Holding

The Tool Room Assistant post falls within Group D, classification cannot alter the pay scale, and the Tribunal’s order granting a higher pay scale is set aside.

Summary

The respondents, Tool Room Assistants in the Integrated Fisheries Project, were placed in the pay scale Rs 800‑1150 (maximum Rs 1150) and argued that their post, classified as "skilled" under the Central Government's notification, fell in Group C and thus entitled them to the higher Group C pay scale of Rs 1150‑2900. The Central Administrative Tribunal accepted this view and allowed the claim. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that a maximum of Rs 1150 does not satisfy the phrase "over Rs 1150" and therefore the post correctly belongs to Group D, whose ceiling is Rs 1150 or less. The Court further ruled that classification of posts cannot by itself alter the prescribed pay scale, as pay scales are fixed by the Government on the basis of Pay Commission recommendations. Consequently, the Tribunal’s order was set aside as unsustainable in law, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal to consider the respondents' separate plea of "equal pay for equal work". The Court also emphasized that interference with pay scales should be limited to cases of clear hostile discrimination and that such matters should be heard by a bench comprising at least one judicial member.

Issues considered

Whether the Tool Room Assistant post falls under Group C or Group D as per the Central Government notification.
Whether classification of posts can result in a change of the prescribed pay scale.
Whether the Tribunal can interfere with pay scales in the absence of clear discrimination.
Whether the respondents' claim of equal pay for equal work should be decided.

Legislation cited

Subjects

pay scaleclassification of postsequal pay for equal workadministrative tribunaljudicial reviewGroup CGroup Ddiscrimination

Judgment

y
A · UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
v.
P.V. HARIHARAN AND ANR.

MARCH 12, 1997

B . [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.]

Service law.:

Pay scale-Categorisation of posts vide Notification-Respondent
C having pay scale of Group D-Tlibunal holding that his post of skilled-group
falls in Group C, as such entitled for group C pay scale-Held, Tribunal's
order for fixing/enhancement of the pay scale is unsustainable in law, as
classification, of posts does not result in change of pay scale-Plea of equal
pay and equal work has not been decided by the T1ibunal-Hence remitted
back for proper order - CCS .(CCA) Rules 1965, R.6.
D Pay scale-Scope of judicial review-Unless a clear-cut case of hostile
disclimination, there should be no judicial inte1ference with the pay scale.

Administrative T1ibwzal Act, 1985-Proper bench-For the claim to
higher or enhanced pay scale-Bench Comp1ising of at least one Judicial
member.
E
The respondent was a Tool Room Assistant in the Integrated
Fisheries Project (IFP), a wing of the Fisheries Department and. was having
a pay scale of Rs. 800. 1150, as prescribed by the 4th Pay Commission.

The Central Government vide its Notification under Rule 6 of CCS
F (CC&A) Rules, classified the various posts into Groups A, B, C and D.
Group C comprised central civil posts" carrying a pay scale with a maxi-
mum of over Rs. 1150 but less than Rs. 2900". Group D comprised civil
posts "carrying a pay scale, the maximum of which is Rs. 1150 or less".

The respondent filed an Original Application before the Central Ad-
G
ministrative Tribunal that his post came under the "skilled" group and as
per the Notification this category was placed in Group C, as such he entitled
for the pay scale of Rs. 1150-2900. The Tribunal allowed the application. ·
Hence, this appeal.

H Allowing the appeal, this Court
1050
y
U.0.1. v. P.V. HARIHARAN 1051

HELD: 1.1. The pay scale of Tool Room Assistant in IFP was Rs.1150 A
i.e. the maximum of the said pay scale was not "over Rs. 1150" so as to fall
within Group-C. The post properly falls under Group D because it carried
a pay, the maximum of which was "Rs. 1150 or less". "Over Rs. 1150" means
Rs. 1151 and above. "Rs. 1150" cannot be characterized as "over Rs. 1150".
The post, therefore, properly fall under Group D and not under Group C.
[1052-G-H, 1053-A-B] B
1.2 The classification of posts cannot result in change of pay scale.
Pay scales prescribed for each post by the Government and were done/fL''ied
on the basis of recommendations of a pay Commission or a similar expert
body. Classification of posts has nothing to do with fixation of pay scales,
it only classifies posts into several grounds based upon the pay scales C
already fixed. Classification and prescribing pay scales for several posts
are two different and distinct functions. So, the order passed by the
Tribunal is wholly unsustainable in law and set aside. [1053-A-D]

2. As regards the plea of "equal pay and equal work" is concerned, D
Tribunal has not dealt with it. It is, therefore, remitted back to the Tribunal
for proper disposal according to law. [1053-C-E]

3. Tribunals are quite often interfering with pay scales without proper
reason and without being conscious of the fact that fixation of pay is not
their function. It is a function of the Government, which normally acts on E
the recommendation of a Pay Commission, which goes in the problem at
great depth and happens to have a full picture before it and is the proper

- authority to decide upon this issue. The Tribunal should exercise ,due
restraint in the matter. Change of pay scale of a category has a cascading
effect and has a serious impact on public excher1uer. Unless a dear case of
hostile discrimination is made out, there would be no justification for F
interfering with the fixation of pay scales. It would be in the fitness of things
if all matters relating to pay scales, i.e. matters asking for a higher pay scale
or an enhanced pay scale, as the case may be, on one or the other ground,
are heard by the Bench comprising at least one Judicial Member.
[1053-E-F, 1053-F-H, 1054-A-B] G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7127 of
1993.

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.7.92 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.A. No. 391 of 1991. H
1052 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 2 S.C.R.

A S.N. Terdol and A.S. Rawat for the Appellants.

A.S. Nambiar and P.K. Manohar for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

B B.P. JEEVAN 'REDDY, J. This appeal is preferred against the
judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, allow-
ing O.A. No. 391 of 1991 filed by the respondents herein.

The respondents are Tool Room Assistants in the Integrated
C Fisheries Project (I.F.P.) which is a wing of the Fisherir.s department, the
other wing being Central Institute of Fisheries Nautical and Engineering
Training· Department (CIFNET). The pay- scale of Tool R0<;im Assistants
in l.F.]?. was initially Rs. 85- 128, revised to Rs. 210-290. The IVth pay
Commission prescribed a uniform pay scale of Rs. 800-1150 for two pre-
existing pay scales, viz., Rs. 210-270 and Rs. 210-290. The respondents thus
D came into the pay scale Rs. 800-1150.

The Central Government issued a notification under Rule 6 of CCS
(CC&A) Rules classifying various posts into Groups A, B, C and D.
Group-C comprised Central civil posts "carrying a pay or a scale of pay
with a: maximum of over Rs. 1150 but less than Rs. 2900". Group-D
E comprised civil posts !'carrying a pay or a scale of pay, the maximum of
which is Rs.1150 or less". It is stated by the respondents that their post
comes under "skilled" group and that as per the Notification aforesaid, this
category is placed in Group-C. Reliance is placed upon Annexure A-8 to
the writ petition which was a list of names of the posts in the Integrated
F Fisheries department. Item 58 of the said List, it was stated, includes the
post carrying pay scale of Rs. 210-290 (which scale was later revised to Rs. '
800-1150)) in Group-C. The appellants, who were respondents in the
Original Application, opposed the respondents' claim. The Tribunal held
that inasmuch the post held by the respondents is included in Group-C,
G they are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 1150-2900. The Original Applica-
tion filed by the respondents was ~Ilowed accordingly.

We are unable to appreciate the reasoning or approach of the
Tribunal. The pay scale of Tool Room Assistant in J.F.P. is Rs. 800-1150.
In other words, the maximum of the said pay scale is not "over Rs. 1150"
H so as to fall within Group-C. The post properly fell under Group-D
U.O.L v. P.V. HARIHARAN [RP.JEEVAN REDDY,J.] 1053

because it carried a pay, the m<)Xirnum of which was "Rs. 1150 or less". A
"Over Rs. 1150" means Rs. 1151 and above. "Rs. 1150" cannot be charac-
terized as "over Rs. 1150". The said post, therefore, properly fell under
Group-D and not under Group-C. Assuming that the said post was men-
tioned under Group-C, it may be - or may not - an error. What is material
is that the classification cannot result in change of pay scale from Rs. B
800-1150 to Rs. 1150-2900. This is simply unimaginable. Pay scales are what
are prescribed for each post by the government which is very often done
on the basis of recommendations of a Pay Commission or a similar expert
body. Classification of posts has nothing to do with fixation of pay scales;
it only classifies posts into several grounds based upon the pay scales
already fixed. Classification and prescribing pay scales for several posts are C
two different and distinct functions. The Tribunal's order is, in our opinion,
wholly unsustainable in law. The reasons given in support of the impugned
order are ambiguous and vague. The impugned order of the Tribunal is
accordingly set aside. Sri Nambiar, learned counsel for the respondents,
however, submitted that the respondents had also raised the plea of "equal D
pay for equal work" on the basis of the pay scale granted to Tool Room
Assistants in the CIFNET, but that the Tribunal has not dealt with it. We,
therefore, remit the matter to deal with the said ground according to la~
.... and pass final orders in the Original Application.

Before parting with this appeal, we feel impelled to make a few E
observations. Over the past few weeks, we have come across several
matters decided by Administrative Tribunals on the question of pay scales.
We have noticed that quite often the Tribunals are interfering with pay
scales without proper reasons and without being conscious of the fact that
fixation of pay is not their function. Jt is the function of the Government F
which normally acts on the recommendations of a Pay Commission. Change
of pay scale of a category has a cascading effect. Several other categories
similarly situated, as well as those situated above and below, put forward
their claims on the basis of such change. The Tribunal should realise that
interfering with the prescribed pay scales is a serious matter. The Pay
Commission, which goes into the problem at great depth and happens to G
have a full picture before it, is the proper authority to decide upon this
issue. Very often, the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is also being
mis-understood and mis-applied, freely revising and enhancing the pay
scales across the board. We hope and trust that the Tribunals will exercise
due restraint in the matter. Unless a clear case of hostile discrimination is H
1054 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 2 S.C.R.

A made out, there would be no justification for interfering with the fixation
of pay scales. We have come across orders passed by single Members and
that too quite often Administrative Members, allowing sue~ claims. These
orders have a serious impact on the public exchequer too. It would be in
the fitness of things if all matters relating to pay scales, i.e., matters asking
for a higher pay scale or an enhanced pay scale, as the case may be, on
B one or the other ground, are heard by a Bench comprising atleast one
Judicial Member. The Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal
and the Chairman of the State Administrative Tribunals shall consider
issuing appropriate instructions in the matter.

B.K.S. Appeal allowed.

•