Holding

The two‑grade pay classification for Senior Scientific Assistants, grounded in the arbitration award, is constitutionally valid, but Rule 6(3)(b) that makes Assistant Foremen en bloc junior to them and to Chief Draughtsmen is arbitrary, discriminatory and therefore struck down.

Summary

The case concerned the classification of pay scales and inter‑se seniority of Senior Scientific Assistants, Assistant Foremen and Chief Draughtsmen in the DRDO after the 1995 Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules created two pay grades for Senior Scientific Assistants based on an arbitration award. The Senior Scientific Assistants argued that the bifurcation was arbitrary, while the Assistant Foremen contended that Rule 6(3)(b) of the Rules, which placed them en bloc junior to the Senior Scientific Assistants and Chief Draughtsmen, was discriminatory. The Central Administrative Tribunal upheld the arbitration‑based two‑grade classification but struck down Rule 6(3)(b) as violative of Articles 14 and 16. The Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal’s view, holding that the creation of two pay scales for Senior Scientific Assistants was a valid, incentive‑based classification, but the en bloc junior placement of Assistant Foremen lacked any rational basis and was unconstitutional. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed, leaving the classification of Senior Scientific Assistants intact and striking down Rule 6(3)(b).

Issues considered

The validity of creating two pay scales for Senior Scientific Assistants on the basis of an arbitration award.
Whether Rule 6(3)(b) of the Defence Research and Development Organisation Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 1995, which places Assistant Foremen en bloc junior to Senior Scientific Assistants and Chief Draughtsmen, violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Whether the classification of posts and pay scales constitutes arbitrary or discriminatory treatment.

Subjects

service lawpay scalesequal pay for equal workArticle 14Article 16classificationarbitration awardsenioritypromotionDRDOtechnical cadre

Judgment

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. A
v.
ANIL KUMAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

JULY 13, 1999

[K. VENKATASWAMI AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] B

Service Law :

Pay Scales -Two pay scales within the same grade created-Creation
of pay scales on the basis of award of the Arbitrator-Different pay scales C
created to give incentive-Held, not discriminatory-Constitution of India-
Articles 14 and 16.

Clubbing ofpost to reduce number ofpay scales-Validity of-Defence
Research and Development Organisation Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, D
1995-Rule 6(3)(a)__:(;onstitution of India-Articles 14 and 16.

Seniori~lubbing of posts-Incumbents of one post having higher
salary placed en bloc junior to incumbents of other posts-Defence Research
and Development Organisation Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 1995-
Rule 6(3)(b)-Validity of-Constitution of India-Articles 14 and 16. E

The dispute in the present case relates to the pay scales and inter se
seniority between the Senior Scientific Assistants, Assistant Foremen and
Chief Draughtsmen working in various organisations of the Ministry of
Defence. Initially, the Class-III non-gazetted technical, scientific and non- F
ministerial posts in the Defence Research and Development Organisation
were governed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation
Class III Non-gazetted (Technical, Scientific and Other Non-Ministerial)
Posts Recruitment Rules, 1968. The then existing Organisation was as
under:-
G
Scientific Cadre Technical Cadre Non-Ministerial Cadre

Senior Scientific Foreman Chief Draughtsman
Assistant 2375-3500 2000-3200
1640-2900 H
835
836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 3 S.C.R.

A Junior Scientific Assistant Foreman Draughtsman-I
Assistant-I 2000-3200 1600-2660
1400-2300

Junior Scientific Chargeman-I Draughtsman-II
Assistant-II 1600~2660 1400-2300
B 1320-2040

Chargeman-11 Draughtsman-ill
1400-2300 1200-2040

C The Senior Scientific Assistants raised a dispute and claimed a higher
pay scale than· 1640-2900 on the ground that Assistant Foremen were getting
a higher pay. scale. The matter was ultimately referred to Arbitration. The
-
Board of Arbitration accepted the claim of Senior Scientific Assistants and
Draughtsmen for higher pay scale and it created two grades in the level of
Senior scientific Assistant and Draughtsman. The proportion of posts to be
D allocated to the enhanced pay scale was to be proportionate to that obtaining
in the Foreman category vis a vis the highest grade of Assistant Foreman.

On the basis of the Award of the Board of Arbitration, 822 posts out
of the total posts of 1677 of Senior Scientific Assistants were given benefit
of the higher pay scale of 2375-3500 by the Government. The rest of the
E posts continued to be in the pay scale of 1640-2900.

In 1995, the service rules were amended and the Defence Research and
Development Organisation Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 1995 came
into force. By Rule 6(3)(a) the posts of Senior Scientific Assistant in the pay
scale of 1640-2900, Chief Draughtsman in the pay scale of 2000-3200,
F Assistant Foreman, Draughtsman Grade I and Chargeman Grade I were
clubbed together. The new grade was designated as Senior Technical Assistant
and was to act as a feeding cadre for promotion to Technical Officer 'A'. The
pay scale of the newly created grade was to be 1640-2900. By Rule 6(3)(b),
the incumbents of posts of Assistant Foreman were made en bloc junior to
G the incumbents of posts of Senior Scientific Assistants and Chief
Draughtsman. Under FR 23, the employees were given an option to opt for
their old pay scales.

Some Senio.r Scientific.Assistants challenged the bifurcation of their
grade and creation of two pay scales as arbitrary and discriminatory. On the
H other hand, the Assistant Foreman challenged the validity of Rule 6(3)(b) of
U.O.l. v. ANIL KUMR 837
the Defence Research and Development Organisation Technical Cadre A
Recruitment Rules, 1995 on the ground that their en bloc placement below
the incum~ents of Senior Scientific Assistant and Chief Draughtsman was
illegal and arbitrary. They further claimed that their placement in the newly
created grade of Senior Technical Assistant in the pay scale of 1640-2900
by virtue of Rule 6(3)(a) of the Defence Research and Development
Organisation Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 1995 amounted to their B
demotion as their pay scale was higher than that of Senior Scientific
Assistant, Chargeman Grade-I and Draughtsman Grade-I.

The Government defended the validity of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Defence
Research and Development Organisation Technical Cadre R,ecruitment Rules, C
1995 on the ground that while Senior Scientific Assistant and Chief
Draughtsman could be directly promoted to the next higher post of Junior
Scientific Officer, Assistant Foreman had to be promoted as Foreman before
receiving further promotion to the post of Junior Scientific Officer. However,
it was not claimed by the Government that the qualification of Senior Scientific
Assistant or Chief Draughtsman was higher than that of Assistant Foreman. D

The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the application of the
Senior Scientific Assistant holding that the Award of the Board of Arbitration
was made at the instance of the Senior Scientific Assistant themselves and
thus, was binding in nature. The Tribunal further observed that ifthere is E
still any dispute, the aggrieved parties may make appropriate representations
before the 5th Pay Commission.

In respect of the applications filed by the Assistant Foreman, the
Central Administrative Tribunal upholding the validity of Rule 6(3)(a) and
striking down Rule 6(3)(b) of the Defence Research and Development F
Organisation Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 1995 held :-

(a) that the clubbing of posts did not amount to reduction in rank
of the incumbents of Assistant Foreman and Rule 6(3)(a) of the
Defence Research and Development Organisation Technical
Cadre Recruitment Rules, 1995 is not arbitrary and G
unconstitutional.
(b) that Rule 6(3)(b) of the Defence Research and Development
Organisation Technical cadre Recruitment Rules, 1995 insofar
as it places all Assistant Foreman en bloc junior to Chief
Draughtsman and Senior Scientific Assistant is arbitrary. H
838 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 3 S.C.R.

A The Senior Scientific Assistants filed appeals before this Court
challenging the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting their
application. Union oflndia also filed an appeal before this Court against the ·
order of the Central Administrative Tribunal quashing Rule 6(3)(b) of the
Defence Research and Development Organisation Technical Cadre
Recruitment Rules, 1995.
B
Dismissing the appeals, this Court

HELD : 1.1. The Centntl Administrative Tribunal had rightly rejected
the applications of the Senior Scientific Assistants as it did not find any
illegality or unconstitutionally in the classification of two grades of the
C Senior Scientific Assistants particularly when the classification was shown
to have been made on the basis of an. award in which the Senior Scientific
Assistants themselves were shown to have demanded two pay-scales. The
Central Administrative Tribunal permitted them to make appropriate
representation to the 5th Pay Commission which at that time was going into
D the question of revision of pay-scales of the Government staff for resolving
the anomaly, if any, by giving them the appropriate relief being a body
comprising of experts aware of the difficulties faced by different sections of
the services. (850-G-H; 851-A]

t.2. Where everything was found to be equal a!ld relevant consideration
E being the same, persons holding identical posts should not normally be
treated differently in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to
different departments. However, if officers of the same rank perform
dissimilar functions and the powers and duties and responsibilities of the --.
posts held by them vary, such officers cannot be heard to complain of dissimilar
pay merely because the posts were of the same rank and the nomenclature.
F The Admini~tration can provide two pay scales in the·same category of posts.
Making such provision is normally done ltith the object of providing incentives
to the employees who have no outlets or very limited outlets for promotion
to higher posts. (848-D-E-H]

G Kishori Mohan/al Bakshi v. Union of India, AIR (1962) SC 1139;
Randhir Singh v. Unir.Jn of India & Ors., [1982) 3 SCR 298; La/it Mohan
Deb & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1973] 3 SCC 862 and Union of India
& Ors. v. S.S. Ranade, (1995] 4 SCC 462, relied on.

P. Savita & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1985] Supp. SCC 94;
H Jagdish Prasad Sinha & Ors. v. Bhagwat Prasad & Ors., (1989] 3 SCC 610;
-- \

U.0.1. v. ANIL KUMR 839
Jaghnath v. Union ofIndia & Anr., [1992] Suppl. 2 SCC 105 and U.P. Rajya A
Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Workman, [1989] Supp. 2 SCC 424,
distinguished.

State of U.P. & Ors., v. J.P. Chauasia & Ors., [1989] 1 SCC 121,
referred to.
B
1.3. Different pay scales were granted to a number of Senior Scientific
Assistant on the basis of the award at the instance of the Association of the
Senior Scientific Assistants with the objective of giving them incentives.
There was no intention of creating any discrimination. (849-G]

2.1. Placement of Assistant Foreman along with Chargeman-I and C
Draughtsman-I in the new level of Senior Technical Assistant does not
amount to demotion of the Assistant Foreman to the lower level. In the
restructured set up the Assistant Foremen have been placed en bloc senior
to incumbents of Chargeman-I and Draughtsman-I. [855-C]
D
2.2. The department has attempted to streamline and simplify the
service rules and in this endeavour, they have decided to reduce the number
of levels and the number of pay scales. In such a situation when levels and
pay-scales are reduced, it becomes inevitable to group together some of the
categories which were earlier kept separate and place them at the appropriate
levels. In this process, some employees have received substantial benefits as E
in the case of Chargeman-1, whereas for other cadres, their existing
entitlements have in any case been safeguarded. No service rule can satisfy
each employee and reasonableness should be considered from the stand point
of justice of the majority. [855-D-G; 856-A-D]
. 2.3. The Assistant Foremen in the Defence Research and Development F
Organisation were earlier categorised as Group 'C' and in the new set up
as Senior Technical Assistant they have been conferred with Group 'B' non-
gazetted status which showed that there was no reduction in their status in
the restructured set up. [857-B]
G
3.1. The action of putting the Assistant Foremen en bloc junior to the
Senior Scientific Assistants was without any rationale or valid basis which
has rightly been held to be arbitrary being violative of the fundamental rights
guaranteeing equality in service matters. [859-A]

3.2. For a Welfare State, healthy and energetic civil services is a H
840 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 3 S.C.R.

A guarantee for good administrative system entrusted with the governance for
the establishment of a rule of law. Security of tenure and the service conditions
of the employee is of paramount consideration to achieve the goals for having
an effective and vibrant civil service in the society. No Government can resort
to actions depriving the benefits to a section of the service en bloc which
admittedly is to their disadvantage. Such en bloc deprivation of the promotional
B avenues and service benefits cannot be sustained when no cogent reasons are
assigned by the administrative set up. Resort to differential treatment in the
service can be had· only for achieving the efficiency in the service or any
other specified objective declared to be attained. No discrimination can be
permitted only at the whims of the administration or to satisfy another
C section of the civil service. The Union oflndia in this case has not been in
a position to justify the differential treatment made to the Assistant Foremen
by putting them en bloc junior to the Scientific Assistants particularly when
they have all along been found to be enjoying better position and higher
grade as compared to the Senior Scientific Assistants in the junior pay-
scale. [859-C-E]
D
R.K. Sethi and Anr. v. Oil & Natural Gas Commission & Ors., [1997]
10 sec 616, relied on.

State of Mahrashtra & Anr. v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni & Ors.,
E [1981] 4 SCC 130 and S.P. Shivprasad Pipal v. Union ofIndia & Ors., [1998]
4 sec 598, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7314 of 1997
Etc. Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.8.96 of the Central Administrative
F
Tribunal Bangalore in O.A. No. 2311 of 1995.

C.S. Vaidyanathan, Additional Solicitor General, V.C. Mahajan, Raju
Ramachandran, V.C. Mahajan, Shiv Ram, K.P. G. Kutty, T.A. Khan, Ms. Anubha
Jain, A.K. Sharma, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Makarand D. Adkar, S.D. Singh, Vishwajit
G Singh and S. Ravindra Bhat for the Appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SETHI, J. Claims, rival claims and counter claims of the Senior Scientific
Assistants (Junior Grade) in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 the Assistant
H Foremen in the grade of Rs. 2000-3200 and Chief Draughtsman in the junior
U.0.1. v. ANIL KUMR [SETHI, J.] ~ 841
r grade of Rs. 200<>-3200 in the Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), A
Electronics and Radar Development Establishment (EARDE) and Gas Turbine
Research Institute (GTRI) in the Defence Research and Development
Organisation (DRDO) before implementation ofDRTC are sought to be settled
in these appeals which arise out of the orders passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunals of Bangalore and Bombay Benches.
B
Appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 7316-7317 /97 had filed OAs 2001 &
2041/95 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench , praying for
the issuance of direction to declare that their inclusion as Senior Scientific
Assistants in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 appointed upto 25-8-1995 in the
grade IV of the DRDO Technical Cadre Research Recruitment Rules was C
arbitrary and discriminatory. They prayed for a further direction to the
respondents to include all such SSAs also in grade II of category III alongwith
Foremen and SSAs (senior grade) in pay-scale of Rs. 2375-3500 and for
granting them all the consequential benefits. The applications are shown to
have been filed on behalf of the Scientific Workers Association which was
claimed to be the recognised association by the Government of India. D

Civil Appeal No. 7315/97 has also been filed by and on behalf of the
Scientific and Technical Workers Association through Shri P.N. Choudhary
against the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore
Bench, passed in O.A. 2311/95 dated 19-8-1996. The aforesaid Original E
Application was filed by the Assistant Foremen in the pay-scale of Rs. 2000-
3200 serving in the Defence Research and Development Organisation. They
had been brought over to the newly designated level of Senior Technical
Assistant (STA) as per the Defence Research and Development Organisation
Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 1995 (DRTC Rules 1995). Their plea was
that their placement at the level of STA in the scale of pay of Rs. 1640-2900 F
alongwith Senior Scientific Assistants (SSAs), Chief Draughtsman (CDM),
Chargeman, Grade-I, (CM-I) and Draughtsman Grade-I (DM-1) was arbitrary
and unconstitutional. They specifically challenged Rule 6(3)(b) of the DRTC
Rules, 1995 which had placed them en bloc junior to the incumbents of the
erst;vhile cadre of Chief Draughtsman and Senior Scientific Assistants while G
determining their seniority in the new grade of STA. They prayed for their
placement at a level higher than that of the SSA, Chargeman Grade-I,
Draughtsman Grade-I by assigning a pay--scale either equivalent to or higher
than the scale in which they were drawing pay as Assistant Foremen. Their
application was disposed of by the Tribunal holding that the rule 6(3)(b) of
the J?TRC Rules, 1~95 in so far as it sought to place the Assistant Foremen H
842 • SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 3 S.C.R.

A en bloc junior to CDMs in the scale of pay of Rs. 2000-3200 and SSAs in the
scale of pay of Rs. 1640-2900 was discriminatory and liable to be struck down.
The Tribunal further directed the Department to amend rule 6(3 )(b) of the
DRTC Rules, 1995 to provide that the inter se seniority of the incumbents of
the posts of CDMs, SSAs and also Assistant Foremen shall be drawn on the
B basis of the length of their regular service in their original relative seniority
in such grades. It was further directed that the applicants therein be ranked
en bloc senior to the incumbents of the posts' of Draughtsman (Grade-I) and
Chargeman Grade-I. Directions for promotion from the level of the STA to the
Technical Officer (A) was also ordered to be carried out.
"'""'-
C Civil Appeal No. 7314/97 is an appeal filed by the Union of India against
the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench,
in Original Application No. 2311/95 quashing Rule 6(3)(b) of the DRTC Rules,
1995.

Civil Appeal Nos. 3338/96 and 3339/96 have been filed against the
D orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, by which
various applications filed by the Scientific Staff Association and its Members
were dismissed with the observation that "the question of relativities in the
pay-scale of different cadres, in the present case between technical and
scientific cadres of the ORD and DGI is essentially a matter for expert bodies
E and even after implementation of the award, if there are any disputes still to
be resolved, they are required to be resolved by making appropriate
representations to the Vth Pay Commission which is at present going into the
question of revision of pay-scale of Central Government staff." The petitioners
had made similar prayers projecting the grievances of the SSAs (Junior Grade)
as were considered and noticed by the Bangalore Bench of the Central
F Administrative Tribunal. The Bombay Bench of the Central Administrative
Tribunal noticed that the total number of posts of SSAs in DRDO was 1677
of which 822 posts had been given the benefit of higher pay-scale on the
basis of an award passed keeping in view the length of service of the SSAs
on the basis of the Arbitration Award.

G Before amendment of the Rules in 1995 the promotion to the post 't>f
JSO( Junior Scientific Officer) was made out of the SSA, Foremen and Chief
Draughtsman. The then existing organisation was as under :-

Scientist 'B'

H JSO
U.0.l. v. ANIL KUMR [SETHI, J.] 843
SSA Foreman Chief Draughstman A
'
2375-3500 2375-3500 2375-3500

1640-2900 2000-3200

JSA-I Asstt.Foreman Draughtsman-I
B
1400-2300 2000-3200 1600-2660

JSA-11 Chargeman-I Draughtsman-II

1320-2040 1600-2660 1400-2300
c
Chargeman-II Draughtsman-III

1400-2300 1200-2040

After amendment the posts of SSAs in the grade of Rs. 1640-2900,
Chief Draugahtsman (CDM) in the grade of Rs. 2000-3200 and Assistant D
Foreman were clubbed together and designated as Senior Technical Assistants
in the pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900 being the feeding cadre for promotion
(TOA). Whereas the grievance of the Senior Scientific Assistant in the pay-
scale of Rs. 1640-2900 was that their placement in the junior grade was
unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the E
Assistant Foremen felt that their en bloc placement as junior to the SSAs

- in the grade of Rs. 1640-2900 was arbitrary and illegal. As noticed earlier the
applicants specifically challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 6(3)(b) of
the DRTC Rules, 1995. After the amendment of the Rules and creation of the
posts of Senior Technical Assistant being eligible for promotion to TOA, their
grievance in so far as it related to promotion has lost all its significance. F
However, ifthe SSAs in the grade of Rs. 1640-2900 are granted relief as prayed
for by giving them the grade of Rs. 2375-3500 the position would be totally
different as they would be deemed to have automatically been promoted as
TOA being eligible for promotion to TOB. It is, therefore, necessary. to
adjudge their claims first before deciding the other appeals.
G
_.. The erstwhile SSAs, SS grade II have submitted that the bifurcation of
SSAs cadre with effect from 1992 is arbitrary as there does not exist any
rational for the classification . It is further submitted that the creation of two
pay-scales in the grade of SSAs was imaginary and artificial. All SSAs are
alleged to be performing the same nature of work. Referring to the job H
844 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 3 S.C.R.

A description part, it is contended that there is no distinction whatsoeyer
between the differen~ levels or categories of SSAs. Even before the arbitration
it was pointed out that Government had virtually accepted the case of SSAs
for parity of pay~scales. There is no legal basis for putting the .SSAs in
different categories i.e. Technical Officer 'A' and Senior Technical Assistant
respectively in the matter of eligibility for promotion. It is alleged that the
B Government has admitted that the higher scale of SSAs is a non-functional
selection grade which would not justify the split up of the SSAs for the
purpose of further promotion under the amended Rules of I 995. The splitting
up is alleged to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution oflndia.
They have also relied upon the doctrine of ' equal pay for equal work.'
C According to them an anomaly had crept in the pay-scale allowed to the SSAs
with effect from 1-1-1973 consequent upon the implementation of the
recommendation of the 3rd Pay Commission. It was contended that the maximum
of the pay-scale of the SSAs and Foremen used to be essentially equal and
the maximum of the Assistant Foreman scale was less than that of the SSAs
till the 2nd Pay Commission. They relied upon the letter dated 30-8-1973
D issued by the R&E Headquarters indicating that the matter had been taken
up with the higher authorities. Consequently, the matter was referred to the
Expert Classification Committee and ultimately to the Arbitration in terms of
JCM Scheme. After the award was submitted the order impugned before the
Central Administrative Tribunal was issued. The Arbitration Award had
E recommended for its implementation from 22-9-1982 but the Government issued
orders for its implementation only with effect from 1-1-1988.

The appellant~Association in their application before the Central
Administrative Tribunal had assailed the award passed by the Arbitration and
the order dated 11-11-1988 issued by the Government in consequence thereof.
F ., It was submitted that the impugned award and the order were both vitiated
on account of alleged unreasonable classification, discrimination and arbitrary
action of the respondent.

The prayer itself appears to be self-contradictory. If the award of the
G Arbitration was set aside, there was not question of giving any relief to SSAs
(Junior Grade) as admittedly the higher grade for which they had staked claim
was given on the basis of the recommendation made by the Board of
Arbitration who had given the award in consequence of the reference made
at the instance of the SSAs Thus the setting aside of the award in no. case
benefited the appellants. Otherwise, also it is evident that the reference to the
H Arbitration was made at the instance of the scientific staff employees in
U.0.1. v. ANIL KUMR [SETHI, J.] 845
various Directorates of the Ministry of Defence who had claimed their A
entitlement to the pay-scales and grades structments namely, level I-Rs. 380-
560, level II-Rs. 425-700, level III Rs. 550-900 level IV Rs. 840-1040 and if so
in what promotion.

It was alleged before the Board of Arbitration that the duties and
responsibilities of the Senior Scientific Assistants were not less than those B
of the Foremen. However, while the Senior Scientific Assistants were in the
pay scale of Rs. 840-1040. The educational qualifications of the scientific staff
were stated to be higher than that of the Foremen. They alleged that promotion
avenue for both the categories being the same i.e. Junior Scientific Officer,
there was no justification for not giving them the same pay scale as was being C
given to the Foremen. After considering all pros and cons of the matter, the
Board of Arbitration passed the following award :-

I. (a) The demand of the staff side for the grant of pay scale of
Rs. 840-1040. to Senior Scientific Assistants and Draughtsman
working in the Research & Development Organisation and the D
Directorate General of Inspection (both in the Ministry of
Defence) is accepted. This pay will be addition to those which
are already admissible to these categories in the said two
-+ organisations.

(b) The proportion of posts to be allocated in the above E
mentioned new pay scale should broadly bear the same
proportion as that obtaining at present in the foremen category
vis a vis the highest grade of Assistant Foreman in the said
organisation.

(c) The demand for introduction of the scale of pay of Rs. 840- F
1040 in respect of the Draughtsman working in other organisations
of the Ministry of Defence is rejected.

2. The demand of the staff side for the introduction of a new pay
scale of Rs. 700-900 to be made available to storekeeping staff
employed in all the Directorates of the Ministry of Defence G
(wherever not applicable at present) is accepted. The proportion
of posts in this new scale of pay shall be 20% of the post in the
next lower grade.
3. The demand of the staff side of the introduction of the pay scale
of Rs. 380-560 as Grade I for Civilian Motor Drivers working in H
846 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 3 S.C.R.

A the various Directorates of the Ministry of Defence is accepted.
This will be treated as a selection grade and 20% of the posts
of Drivers in the scale Rs. 320-400 will be placed in the grade
in Rs. 380-560.
4. This Award will come into operation with effect from the 22nd
B September, 1982."

Acting upon the award of the Arbitration the Government of India vi de
Order dated 11.11.1988 upgraded the post of Scientific Assistants in RDO
and DGI to the extent as under :-

c Existing Revised No. of Post of
Scale Scale SSAs to be given
the Scale in Col(ii)

(i) (ii) (ill)
D
InDRDO InDGOA

As per 3rd Rs.550- Rs.840-

pay 900 1040
E
Commission's

Report

As per 4th Rs.1640- Rs. 2375- 822 101
F Pay 2900 3500
Commission's

It was specifically mentioned that the upgradation of the post was on
G the basis of the award of the Arbitration and as per annexures attached
therewith. The recruitment rules were to be amended suitably in due course.
It is on record that the total number of post of SSAs in the DRDO were 1677
of which 822 posts were given the benefit of higher pay scales. It is not
denied before us that the upgradation of post and grant of higher pay scales
had been done on the basis of the experience and length of service. The
H Central Administrative Tribunal was, therefore, justified in holding :
U.0.1. v. ANIL KUMR [SETHI, J.] 847
"It is not disputed that the claim of SSAs who belong to scientific A
cadre is for parity with the technical cadre to which Asstt. Foreman
and Forman belong. It was in this background that after protracted
deliberations and negotiations the matter stood referred to Board of
Arbitration for a final decision and the Board of Arbitration decided
to give the higher revised scale to the Sr. SSAs in the same proportion B
on the date of award as that between Foremen and Assistant Foreman
on Technical side in the concerned organisation i.e. DRDO and DBI.
According to us, although Savita's judgment proceeds on the
undiluted doctrine of equal pay for equal work, there has been further
evaluation of the doctrine as revealed by the Supreme Court judgment
in Jaghnath v. Union of India., It is now well settled that several C
factors are required to be gone into before fixing the pay scale and
one of the relevant factors is the historical background in which a
particular decision relating to pay fixation is taken. In our view, keeping
the ratio in Jagannath' s case and dispute in view the background of
the whole dispute and keeping in view the nature of the JCM scheme D
in which the staff association as well as individual members of staff
are required to be held to the binding nature of the arbitration award
with its modified date of implementation as confirmed by Supreme
Court, the Tribunal should be chary before unsettling settled issues,
especially after protractred litigation. There should be a finality to
such disputes. The question relativities in the pay scales of different E
cadres, in the present case between kchnical and scientific cadres of
the DRD and DGI is essentially a matter for expert bodies and even
after the -implementation of the award, if there are any disputes still
to be resolved, they are required to be resolved by making appropriate
representations to the 5th Pay Commission which is at present going F
into the question of revision of pay scale of Central Government Staff.
We are, therefore, not satisfied that this is a fit case in which we
should interfere. We have already given the reasons as to why the
various contentions raised by the applicants in support of their prayers
cannot be accepted on a survey of administrative legal grounds." G

A Constitution Bench of this Court in Kishori Mohan/al Bakshi v.
Union of India., AIR (1962) SC 1139 while dealing with alleged violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India on account of the grant of two pay-
scales to Income Tax Officers allegedly doing the same kind of work, held that
incremental scales of pay can be validly fixed dependent on the duration of H
848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 3 S.C.R.

A an officer's service, and in that event the abstract doctrine of 'equal pay for
equal work' cannot be invoked with the aid of argument of the claimants
therein the Court held that :-

"It is fantastic to suppose that Article 16 of the Constitution forbids
the creation of different grades in the government service; that is
B what the petitioner's argument amounts to. The contention that Article
16 has been violated because Class II Income Tax Officers are not
eligible for promotion to higher posts, like the post of Commissioners
and Assistant Commissioners directly is, therefore, wholly unsound."

While dealing with the Preamble of the Constitution and Articles 14, 16
C and 39(d) of the Constitution, this Court again in Randhir Singh v. Union of
India & Ors., [1982] 3 SCR 298, held that whereas it was true that equation
of posts and equation of pay were the matters for the Executive Government
and expert bodies like the Pay Commission and not for the Courts but where
everything was found to be equal and relevant consideration being the same,
D persons holding identical posts should not normally be treated differently in
the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments.
If officers of the same rank perform dissimilar functions and the powers and
duties and responsibilities of the posts held by them vary, such officers
cannot be heard to complain of dissimilar pay merely because the posts were
E of the same rank and the nomenclature. While dealing with the gradation in
the service the Court declared that "it is well known that there can be and
there are different grades in a service, with varying qualifications for entry
into a particular grade, the higher grade often being a promotional avenue for
officers of the lower grade. The higher qualifications for the higher grade,
which may be either academic qualification or experience based on length of
F service, reasonably sustain the classification of the officers into two grades
with different scales of pay. The principle of equal pay for equal work would
be an abstract doctrine not attracting Article 14 if sought to be applied to
them."

G Again iry La/it Mohan Deb & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1973] 3
SCC 862 the Court considered the position of Assistants in Civil Secretariat,
Tripura as against the position of Assistants (Selection Grade) and held that
the Administration can provide two pay scales in the same category of posts.
Making such a provision is normally done with the object ·of providing
incentives to the employees who have no outlays or very limited outlets for
H promotion to higher posts. In this context it was observed :
U.O.I. v. ANIL KUMR [SETHI, J.] 849
"It is well recognised that a promotion post is a higher post with a A
higher pay. A selection grade has higher pay but in the same post.
A selection grade is intended to ensure that capable employees who
may not get a chance of promotion on account of limited outlets of
promotion should at least be placed in the selection grade to prevent
stagnation on the maximum of the scale. Selection grades are, therefore,
created in the interest of greater efficiency." B
To the same effect is the judgment of this Court in Union of India &
Anr. v. S.S. Ranade, [1995] 4 SCC 462 wherein the Court held:-

"In the present case, an element of selection is involved in granting
selection grade because there is no automatic promotion to the C
selection grade pay scale. But this factor is not decisive. In the
present case also, as in the above cases, Selection Grade posts are
created entirely for the purpose of granting some relief to those who
have very limited avenues of getting promotion to a higher post. That
is why a higher pay or pay scale is granted in the same post. Thus, D
by its very nature, a selection grade post cannot be considered as a
higher post for the purposes of Rules 9."
In support of the claim of the appellants Shri Raju Ramachandran, the
learned senior counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in P. Savita &
Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1985] Supp. SCC 94 and submitted that the E
classification of the Senior Scientific Assistants in the same department
merely on the basis of the seniority was unconstitutional. The submission
though attractive on the face of it yet is without substance when examined
in depth. In that case, the Court was considering the classification of Senior
Draughtsman holding identical posts discharging identical duties in the same
department and where the selection to the higher scale was based on seniority- F
cum-fitness instead of merit-cum-seniority. The Court agreed with the
conclusions arrived at in the Randhir Singh 's case (supra) and finding of
facts of the case before it different held, "for the purpose of the case on hand,
it is sufficient to note that classificittion between two groups of Senior
Draughtsman is without any basis." As noticed earlier, in the instant case, G
a
pay-scales were granted to number of Senior Scientific Assistants on the
basis of the award at the instance of the appellant-association with the
objective of giving them incentives. There was no intention of creating any
discrimination as has been argued before us. The reliance of the learned
counsel for the appellant on the judgment of this Court in U.P. Rajya Sahakari
Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd v. Workmen, [1989] Supp. 2 SCC 424, is also H
..~

850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 3 S.C.R.

A misplaced inasmuch as in that case this Court had considered the validity of
the award of the Industrial Tribunal which had found on facts that the
workmen doing similar type of work were entitled to equal pay. The Court
observed thus :-

"The Tribunal's finding that both the groups were doing .the same
B type of work has rightly not been challenged by the employer-Bank
as it is a pure finding of fact. If irrespective of classification of junior
and senior groups, the same work was done by both, the principle of
equal pay for equal work is definitely attracted and on the finding of
fact the Tribunal was justified in applying the principle to give the
same benefit to those who had been left out. We see no justification
c in the stand of the employer-Bank and the challenge is without merit.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The parties are directed to bear
their own costs in this Court."

The judgment of this Court in Jagdish Parsad Sinha & Ors. v. Bhagwat
D Prasad & Ors., [1989] 3 SCC 610 does not either help the appellants. In that
case the Court held the bifurcati0n in the validly constituted cadre merely for
providing equal promotional avenues to those beyond eligible zone in the
undivided cadre unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. Such is not the position in the present case.

E In Jagannath v. Union ofIndia & Anr., [I 992] Supp. 2 SCC 105 relied
upon by the appellants the Court held contrary to what has been argued
before us. Relying upon its earlier judgment in State of U.P. & Ors. v. J.P.
Chaurasia & Ors. [1989] 1 SCC 121 it was held that the classification can be
based on some qualities or characteristics of persons grouped together and
not in others who are left out. Those qualities or characteristics must, of
F course, have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In
. service matters, merit or experience could.be the proper basis for classification
to promote efficiency in the administration. It was further observed that the
quality of work performed by persons of longer experience was superior than
the work of new comers.
G
We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Central Administrative Tribunal
had rightly rejected the applications of the appellants as it did not find any
illegality or unconstitutionality in the classification of two grades of the SSAs
particularly when the classification was shown to have been made on the
basis of an award in which the SSAs themselves were shown to have demanded
H two pay-scales.
U.0.1. v. ANIL KUMR [SETHI, J.] 851
However to give a finality to the dispute raised by the appellants, the A
Central Administrative Tribunal permitted them to make appropriate
representation to the 5th Pay Commission which at that time was going into
the question of revision of pay-scales of the government staff for resolving
the anomaly, if any, by giving them the appropriate relief being a body
comprising of experts aware of the difficulties faced by different sections of
the services. B

In the other set of appeals, the respondents Assistant Foremen in the
Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) approached the
Central Administrative Tribunal with prayer to declare Rule 3(a) and 3(b) of
the DRTC Rules 1995 as illegal and unconstitutional, with a further direction C
that the rule making authorities were bound to place them in an appropriate
newly designated post either in the pay-scale of Rs. 2000-3200 or of the higher
pay-scale and not in the lower pay-scale was done vide the impugned rules.

- They contended that the Defence Research and Development Organisation
under the control of Ministry of Defence, the Class III non-gazetted technical
scientific and non-ministerial posts were earlier governed by the Recuritment D
Rules issued under SR 230 called "Defence Research and Development
Organisation Class III non-gazetted (technical scientific and other non-
ministerial) post Recruitment Rules 1968'', dated 26.6.1968. The cadre of Chief
Draughtsman, Draughtsman Grade I came under non-ministerial cadre and the
cadre of Chargeman Grade I, and Assistant Foreman under the techr:cal E
,4
cadre. The Cadre of Senior Scientific Assistance came under the scier 1tific
cadre. The cadres of Senior Scientific Assistants on the scientific cadre and
Chargeman Grade I and Draughtsman Grade I on the non-ministerial cac. re had
the pay-scales lower than that of pay-scales of the Assistant Foremai, ani.
the cadre of Chief Draughtsman on the non-ministerial cadre had the same
pay-scale of Rs. 2000-3200 as that of the cadre of Assistant Foreman on the F
technical cadre. Jn the technical cadre there were four stages and the post of
Foreman was the highest on the technicai cadre. On the non-ministerial cadre
there were 5 stages and the post of Chief Draughtsman was the highest post
in the non-gazetted cadre Class III post under the 1968 Rules. According to
the Assistant Foreman, the official joining the service as Chargeman Grade G
II or Draughtsman Grade II had to pass through three stages to reach the
cadre of Foreman or Chief Draughtsman. On the contrary, in the scientific
cadre there were only two stages to reach the post of Senior Seientific
Assistants. The promotional prospects in so far as the post held on the
technical cadre and non-min~sterial cadre were concerned, was very less as
compared to the posts in scientific cadre under the said rules. The promotions H
852 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 3 S.C.R.

A to the post of JSO were made on the basis of the common seniority of the
posts of Chief Draughtsman, Foreman and Senior Scientific Assistants as per
the SR0-166 dated 17-6-1985. The ration fixed for different categories was
Chief Draughtsman 4%. Foreman 12% and Senior Scientific Assistants 84%
for the purpose of promotion to the cadre of JSO. The said percentage was
revised vide SR0-13E dated 8-11-1988 by fixing as Chief Draughtsman 7%,
B Foreman 10% and Senior Scientific Assistants 83% which according to the
Assistant Foreman pennitted the creating in of anomalies in the rules providing
very meagre chances of promotion to the officials holding post on the technical
and non-technical ministerial cadres. The Defence Research and Development
Organisation, Junior Scientific Officers Recruitment Rules 1980 vide SRO 81
C dated 8-3-1980, provided the post of Foreman in the pay-scale of Rs. 840-1040
by making it a feeder cadre for promotion to the post of JSO in the pay-scale
of Rs. 650-1200. While providing promotional avenues on the technical and
non-technical cadres the authorities were stated to have taken into
consideration that the said cadre would have lessor credential and experience
on the scientific cadre and as such the post having the pay scale of Rs.840-
D 1040 and Rs. 700-900 as per the 3rd Pay Commission were treated as feeder
cadre for the promotion to the cadre of JSO. Union of India then framed the
new rules of 1995 vide SRO 177 dated 16-8-1995 which were made effective
from 26-8-1995. The rules were apparently framed to restructure the scientific
and technical cadres and to create new organistation service called 'DRTC'
E with the intention to rationalise the cadre structure, to remove disparity in the
career prospects by providing reasonable promotional opportunities to group
B and C scientific and technical staff in the DRDO Organisation. It was
however alleged that the amended rules provided several anomalies detrimental
to the rights and interest of the Assistant Foreman which affected their status
and service conditions adversely. It was submitted that the cadre of Senior-
F Scientific Assistant had the pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900 and there were as
many as 1072 posts in the said cadre. Similarly, in the cadre of Chief Draughtsman
the pay-scale was Rs.2000-3200 being equivalent to the pay-scale of the
Assistant Foreman. The cadre of Draughtsman Grade I and Chargeman Grade
I which were included in the Rule 3(a) to have the scales lower than that of
G the pay-scales of Assistant Foreman. The amended rules further provide that
the existing employees holding posts shown in Schedule I attached therewith
shall have rights to opt for their old pay-scales. The Assistant Foremen made
representations against the alleged injustice done to them submitting that
having the pay-scale of Rs.2000-3200 they have been put in long period of
service to reach the said post having equivalent or higher qualification than
H ' cadres namely, SSAs, Chargeman Grade I, Draughtsman
that of the other
U.0.1. v. ANIL KUMR (SETHI, J.] 853
Grade I and the Chief Draughtsman. It was contended that the status of the A
representationist as compared on the basis of the pay-scales was equivalent
to that of the JSO and as such their status could either be made higher or
eqll;ivalent to that of the Senior Scientific Assistants, Draughtsman Grade I,
and Chargeman Grade II. The cadre of SSAs and Chief Draughtsman was
bifurcated into two groups based on their pay-scales as the purpose of the B
new tules was stated to be for merging the cadres and creating a new cadre
on the basis of the pay-scale which the officials were drawing at the time of
framing of the said rules. No discrimination infringing the rights and status
of Assistant Foreman could be made particularly when it deprived them
promotional avenues. The official working as Senior Scientific Assistants in
the pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900 and Draughtsman Grade I and Chargeman C
Grade I in the pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900 could not be equated and treated
at par with the cadre of Assistant Foreman as was intended to be done vide
Rule 3(b). They prayed for :-

"Quash the impugned Rules 3(a) and 3(b) of the Reference Research D
& Development Organisation Technical Cadre Recuritment Rules 1995,
as per SR0-177 dated 16-8-1995, in so far as they relate to inclusion
and merger of the cadre of Assistant Foreman alongwith the cadres
of Chief Draughtsman, Senior Scientific Assistant, Chargeman Grade
I and Draughtsman Grade I and placing the applicants in Grade I of
category III Schedule II in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900, vide Annexure E
'A6' by appropriate order or direction holding that the same are
unconstitutional and ultravires the Constitution of India.

Issue appropriate orders or direction directing the respondents to
frame appropriate rules to make provisions for proper placement of the
cadre of Assistant Foreman in the DRTC Rules, 1995, vide Annexure F
'A6' based on the qualification, experience and the pay scale and
place the cadre of Assistant Foreman over and above the cadres of
Chief Draughtsman, Senior Scientific Assistant, Chargeman Grade I
and Draughtsman Grade I, assigning the pay scale either equivalent
to or higher than the pay scale in which the applicants are presently G
working.

Issue appropriate orders or direction directing the respondents to
maintain the seniority of the cadre of Asstt. Foreman in the newly
designated post on the basis of the pay scale which they are drawing
at present. H
854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 3 S.C.R.

A As already noticed the applications filed by the Assistant Foremen
were disposed of with the following directions/observations :-

(I) We hold that Rule 6(3)(a) of the Defence Research and
Development Organisation Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules,
1995 is not arbitrary or unconstitutional and is not liable to be
-
B struck down.
(2) We strike down Rule 6(3)(b) of the DRTC Rules, 1995 in so far
as it seeks to place all Assistant Foremen en bloc junior to
CDMs in the scale of Rs. 2000-3200 and the SSAs in the scale
of'Rs. 1640-2900 and direct the department to effect necessary
c amendment to this part of the rule before considering and
effecting promotions to the next higher level as stated in the
proceeding para."
Rule 6(3)(a) and (b) of 1995 Rules provided:-

"6(3)(a) All persons holding the posts of Chief Draughtsman and
D Senior Scientific Assistant in the pay scales of Rs. 2000-3200 and Rs.
1640-2900 respectively, the Assistant Foreman, Draughtsmen Grade I
and Chargeman Grade-I shall be placed in grade-I of Category III.
(b) The inter se seniority of the incumbents of the posts of Chief
Draughtsman and Senior Scientific Assistant shall first be drawn on
E the basis of length of their regular service in their respective grades
subject to maintenance of their original relative seniority in such
grades and they shall rank en bloc senior to the incumbents of the
posts of Assistant Foreman."
It was argued on behalf of the Assistant Foreman that their placement
F in the level of STA vide 1995 rules was in the nature of demotion and
amounted to infliction of a penalty because they were allowed post of STA
in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 whereas before amendment they were
drawing the pay-scale of Rs. 2000-3200. It was further contended that the
effect of the new rules was to demote them to the lower level of Chargeman
G Grade I which in fact was the feeding cadre. It was argued that the mere fact
that they were given the option to opt for their old pay scales under FR 23
could not cure the illegality. They had prayed for being equated with Junior
Scientific Officers. Dealing with this aspect of the matter the Central
Administrative Tribunal held :-

H "There is no substance in the argument that placement of the Assistant
U.0.1. v. ANIL KUMR [SETHI, J.] 855
Foreman at the level of STA in the scale of Rs. 1640-2900 amounts to A
reduction in rank and is in the nature of a penalty. The Assistant
Foreman did not enjoy a status higher than that of the SSA or the
Chief Draughtsman. Of Course, they were superior to Chargeman-I,
which was the feeder cadre for promotion to Assistant Foreman and
also to that of Draughtsman-I which was equivalent to Chargeman-1, B
which was the feeder cadre for promotion to Assistant Foreman and
also to that of Draughtsman-I which was equivalent to Chargeman-1.
We do not, however, agree that placement of Assistant Foreman
alongwith Chargeman-I and Draughstman-I in the new level of STA
virtually amounts to demotion of the Assistant Foreman to the lower
level. In the restructured set up, the Assistant Foreman have been C
placed en bloc senior to the incumbents of Chargeman-1 and
Draughtsman-I. There is no requirement that the earlier hierarchical
structure should be maintained for all time to come. The department
has attempted to streamline and simplify the service rules and in this
endeavour, they have decided to reduce the number of levels and the
number of pay scales. While effecting this re-organistation they had D
retained the scale of Rs.2375-3500 which was given to sections of
CDMs and SSAs as per the Award of the Board of Arbitration and
placed the JSOs in the same bracket but en bloc senior to the erstwhile
Foremen SSAs and CDMs. The decision to retain this scale while
omitting scales of Rs. 2000-3200 seems to be based on rational E
considerations and respondents have denied the allegation of any
bias in favour of SSAs. In any case, the department is competent to
take decision to reduce the number of levels and pay-scales. They are
also competent to decide as to which scale should be retained and
which should be omitted, so long as the same is not arbitrary, we
cannot, therefore, fault the department for retaining the sale of Rs. F
2375-3500 and that of Rs. 1640-2900 while omitting the scale of Rs.
2000-3200. There is a decision to reduce the number of pay scales and
the scale of Rs. 2000-3200 has been omitted and the level of STA has
been constituted in the scale of Rs. 1640-2900. In view of this position,
we cannot direct the Government to re-introduce the scale of Rs. 2000- G
3200 to accommodate the applicants when in any case they have been
given an option to retain this scale under FR 23. In such situation
when levels and pay-scales are reduced, it becomes inevitable to
group together some of the categories which were earlier kept separate
and place them at the appropriate levels. Tlie department has
endeavoured to do so taking into account the existing pay scales, H
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [! 999] 3 S.C.R.

A promotion prospects etc. In this process, some employees have
received substantial benefits as in the case of Chargeman-I, whereas
for other cadres, their existing entitlements have in any case been
safeguarded. The level of satisfaction of some employees like
Chargeman-I will naturally be higher than the others life the Assistant
Foreman but according to the department, the promotional
B opportunities have expended at all levels and the AFMs have been
kept en bloc senior to Chargeman-1. We may in this connection refer
to the second proviso to Rules 8(1) of 1995 Rules which provides that
if a junior is eligible for assessment having completed minimum
residency period all individuals senior to him shall also be eligible for
c assessment. In the new structure, all erstwhile AFMs have been
placed en bloc senior to the feeder cadres and the new placement,
therefore, does not in any way adversely affect the interest of the
AFMs as compared to their earlier position vis-a-vis Chargeman,
Grade-I. No service rule can satisfy each employee and reasonableness
should be considered from the stand point of justice to the majority.
D As such, grouping the AFM, with CM-I in the new set up while
placing AFM, en bloc senior to CM-I and permitting the AFM to
retain the old pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200 under FR 23 does not amount
to demotion of the A.F.M. as alleged.

Promotions to the level of STA will take place from the new cadre
E
of Technical Assistant 'B' in the scale of Rs. 1400-3200. There is no
problem in future as the officials will get promotions to the scale of
Rs. 1640-2900 from that of the scale of Rs. 1400-2300. As regards
. existing incumbents of the AFMs, they have been given an option
under FR 23 to retain their old pay scale. The department have
F submitted a memorandum dated 25.6.1996 where they have stated that
they have apprised the Fifth Central Pay Commission about the old
system of promotion as well as about the new scheme and that
incumbents in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200 are likely to get equivalent
replacement of scales as persona.I to them whereas the replacement
scale to the post of STA will be corresponding to that of 1640-2900.
G As such the applicants need not have any apprehension as stated in
para 5 of the rejoinder statement that they will be asked to work at
a lower level without protection of their higher pay-scale after the pay
scales are revised on the basis of the Fifth Pay Commission's
Recommendations. In any case, such an apprehension is premature
H and jf they feel aggrieved by the decision of the Government on the
U.0.1. v. ANIL KUMR [SETHI, J.] 857
recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission in this regard, it is A
open to them seek appropriate remedies at the relevant time."

It further held that the Assistant Foremen in the DRDO were earlier categorised
as group 'c' and in the new set up as STA they have been conferred with
group 'b' non-gazetted status which showed that there was no reduction in
their status in the restructured set up. We agree with the findings arrived at B
by the Central Administrative Tribunal on appreciation of all relevant facts~
Learned counsel appearing for the Assistant Foreman have also not been
very enthusiastic to challenge the aforesaid finding of Central Administrative
Tribunal.

The validity of Rule 6(3)(b) of 1995 rules was challenged on the ground C
that it sought wrongly to provide the Senior Scientific Assistants and Chief
Draughtsmen en bloc senior to the incumbents of the post of Assistant
Foremen. The reason given to justify the placement of Assistant Foremen en
bloc junior to SSAs and CDMs were in direct line of promotion to the
erstwhile line of JSO whereas Assistant Foreman had to be promoted as
Foreman before receiving further promotion as JSO. It was not claimed by the D
Union of India that the qualifications and status of the SSAs and CDMs were
superior to that of the Assistant Foremen. The pay-scales prescribed for the
erstwhile cadre of Assistant Foremen was admittedly higher than the SSAs.
There does not appear to be any justification for placing the Assistant
Foreman en bloc junior to the CDMs and SSAs. After referring to the rival E
claims of the SSAs and the award of the Board of Arbitration, the Tribunal
held:-

"It is, thus, clear that the award of the Board of Arbitration had
resulted in one more grade being available to SSAs and CDMs before
.. promotion as JSO on the analogy of Assistant Foremen. Even if it is F
contended as has been held by the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal
in Pinto's case, in OA 458 to 500190 disposed of on 30.12.1991 that
the placement of the SSAs in the higher scale does not amount to
promotion for the purpose of operation of the reservation roster, the
fact remains that an upgraded scale was available for sections of the G
SSAs and CDMs and the same was given on the basis of seniority.
subject to rejection of the unfit. It is true that all SSAs irrespective
of their pay-scale were eligible for promotion to the level of JSOs. In
practice, however, in vast majority of cases such promotions would
be given only to SSAs in the higher scale. Appointment to the higher
grade of 2375-3500 was on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness while H
858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 3 S.C.R.

A promotion to the next higher level of JSO was on the basis of selection.
In such a situation, the question of promotion of SSAs in the lower
grade directly as JSOs would not normally arise. Shri M.N. Swamy for
the private respondents has cited some cases of direct promotion to
the level of JSOs from the lower grade of SSAs but these were isolated
instances. In fact, the Tribunal had to intervene in some cases to
B direct the respondents to give higher grade of SSAs to the concerned
officials who were senior. In those cases, the department had found
them meritorious enough for promotion by selection as JSOs, but
denied them the upgraded scale of SSAs even though they were
senior on the ground that they were unfit. We also find from Schedule
c I of the 1995 Rules that at the time of the commencement of these
Rules, the number of posts of JSOs ·was 893. The earlier arrangement
for promotion was on the basis of vacancies and the number of
vacancies in any particular year at the level of JSOs would not be
many. The number of SSAs in both scales was shown as 2394 of
whom about half would have been in the scale of2375-3500. Taking
D into account the quota available for SSAs for promotion to JSOs in
the normal course, only the senior SSAs who were in the higher scale
would have little chance for the junior SSAs in the lower grade for
being promoted directly as JSOs without passing though the higher
scale of 2375-3500. The fact that CDMs and SSAs unlike the AFMs
.E were in direct line of promotion to JSOs, is, therefore, not a good
ground to support the department's action in placing all SSAs and
CDMs en bloc senior to AFM at the level of the Senior Technical
Assistant when in practice the SSAs in the lower scale would have

..
been through the upgraded scale of2375-3500 before being promoted
as JSOs. The same position holds good in respect of CDMs also. As
F has been indicated earlier, this step by the department is also
inconsistent with their stand to bifurcate the cadres of CDMs and
SSAs and place those CDMs and SSAs in the upgraded scale at the
level of Technical Officer 'A' while retaining others at the level of
STA. We, therefore, find no justification in placing an Assistant Foreman
drawing pay in the scale of 2000-3200 and with much longer service,
G
as junior even to a newly appointed SSA in the scale of 1640-2900
which would be the result when all Assistant Foremen are placed en
bloc junior to CDMs and SSAs."

We do not find any reason to disagree either with the reasoning or the
H conclusions arrived at by the Central Administrative Tribunal in this regard.
'
;,.,.

U.0.1. v. ANIL KUMR [SETHI, J.] 859
The action of putting the Assistant Foremen en bloc junior to the SSAs was A
without any rationale or valid basis of which has rightly been held to be
arbitrary being violative of the fundamental rights guaranteeing equality in
service matters.

This view is strengthened more on account of the dismissal of the claim
of the SSAs praying for their placement in the senior pay-scale. There is no B
denial of the fact that before and after the recommendations of the various
Pay Commission the Assistant Foremen had been in the higher pay-scale as
compared to the SSAs and Draughtsman Grade I. For a Welfare State the
healthy and energetic civil services is a guarantee for good administrative
system entrusted with the governance for the establishment of a rule of law. C
Security of tenure and the service conditions of the employees is of paramount
consideration to achieve the goals for having an effective and vibrant civil
service in the society. No government can resort to actions depriving the
benefits to a section of the service en bloc which admittedly is to their
disadvantage. Such en bloc deprivation of the promotional avenues and
service benefits cannot be sustained when on cogent reasons are assigned D
by the administrative set up. Resort to differential treatment in the service can
be haci only for achieving the efficiency in the service or any other specified
objective declared to be attained. No discrimination can be permitted only at
the whims of the administration or to satisfy another section of the civil
service. The Union of India in this case has not been in a position to justify E
the differential treatment made to the Assistant Foremen by putting them en
bloc junior to the Senior Scientific Assistants particularly when they have all
along been found to be enjoying better position and higher grade as compared
to the SSAs in the junior pay-scale.

Dealing with the similar situation, this Court in R.K. Sethi and Anr. v. F
Oil and Natural Gas Commission & Ors., (1997] 10 SCC 616 held that in
service jurisprudence, the "next below the rule" contemplates to ensure that
if junior employee is given promotion without considering his senior than the
senior employee can claim the right to considered for such promotion with
effect from the date on which the junior was so promoted. It was approved
that :- G
"where .. two or more categories have been merged, for purposes of
promotions to the next higher pay scale, inter se seniority of the
employees considered for promotion will be fixed on the basis of
length of service put in by the individual in the respective pay scale
with those in the higher erstwhile scale, being treated as senior to H
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1999] 3 S.C.R.

A those in the lower erstwhile scale, en bloc."

This Court in State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Chandrakant Anant
Kulkarni & Ors., [1981] 4 SCC 130 enunciated the principles which are
....
_

required to be kept in mind while considering the question of equation of
posts allotted to the service. It was reiterated in S.P. Shivprasad Pipa/ v.
B Union ofIndia & Ors., [I 998] 4 SCC 598 that the principles formulated in the
matter of equation of posts were :-

"(I) where there were regularly constituted similar cadres in the different
integrating units the cadres will ordinarily be integrated on that basis
but (2) where there were no such similar cadres, the following factors
C will be taken into consideration in determining the equation of posts :

(a) Nature and duties of a post;

(b) Powers exercised by the officers holding a post, the extent of
territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged;
D (c) The minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed, for recruitment to
the post and;

(d) The salary of the post."

We, therefore, do not find any substance in the submissions made by
E the learned counsel for the Union of India and of the Senior Scientific
Assistants (Junior Grade) assailing the judgment of the Central Administrative
Tribunal holding Rule 6(3)(b) to be unconstitutional. The discrimination vis-
a-vis the Assistant foreman is writ large and has rightly been set aside vide
the orders impugned in these appeals.

F In view of what has been stated hereinabove, we find no substances
in any of appeals which are accordingly dismissed but without any order as
.to costs.

B.K.M. Appeals dismissed.