the pay-scale of Public Works Department
D
employees – After accepting the recommendations of One Man
Commission, the State later downgraded 52 categories of posts in
various Departments to lower pay-scale – Representation by
aggrieved employees – State constituted Pay Grievance Redressal
Cell (PGRC) for looking into the grievances and consider
representation – Writ Petitions – Dismissed by Single Judge of High E
Court directing the State to reconstitute the PGRC – Writ Appeal –
During pendency of Writ Appeal, PGRC constituted, it considered
several representations and gave its recommendations, which were
implemented by the State by G.O. No. 242 dated 22.7.2013 – G.O.
No. 242 was also challenged in Writ Petition – Disposing of the
F
writ petitions and writ appeals, Division Bench of High Court held
that reduction in pay-scale was without following principle of
natural justice hence directed the State to constitute a ‘Pay
Grievance Redressal Committee’ to analyse and consider the case
– Appeal by the employees as well as the State to Supreme Court –
Held: Recommendations of the One Man Commission were found G
to be anomalous – If the State government constituted the PGRC to
address those anomalies, such decision by itself cannot be found to
be illegal or invalid – Prescription of pay-scale and assessment in
that behalf being a complex matter need to be assessed by experts
H
1011
1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A – Therefore, there is no error in the impugned order directing
constitution of PGRC.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. GO No. 242 dated 22.7.2013 indicates very clearly
that the Assistant Engineers who were in the pre-revised pay
B scale of Rs.6500-11100 by virtue of acceptance of the
recommendations made by the 6th Central Pay Commission were
kept in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4700/
- as a result of GO No. 234 dated 01.06.2009, while the next
promotional level i.e. of the Assistant Executive Engineers was
C kept at Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.5400/-. The
recommendations of the One Man Commission resulted in upward
revision to the extent of Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay of
Rs.5400/- for the Assistanct Engineers. The recommendations
of the Pay Greivance Redressal Cell resulted in refixation for
Assistant Engineers in the scale of Rs.9300-34800 with marginal
D increase of grade pay to Rs.5100/- as against what was available
pursuant to GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009. [Para 13] [1025-B-D]
2. The recommendations of the PGRC dealt with the effects
of the acceptance of the recommendations by the One Man
Commission. The recommendations shows that certain aspects
E of the matter were found to be anomalous. The difference between
the Assistant Engineers and the post immediately lower than that
was getting widened, while at the same time, the post of Assistant
Engineer and the next level of promotion i.e. the post of Assistant
Executive Engineer were brought almost at the same level. These
F anomalies found by the State Government, had to be addressed.
If the State Government, therefore, constituted the PGRC, such
decision by itself cannot be found to be illegal or invalid.
[Para 14] [1025-E-F]
3. Prescription of pay-scales and the assessment in that
G behalf is a complex matter which requires expertise. The 6 th
Central Pay Commission comprising of experts in the field had
recommended certain pay-scales for various posts. The Official
Committee which comprised of Principal Secretary to the State,
Home Department, as Chairperson with (i) Principal Secretary,

H
TAMIL NADU RURAL DEV. ENGINEERS AND ASSTT ENGINEERS 1013
ASSN. v. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU

Finance Department; (ii) Principal Secretary, Personnel and A
Administrative Reforms Department; and (iii)Principal Secretary,
School Education Department as Members, had examined the
matter and made certain recommendations which were accepted
by the Government by GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009. The One
Man Commission appointed to consider the anomalies, however,
B
recommended something which was far in excess of what was
accepted by GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009 which in turn was in
tune with the recommendations of the 6 th Central Pay
Commission. It is true that the Government had accepted the
recommendations of the One Man Commission but if further
anomalies were found which called for action on part of the C
Government, any exercise to reconsider the matter by the State
Government could not be faulted nor could the constitution of
the PGRC be said to be invalid or illegal. [Paras 15, 16] [1025-G;
1026-F-G; 1027-A-B]
4. Further, if there was any infirmity in the exercise of power D
by the PGRC in not granting adequate notice and hearing to the
concerned, such infirmity could certainly be sorted out. That is
exactly what the Division Bench undertook while passing the
directions. Therefore, there is no error in the approach of and
the directions issued by the Division Bench of the High Court.
[Para 17] [1027-C] E

5. But, it has been more than five years since the directions
were issued by the Division Bench of the High Court and as a
result of the interim orders passed by this Court, the PGRC could
not be set up. In the circumstances, certain modifications in the
directions issued by the Division Bench of High Court are called F
for. It is directed that the State Government shall issue
appropriate orders constituting the PGRC. [Para 18] [1027-D-E;
1028-B]
6. It is clarified that regardless of the decision to be taken
by the PGRC, any amount paid by way of financial benefit extended G
to and enjoyed by the concerned employees shall not be
recovered i.e. to say that in case the decision in pursuance of the
recommendations of the PGRC results in reduction in pay-scales
or emoluments as were granted pursuant to GOs dated
26.08.2010, such reduction shall be prospective in application H
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A from the day the recommendations of the PGRC come into effect.
[Para 19] [1028-F-G]
7. The affected categories shall not be permitted to migrate
to 7th Central Pay Commission scales on the basis of the higher
scales till such time as the final decision is taken. [Para 20]
B [1029-B]
Dy. Director General of Geological Survey of India and
Another v. R.Yadaiah and Others (2001) 10 SCC
563; State of Bihar and Others v. Bihar Veterinary
Association and Others (2008) 11 SCC 60 : [2008] 3
C SCR 222 ; Hukumchand Gupta v. ICAR (2012) 12 SCC
666 : [2012] 8 SCR 831 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
(2001) 10 SCC 563 relied on Para 15

D [2008] 3 SCR 222 relied on Para 15
[2012] 8 SCR 831 relied on Para 15
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10029
of 2017
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.02.2014 of the High Court
E of Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 811/2012
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 10030-10189/2017, 10190/2017, 10191/2017 and
10192/2017.
F Mr. Vijay Narayan, Adv. General, Jayanth Muthuraj, AAG (TN),
Balaji Srinivasan, AAG for TN, R. Venkataramani, Dushyant Dave, P.S.
Patwalia, Gopal Shankar Narayanan, Ms. Aryama Sundaram, A.
Thyagarajan, VinayNavare, Sr. Advs., Yashraj Bundela, Praveen Vignesh,
S. Ravi Shankar, Prashant Bhushan, N. Subramaniyan, Pranav Sachdeva,
G Ms. Neha Rathi, Jatin Bhardwaj, Surinder Kr. Gupta, Ms. A. Jaswanthi,
C.V. Vigneshwaran, K. V. Vijayakumar, B. Vinodh Kanna, Lenin
Rajasehar, Mrs. S. Yamunah Nachiar, T. R. B. Sivakumar, B. Balaji,
N. Subramaniayan, S. Muthu Krishnan, P. Soma Sundaram,
K. V. Vijayakumar, Pranav Sachdeva, P. Arun Kr, G. Suvin Kumaran,
Ms. Shivani Jena, Sriram P., M.A. Gowthaman, Ms. T. Archana, Gaffar,
H
TAMIL NADU RURAL DEV. ENGINEERS AND ASSTT ENGINEERS 1015
ASSN. v. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU

Uma Prasuna Bachu, Senthil Jagadeesan, Ms. Sonakshi Malhan, A
Ms. Suriti Chowdhary, Ms. Mrinal Kanwar, R. Rajaramani,S. Mahendran,
G. Umapathy, Ms. Vaishnavi, Ms. Pavitra, Rakesh K. Sharma, Vijay
Kumar, Swarnam J. Rajagopal, Ms. S. Lakshmikanth, Anish R. Shah,
S. Beno Bencigar, P.R. Kovilan, Prem Narayan, Parijat Kishore,
S. Nanda Kumar, Ms. Deepika Nandakumar, M.S. Saran Kumar, Naresh
B
Kumar, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. These Appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated
27.02.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Writ C
Appeal No.504 of 2012 and all other connected matters.
2. After the recommendations were given in March 2008 for
revision of pay-scales by the 6th Central Pay Commission, an Official
Committee was constituted by the Government of Tamil Nadu to examine
and make recommendations about the pay-scales of Government D
Employees in consonance with the recommendations made by the 6th
Central Pay Commission. This Official Committee submitted its report
on 27.05.2009 making certain recommendations on “pay-scale to
pay-scale” basis i.e. to say that for the existing scales of pay, the revised
pay (pay band) and grade pay were recommended. The recommendations E
were accepted by the State Government by GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009.
For the present purposes the relevant part of GO No.234 may be quoted
here:
“(d) Further, the Government of India has granted two different
revised scales of pay for the existing scale of Rs.8000-13500, one F
for promotees on the revised pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 (Pay
Band – 2) with a Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- and the other for direct
recruits (Group – A entry) on the revised pay scale of Rs.15600–
39100 (Pay Band-3) with the same Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/-. The
scale of pay of Section Officers in Central Secretariat has been
placed in the Pay Band-3 i.e. Rs.15600-39100 + Grade Pay of G
Rs.5400/-. As the State Government is extending the same pay
scale to the Section Officer / Private Secretary in Tamil Nadu
Secretariat Service on par with their counterparts in Central
Secretariat, the Government direct that the Section Officer /
H
1016 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A Private Secretary in Secretariat / High Court / Tamil Nadu Public
Service Commission shall also be placed in Pay Band–3. Further,
all middle management posts, such as Administrative Officer,
Accounts Officer, Deputy Collector etc. including Group–I entry
level posts are presently granted a uniform scale of pay both for
promotees and direct recruits. Hence, the Government direct that
B
all the posts carrying the present scale of pay of Rs.8000-13500
shall be placed uniformly in Pay Band–3 and given the revised
pay scale of Rs.15600-39100 with the Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/-.
Further, taking note of the fact that the same Grade Pay is allowed
to the employees in Pay Band-2 from Rs.5000-8000 to Rs.6500-
C 10500 in the Government of India, the Government has modified
the Grade Pay as shown below so as to maintain the existing local S
relativity: - N
Sl. Existing Scale of pay Revised Pay Revised
No. (w.e.f. 1-1-96) (Pay Band) Grade Pay 1
D
1. 5000-8000 9300-34800 4,200 2
2. 5300-8300 9300-34800 4,300
3. 5500-9000 9300-34800 4,400
4. 5900-9900 9300-34800 4,500 3
5. 6500-10500 9300-34800 4,600
E 6. 6500-11100 9300-34800 4,700" 4

In terms of GO No.234 notional effect was given from 01.01.2006
while monetary benefits were accruable to the employees w.e.f.
01.01.2007. Separate Government Orders were issued in respect each
F of the departments based on GO No.234.
3. Thereafter, One Man Commission headed by Mr. Rajiv Ranjan,
Principal Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Industries
Department was constituted to rectify pay anomalies which had arisen
as a result of implementation of the revised pay-scales pursuant to GO
G No.234. Said One Man Commission submitted its report on 31.03.2010.
The State Government, through GO Nos.254 to 340 (86 GOs) accepted
the recommendations of The One Man Commission. By way of
illustration, GO No.312 dated 26.08.2010 with respect to certain catego-
ries of Public Works Department stated as under:
H
TAMIL NADU RURAL DEV. ENGINEERS AND ASSTT ENGINEERS 1017
ASSN. v. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

“The One Man Commission constituted in the G.O. second read A
above to examine anomalies, if any, consequent on the
implementation of the recommendations of the Official
Committee 2009 has recommended for revision of scales of pay
of certain categories in Public Works Department. After careful
examination, the Government has decided to accept the
B
recommendations made by the One Man Commission in respect
of the above department. Accordingly, Government direct that
the scales of pay of the following posts shall be revised as shown
below:-

Existing scal e of Revised C
Sl. Name of the pay + Grade Pay Scale of
No. Posts pay +
Grade Pay
Rs. Rs.
1 Executive 15600-39100+6600 15600-39100
Engineer +7600 D
2 Assistant 15600-39100 +5400 15600-39100
Executive +6600
Engineer
3 Assistant 9300-34800 +4700 15600-39100
Engineer +5400
4 Head 15600-39100 +5700 15600-39100 E
Draughting +6600
Officer

2) The revision of scales of pay ordered in para -1 above shall
take notional effect from 1-1-2006 for the purpose of fixation of F
pay in the revised scales of pay and with monetary benefit from
01-08-2010.”
4. It is a matter of record that all Assistant Engineers who were
earlier put in the pay-scale of Rs.9300-34800 with Rs.4700 as Grade
Pay were thus placed in the revised scale of pay of Rs.15600-39100
G
with Rs.5400 Grade Pay, as a result of GOs dated 26.08.2010 and the
benefit in terms thereof was extended to the concerned persons and
their pay-scale stood revised accordingly.

H
1018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A 5. The State Government, however, issued GO No.71 dated
26.02.2011 scaling down certain benefits which were granted in
pursuance of said GOs dated 26.08.2010. Such exercise was done
without issuing any notice or affording any hearing to the persons con-
cerned. As a result of this exercise, 52 categories of posts in various
departments were downgraded to lower pay-scales. It was, however,
B
made clear that whatever payment was made in terms of the earlier
decision, would not be recovered. The State Government also
constituted Pay Grievance Redressal Cell (“PGRC”, for short) in
Finance Department headed by Thiru R. Thiyagrajan, Special Secretary
to Government, Finance Department to look into the grievances and
C consider the representations of the employees aggrieved as a result of
scaling down of the pay-scales.

6. Various writ petitions were filed by the concerned employees
challenging the correctness and validity of GO No.71 dated 26.02.2011.
These petitions were dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court by
D judgment and order dated 08.03.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.7006 of
2011 and all connected matters. Since the services of Thiru
R. Thiyagrajan were not available, the Single Judge directed the State
Government to re-constitute the PGRC.

7. The decision of the Single Judge was challenged by way of
E Writ Appeals and the Division Bench of the High Court by its order
dated 27.03.2012 granted interim stay except with regard to the
constitution of the PGRC. Consequently, the State Government issued
GO No.123 dated 10.04.2012 and re-constituted the PGRC with
Mr. Krishnan, Secretary to the Government as the Chairperson. The
F PGRC received around 4376 representations from various associations
of employees/individuals. The PGRC gave hearing to the concerned
representationists on 09.07.2012, 10.07.2012, 11.07.2012 and 16.08.2012
and thereafter submitted its recommendations to the State Government.
The relevant portion of the recommendations was:-

G “1) The scales of pay of the employees in every pay revision
from Tamil Nadu Fifth Pay Commission is based on the parity
with similar posts in Government of India.

H
TAMIL NADU RURAL DEV. ENGINEERS AND ASSTT ENGINEERS 1019
ASSN. v. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

2) In Government of India both the Junior Engineer / Assistant A
Engineers are placed at the section level and its promotional posts
Assistant Executive Engineer is placed at Sub-divisional
level.

3) In Central Public Works Department the post of Assistant
Engineer are placed in the scale of pay of Rs.9300-34800 + G.P. B
Rs.4600 as against the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.7400-11100
based on the Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations.
Further, the Junior Engineers are also claiming pay hike given to
Assistant Engineer due to the huge variation in emoluments
consequent on placing the Assistant Engineers erroneously in Pay C
Band-3 (Rs.15600-39100 + G.P. Rs.5400) as both these posts are
placed at section level and discharging the same work. The
comparison with Medical Doctor is also not appropriate as there
is no equivalent of Diploma holder in that line. In the Engineering
line, there is a separate category of Diploma holders, who are
Junior Engineers and holding charge as ‘section in-charge’ like D
Assistant Engineers. The recommendation of the One man
Commission to place Assistant Engineers in Pay Band-3 opened
up a huge differential with Junior Engineers, which appears
unjustified. Therefore, it is appropriate that the scale of pay of
Assistant Engineers in State Government may be brought down E
to Pay Band-2 at Rs.9300-34800. However, the Grade Pay of
Rs.5100 already fixed in G.O.Ms.No.71, Finance (PC)
Department, dated: 26-2-2011, which is at a level above their
counterparts in Government of India would be appropriate. It also
maintains an appropriate difference of Rs.700/- in Grand Pay from
Junior Engineer. The Committee also recommend that the excess F
payments made till the issue of revised orders may be waived and
not recovered.

4) It is observed that the Official Committee, 2009 had rightly
placed the post of Assistant Engineer at Rs.9300-34800 + G.P.
Rs.4700 as against the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.6500-11100. G
In the light of the above facts, the Committee consider it
appropriate to place the post of Assistant Engineers on par with
similar posts in Central Public Works Department and also

H
1020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A considering the local pay relatively among other higher posts, the
Committee recommends that it would be appropriate that the pay
scale of Assistant Engineers may be brought down to Pay
Band-2 from Pay Band-3 and granted an enhanced Grade Pay in
the scale of pay of Rs.9300-34800 + G.P. Rs.5100 i.e. with the
same Grade pay as ordered in G.O.Ms.No.71, Finance (Pay Cell)
B
Department dated:26-02-2011. This implies that the Assistant
Engineer in State Public Works Department would be placed with
a difference in Grade pay of Rs.500/- in Grade Pay above the
Assistant Engineers in the Central Public Works Department.
Likewise, the Committee also recommends to place the post of
C Executive Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer in the
appropriate revised scale of pay of Rs.15600-39100 + GP. Rs.6600
and Rs.15600-39100 + G.P. Rs.5400 respectively as originally
recommended by the Official Committee, 2009 duly endorsing
the orders issued by Government in G.O.Ms.No.71, Finance (Pay
Cell) Department dated:26-02-2011 uniformly on par with the
D
equivalent posts in other Government Departments.”

8. The recommendations of the PGRC were accepted by the State
Government and GO No.242 was issued on 22.07.2013 to implement
the recommendations. After quoting certain portions of the
E recommendations given by the PGRC, GO No.242 stated as under:

“After careful examination, the Government has decided to
implement the above recommendations of the Pay Grievance
Redressal Cell considering the level of Assistant Engineer in
Central Public Works Department and the consequential changes
F made thereon by endorsing / modifying the scales of pay of
certain categories ordered in the G.O.Ms. No. 71, Finance (Pay
Cell) Department, dated: 26.02.2011 read above.”

GO No.242 also gave a tabulated chart about
various departments and insofar as Public Works Department was con-
G
cerned, the tabulated chart was as under:

H
TAMIL NADU RURAL DEV. ENGINEERS AND ASSTT ENGINEERS 1021
ASSN. v. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
S. Name of Pre-Revised Corresponding Scale of pay Scale of Pay Revised Scale of
No. the Post/ Scale of Pay revised scale granted based as per pay
Department of pay + G.P. on OMC / G.O.Ms
subsequent No.71 dated
GOS 26.02.2011
Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs.
1 to …. … …. … … ..
B
32.
XII PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
33. Assistant 6500-11100 9300-34800 15600-39100 15600-39100 9300-34800
Engineer +4700 +5400 +5100 +5100
34. Assistant 8000-13500 15600-39100 15600-39100 15600-39100 15600-39100
Executive +5400 +6600 +5400 +5400
Engineer C
35. Executive 10000-15200 15600-39100 15600-39100 15600-39100 15600-39100
Engineer +6600 +7600 +6600 +6600
36. Head 9100-14050 15600-39100 15600-39100 15600-39100 15600-39100
Draughting +5700 +6600 +5700 +5700
Officer
37. … … … … … …
to
52. D

It was also stated:
“(3) The revision of scale of pay ordered above shall take
notional effect from 01.01.2006/12.12.2007 as the case may be
with monetary benefit from 01.04.2013. However, the excess E
payments, if any made to the employees so far shall be waived
and the pay refixed in the appropriate scales of pay as ordered
above.”
9. Number of writ petitions were filed challenging GO No.242
dated 22.07.2013. Those writ petitions as well as the pending writ appeals F
were taken up together and disposed of by the Division Bench of the
High Court by its judgment under appeal.
10. The Division Bench found that by fixing higher pay by virtue
of GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009 and consequential separate Government
Orders issued for various departments, the concerned government G
employees were paid higher salaries/pay-scales w.e.f. 01.01.2007 and
such benefits were now reduced by the Orders which were under
challenge and the reduction in benefits was without following principles
of natural justice. Following directions were, therefore, issued by the
Division Bench:
H
1022 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A “50. As we found illegality in not following the principles of
natural justice, before reducing the scales of pay, it is necessary
that the matter is to be considered afresh by the Government
after giving opportunity to all concerned especially, for reducing
the scale of pay/grade pay. It is not in dispute that if really, there
is any pay anomaly, the government is entitled to remove the same
B
by following the due procedures. As rightly contended by the
learned Senior Counsels and other learned counsels for the
petitioners, the One-Man Committee and the PGRC appointed by
the Government, all its members are Government Officers and
they have already decided to reduce the pay scale of 52
C categories of 20 departments, including pensioners and family
pensioners in those departments, it may not be appropriate again
to permit the Government to reconsider the issue on the
recommendations of the Government officials alone. At this
juncture it is relevant to note that the Central Government
appointed retired Judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to head
D
the V Central Pay Commission. Similarly, a retired Judge of
Hon’ble Supreme Court was appointed as the Chairman of VI
Central Pay Commission. The Hon’ble Supreme Court appointed
a retired Judge of this Court to consider the pay anomaly among
the Judicial Officers/Judicial Pensioners at All India level. It is
E also not disputed that while extending the Pay Commission
benefits, the technicalities as well as the legal issues regarding
the claim of Equal Pay for Equal Work, qualifications, nature of
duties etc. are also to be analysed and considered. Hence, we are
of the view that it is just and appropriate to appoint a retired Judge
to head the Pay Grievance Redressal Committee.
F
51. In such circumstances, the writ appeals and writ petitions are
disposed of with the following directions:
(i) The Government shall constitute a Pay Grievance Redressal
Committee under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S.
G Venkatachalmoorthy, formerly Judge of this Court, who was
elevated and retired as Chief Justice of the Chattishgarh High
Court.
(ii) The Government is at liberty to nominate one or two Senior
level IAS Officers at the level of Principal Secretary, serving/
retired as Member(s) of the Pay Grievance Redressal
H Committee.
TAMIL NADU RURAL DEV. ENGINEERS AND ASSTT ENGINEERS 1023
ASSN. v. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

(iii) The Pay Grievance Redressal Committee shall be given A
specific terms of reference by the Government, with a request to
submit a report/recommendations for taking fresh decision
regarding the enhancement/reduction of the pay scales/grade pay
of 52 or more categories of 20 or more departments, etc.
(iv) The Government is directed to constitute the above said B
committee within a period of three weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order, prescribing time limit, within which
report/recommendations is to be submitted for taking fresh
decision.
(v) In view of the constitution of the above said Committee as C
ordered above, the implementation of G.O.Ms.No.71 dated
26.2.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.242 dated 22.7.2013 insofar as it
affects any category of Government Servants/ pensioners/family
pensioners, which are not implemented as on today shall not be
implemented till fresh decision is taken.
D
(vi) If any of the categories of Government servants of any
department, who have been offered higher scales of pay as on
today, it is open to the Government to implement the same insofar
as the pay scales, which are beneficial to the employees of such
categories.
E
(vii) As we have appointed the Chairman of the PGRC, we direct
the Government of Tamil Nadu to make available office premises
with supporting staff and to provide a Government car with driver
for the use of the Chairman for effective functioning of the
Committee.
F
(viii) We fix the remuneration for the Chairman of the Committee
as Rs.1.50 lakhs per month and direct the Government to
sanction necessary funds towards remuneration and for meeting
other expenses for effective functioning of the Committee.
(ix) It is open to the Government to fix remuneration of the
G
Members/Member of the Committee, to be nominated by the
Government, if they are retired IAS officer(s).”
11. Two sets of appeals have been filed in this Court challenging
the decision of the Division Bench. The first set is by the Government
Employees and their Associations submitting inter alia that once the
H
1024 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A process undertaken by the State Government was found to be in violation
of the principles of natural justice, complete benefit of setting aside the
impugned decisions ought to have been extended. It is also submitted
that the exercise undertaken by the One Man Commission was a proper
exercise and its recommendations were accepted by the State
Government after considering the matter carefully and thus there was
B
no occasion for the State Government to take any different view in the
matter. On the other hand, the second set of appeals, at the instance of
the State Government submits inter alia that the exercise undertaken
by the PGRC was after giving due opportunity to the concerned
employees and their Associations and as such the High Court was not
C justified in setting aside GO No.242 seeking to implement the
recommendations given by the PGRC.
By interim order passed in these matters, stay of operation of the
judgment under appeal, to the extent fresh PGRC was directed to be set
up, was granted by this Court which status is still continuing.
D 12. We heard Mr. Dushyant Dave, Mr. R. Venkataramani,
Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Mr. Vinay Navare, learned
Senior Advocates and Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned Advocate for the
appellants in the first set of appeals and Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned
Advocate General for the State. It was submitted by the learned counsel
E appearing for the Government Employees and their Associations that
having accepted the recommendations made by the One Man
Commission and having given benefits in terms of said recommendations,
the State Government could not have lowered the pay scales of the
concerned employees. On the other hand, it is the submission of the
State that the acceptance of the recommendations of the One Man
F Commission resulted in greater anomalies; that the level of Assistant
Engineers, which is the entry level in various Engineering services was
wrongly clubbed with other entry level services like Assistant Surgeons;
and that as a result of upward revision for Assistant Engineers the gap
between the level of the Assistant Engineers and the subordinate ranks
G got widened to a considerable level while the Assistant Engineers and
the promotional level for Assistant Engineer were brought almost at the
same levels. According to the learned Advocate General, various such
anomalies were required to be sorted out which in turn made the State
Government to constitute the PGRC. According to the State Government,

H
TAMIL NADU RURAL DEV. ENGINEERS AND ASSTT ENGINEERS 1025
ASSN. v. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

normally the pay scales afforded to equivalent ranks in the Central A
Government are higher than the ranks in the State Government but the
entry level of Assistant Engineers in the State Government, as a result
of the recommendations of the One Man Commission was kept at a
level far too higher than their counterparts in the Central Government.
13. The Tabulated Chart which is part of GO No.242 indicates B
very clearly that the Assistant Engineers who were in the pre-revised
pay scale of Rs.6500-11100 (column No.3), by virtue of acceptance of
the recommendations made by the 6th Central Pay Commission were
kept in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4700/-
(column No.4) as a result of GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009, while the
next promotional level i.e. of the Assistant Executive Engineers was C
kept at Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.5400/-. The
recommendations of the One Man Commission resulted in upward
revision to the extent of Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.5400/-
(column No.5) for the Assistanct Engineers. The recommendations of
the PGRC resulted in refixation for Assistant Engineers in the scale of D
Rs.9300-34800 with marginal increase of grade pay to Rs.5100/- (column
No.7) as against what was available pursuant to GO No.234 dated
01.06.2009.
14. The recommendations of the PGRC dealt with the effects of
the acceptance of the recommendations by the One Man Commission. E
Para 3 of the recommendations quoted hereinabove shows that certain
aspects of the matter were found to be anomalous. The submissions
advanced by the learned Advocate General also show how the difference
between the Assistant Engineers and the post immediately lower than
that was getting widened, while at the same time, the post of Assistant
Engineer and the next level of promotion i.e. the post of Assistant F
Executive Engineer were brought almost at the same level. These
anomalies found by the State Government, had to be addressed. If the
State Government, therefore, constituted the PGRC, such decision by
itself cannot be found to be illegal or invalid.
15. It has always been accepted by this Court that prescription of G
pay-scales and the assessment in that behalf is a complex matter which
requires expertise. For instance, in Dy. Director General of Geological
Survey of India and another v. R. Yadaiah and others 1 it was
observed:
1
(2001) 10 SCC 563 H
1026 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A “Ordinarily, the courts or tribunal should not go into the question
of fitment of the officers in a particular group or the pay scales
thereof, and leave the matter to the discretion and expertise of
the special commission like the Pay Commission.”
In State of Bihar and others v. Bihar Veterinary Association
B and others2 it was observed :-
“13. If the courts start disturbing the recommendations of the
pay scale in a particular class of service then it is likely to have
cascading effect on all related services which may result into
multifarious litigation. The Fitment Committee has undertaken the
C exercise and recommended the wholesale revision of the pay scale
in the State of Bihar and if one class of service is to be picked up
and granted higher pay scale as is available in the Central
Government then the whole balance will be disturbed and other
services are likely to be affected and it will result in complex
situation in the State and may lead to ruination of the finances of
D the State. …..”
In Hukumchand Gupta v. ICAR3it was stated :-
“20. … Prescription of pay scales on particular posts is a very
complex exercise. It requires assessment of the nature and quality
E of the duties performed and the responsibilities shouldered by the
incumbents on different posts. Even though, the two posts may
be referred to by the same name, it would not lead to the necessary
inference that the posts are identical in every manner. These are
matters to be assessed by expert bodies like the employer or the
Pay Commission. … …”
F
16. It may be stated here that the 6th Central Pay Commission
comprising of experts in the field had recommended certain pay-scales
for various posts. The Official Committee which comprised of Principal
Secretary to the State of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, as Chairperson
with (i) Principal Secretary, Finance Department; (ii) Principal Secretary,
G Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department; and (iii)Principal
Secretary, School Education Department as Members, had examined
the matter and made certain recommendations which were accepted

2
(2008) 11 SCC 60
3
H (2012) 12 SCC 666
TAMIL NADU RURAL DEV. ENGINEERS AND ASSTT ENGINEERS 1027
ASSN. v. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

by the Government by GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009. The One Man A
Commission appointed to consider the anomalies, however, recommended
something which was far in excess of what was accepted by GO No.234
dated 01.06.2009 which in turn was in tune with the recommendations
of the 6th Central Pay Commission. It is true that the Government had
accepted the recommendations of the One Man Commission but if further
B
anomalies were found which called for action on part of the Government,
any exercise to reconsider the matter by the State Government could
not be faulted nor could the constitution of the PGRC be said to be
invalid or illegal.
17. Further, if there was any infirmity in the exercise of power by
the PGRC in not granting adequate notice and hearing to the concerned, C
such infirmity could certainly be sorted out. That is exactly what the
Division Bench undertook while passing the directions quoted hereinabove.
We, therefore, see no error in the approach of and the directions issued
by the Division Bench of the High Court.
18. But, it has been more than five years since the directions D
were issued by the Division Bench of the High Court and as a result of
the interim orders passed by this Court, the PGRC could not be set up.
In the circumstances, certain modifications in the directions issued by
the Division Bench in para 5 of its order are called for and we proceed
to direct:- E
(A) Direction No.(i) as issued by the Division Bench is reiterated
except that Mr. Justice A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy having now
expressed his unwillingness, Mr. Justice D. Murugesan,
formerly Chief Justice, High Court of Delhi is appointed as
Chairman of the Pay Grievance Redressal Committee. F
(B) Direction No.(ii) as issued by the Division Bench is accepted
and it is added that the Chairman of the PGRC will be at
liberty to co-opt any two experts as he deems appropriate as
members of the PGRC, who shall be paid such honorarium
by the State Government, as the Chairman deems appropriate. G
(C) Direction Nos.(iii) and (v) to (vii) issued by the Division
Benchare accepted and do not call for any change.

H
1028 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R.

A (D) Instead of Rs.1.5 lakhs per month, we fix the honorarium of
the Chairman of the PGRC at Rs.3.5 lakhs per month but the
other parts of Direction No.(viii) are maintained.
(E) Direction No.(ix) issued by the Division Bench is accepted
and does not call for any change.
B (F) It is further directed:-
a) Within a week from today, the State Government shall
issue appropriate orders constituting the PGRC as stated
above.

C b) Within a week thereafter, the State Government shall
make appropriate and adequate arrangements and provide
office space befitting the status of the Chairperson and
other Members and also provide adequate staff,
secretarial assistance and other facilities.

D c) Within two weeks of the constitution of the PGRC all the
concerned individuals/associations shall file their
representations. No representation filed beyond the period
of two weeks shall ordinarily be accepted by the PGRC.
d) Direction No. (iv) issued by the Division Bench shall
stand modified to the aforesaid extent.
E
e) These directions are in addition to and in further elaboration
of direction No. (vii) issued by the Division Bench.
19. It is clarified that regardless of the decision to be taken by the
PGRC, any amount paid by way of financial benefit extended to and
F enjoyed by the concerned employees shall not be recovered i.e. to say
that in case the decision in pursuance of the recommendations of the
PGRC results in reduction in pay-scales or emoluments as were granted
pursuant to GOs dated 26.08.2010, such reduction shall be prospective
in application from the day the recommendations of the PGRC come
into effect.
G
20. It must be stated that the recommendations of the 7th Central
Pay Commission have since been made and the issue regarding
implementation of such recommendations is presently under active
consideration. The present matters which pertain to the recommendations
of the 6th Central Pay Commission therefore need to be resolved at the
H
TAMIL NADU RURAL DEV. ENGINEERS AND ASSTT ENGINEERS 1029
ASSN. v. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU [UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

earliest. In the circumstances, we request the PGRC to conclude the A
entire exercise within four months from today.
By way of clarification, it is added that the affected categories
shall not be permitted to migrate to 7th Central Pay Commission scales
on the basis of the higher scales till such time as the final decision is
taken. B
21. Lastly, it is clarified that the observations in the present order
have been made purely from the stand point of consideration whether
the decision of the State Government in constituting the PGRC was
correct or not and not by way of reflection on merits of the matter. The
matter shall be considered by the PGRC and the State Government C
purely on merits and uninfluenced by any of the observations made by
us.
22. With the aforesaid directions these appeals are disposed of
without any order as to costs.
D
Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals disposed of.

E

F

G

H