Holding

The Tribunal was not justified in directing placement of the respondents in the Group B pay scale; Section 19(2) does not create a separate cadre of Presenting Officers.

Summary

Law Assistants and Chief Law Assistants claimed they were designated as Presenting Officers under Section 19(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 and sought parity in pay with Junior Administrative Grade Presenting Officers (Group B). The Central Administrative Tribunal held that they were authorised to act as Presenting Officers and directed their placement in the Group B pay scale. The Union appealed, arguing that Section 19(2) does not create a separate cadre and that the Tribunal cannot alter pay scales without proper authority. The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal was not justified in directing the pay‑scale change, observing that only one gazetted Junior Administrative officer is appointed as Presenting Officer and the others work under his supervision. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the Tribunal’s order was set aside and the respondents’ applications were dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Section 19(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 creates an ex‑cadre of Presenting Officer entitling Law Assistants/Chief Law Assistants to pay parity with Junior Administrative Grade officers.
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal can direct a change in pay scale (equation of posts) without proper statutory or executive authority.
Whether the respondents suffered hostile discrimination justifying the claimed parity in pay.

Legislation cited

Subjects

Railway Claims TribunalPresenting Officerpay parityequation of postshostile discriminationadministrative lawCentral Administrative TribunalSection 19(2)Group B pay scale

Judgment

A UNION OF INDIA AND' ORS.
v.
INDU LAL AND ORS.

APRIL 29, 2002

B [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.]

Service Law:

Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987-Section 19(2)-Presenting Officer
C ofJunior Administrative Grade and Law Assistant-Parity in pay scale claimed
by Law Assistant-Tribunal equated the posts and drew parity in their pay
scales-On appeal-Held, order of Tribunal not justified

Respondents, the Law Assistants who claimed to have been designated
as Presenting Officer in terms of Section 19(2) of Railway Claims Tribunal
D Act, 1987 filed application before Central Administrative Tribunal .claiming.
parity in pay scale on par with presenting officers of Junior Administrative
Gra~ ~

Their case was that the post of Presenting Officer was an Ex-cadre post
'
E and appointment on such post was made from Junior Administrative Grade
Officers and from Law Assistants and Chief Law Assistants; and that the
disparity in the pay scale of the Presenting Officers from Junior
Administrative Grade and those from Law Assistants and Chief Law
Assistants resulted in hostile discrimination.

F Appellants' case was that respondents 5,'12, 13 and 14 had never been
appointed as Presenting Officers; that the post of Presenting Officer was not
an Ex-cadre post; and that only one Gazetted Officer of Junior Administrative
Grade was appointed as Presenting Officer and other respondents were
working under their supervision and nature of their duties were not the same.

G Tribunal held that all Law Assistants and Chief Law Assistants including
the respondents were authorised to work as Presenting Officers, hence the
respondents were entitled to parity in pay scale and directed the respondents
to be placed in the pay scale of Group 'B'. Hence the present appeal

Allowing the appeal, the Court
H 584
U.0.1. v. INDU LAL [S. RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 585

HELD: 1. Tribunal was not justified in giving the directions to place A
the respondents in the pay scale of Group 'B', particularly in the light of
Section 19(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act in relation to equation of
posts or drawing a parity in the pay scales. (590-B]

2. The case that there is an ex-cadre of Presenting Officer is
misconceived. When a matter is to be represented before the Tribunal the B
railway administration may authorise a legal practitioner to appear on their
behalf or in appropriate cases any of its officers to act as Presenting Officers
on their behalf. Thus the authorisation of an officer to present a case before
the Tribunal will not convert them as a separate cadre of officers. (589-F]

Union of India v. P. V. Hariharan, [1997] 3 SCC 568; Union of India v. C
Makhan Chandra Roy, (1997] l 1 SCC 182; State ofMaharashtra v. Chandrakant
Anant Kulkarni, (1981] 4 SCC 130 and State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, (1989]
1 sec 121, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2668 of D
1998 .

• From the Judgment and Order dated 1.1.97/2.1.97 of the Central
• Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow in O.A. No. 53 of 1993.

N.N. Goswami, S. Wasim A. Qadri, Anil Katiyar and Arvind Kumar E
Sharma for the Appellants.

M.N. Rao, Annam D.N. Rao and K.M.M. Khan for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RAJENDRA BABU, J. Applications were filed under the Administrative F
Tribunal Act, 1985 by the respondents claiming parity between the Presenting
Officer of the Junior Administrative Grade and the Law Assistants. The
respondents clab1ed that they were designated as Presenting Officers in terms
of Section 19(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act']. G
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench [hereinafter
referred to as 'the Tribunal'] enquired into the matter and in spite of resistance
from the appellants' side held that all Law Assistants and Chief Law Assistants
including the respondents were authorised to work as Presenting Officer; that
a reading of Section 19(2) of the Act indicates that the Presenting Officer H
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) 3 S.C.R.

A was equated with the legal practitioner; that the Junior Administrative Grade
Officers also had the power to compound cases out of court and give direction
about the conduct of the cases before the court; that they were performing
duties entrusted to them and the applicants who were law graduates or having
degree of Master of Law were not allowed to claim even the ordinary grade
of a Gazetted Officer and they are placed in Group 'C' category; that they
B are entitled to the relief they have sought for and granted the same by giving
the following directions: ,

"(a) The applicants who have been placed in one class of Presenting
Officers, be placed in the pay scale of Group 'B' immediately, and

c the same should be given to them w.e.f. the date of filing of O.A.
which is 25.1.1993.

(b) The respondents shall constitute a Committee of experts within
one month from the date of communication of this order to consider-

(i) a suitable designation for the applicants and other similarly placed
D officers authorised to· act as Presenting Officers before the
Railway Claims Tribunal, and also placed in Group 'B' as per
our order in sub-para (a) hereinbefore,
(ii) the criteria and procedure, if necessary, for their regularisation
in Group 'B',
E
(iii) the avenues of further promotions of the applicants and other
similarly placed persons, with suitable grades thereof,
' (iv) the claim for kit and library allowance.

( c) The Committee shall hear the applicants and similarly situated
F other persons and finalise its recommendations within three months.

( d) the respondents shall take a decision on those recommendations
within a further period of three months from the date of submission
of the report of the Committe.e. While taking action as per direction
in this sub-para, the respondents may also take note of
G recommendations if made in this regard, of Vth Pay Commission."

Before we can consider the various aspects dealt with by the Tribunal,
we may notice a few decisions which have bearing on the present matter.

In Union of India v. P. V. Hariharan, [19Wl( 3 SCC 568, this Court
H observed that the courts or tribunals ought not to interfere with pay scales
- 587
U.0.I. v. INDU LAL [S. RAJENDRA BABU, J.]

without proper reasons and without being conscious _of the fact that fixation A
of pay is not their function. Change of pay scale of a category has a cascading
effect, when several other categories similarly situated, would put forward
their claims on the basis of such change, which will lead to serious problems.
Unless it can be clearly brought out that they were carrying on identical work
and there is a clear case of hostile discrimination, there would be no
justification for interference with the fixation of pay scales. B

In Union of India v. Makhan Chandra Roy, [I997] l l SCC 182, it was
reiterated that the equation of post or pay must be left to the executive
Government and must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission.
The court should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown C
that it was made with extraneous consideration.

In State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni, [1981] 4 SCC
130, it was observed that the matter of equation of posts is purely an
administrative function and such matter should be left to the concerned
Government. Any revision of pay would be an exercise which is totally D
unathorised and would amount to taking a policy decision which is within the
domain of the authorities ihemselves who are the authors of the pay scales
or revision thereof.

In State of UP. v. JP. Chaurasia, [1989] 1 SCC 121, this Court observed
that the matter of pay scale does not just depend upon either the nature of E
work or volume of work done as primarily what is needed to be noticed is
evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts. More often
than not, functions of two posts may appear to be the same or similar, but
there may be difference in degrees in the performance, like the responsibility
attached to a particular office. In such cases, it would not be open to the court
to consider whether the equation of posts made by the Government or the pay F
scales accorded to them is right or wrong, as such matters are exclusively
within the province of the Government. Perhaps the only question the court
can enquire into is whether appropriate policy has been adopted by the
Government which does not result in hostile discrimination which is a very
narrow and limited area of enquiry. When equation of posts had been done G
on some basis, the same should not be altered so as to equate with some other
post and enhance their pay scales.

The purpose of the Act was to provide establishment of a Railway
Claims Tribunal for enquiring into and determining claims against Railway
Administration for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-delivery of H
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) 3 S.C.R.

A animals or goods entrusted to it to be carried by Railway or for refund of -r'
freight or rate or compensation for death or injury to the passengers occurring
as a result of the railway accidents and for incidental matters. Section 19(2)
provides for representation before the Tribunal either through legal practitioner
or any officer of Railway Department who is authorised by the Railway
Administration.
B
The respondents claim that in pursuance of the powers under sub-
section (2) of Section 19 of the Act, Group 'A' officers as well as all those
who were previously working as. Law Assistants and Chief Law Assistants
were appointed by the Railway Administration on a common ex-cadre post
C designated as Presenting Officers to present the cases before the Tribunal and
they can be appointed as Presenting Officers; that though they have been
designated as Presenting Officers, they have been deprived of pay, grade,
status, perks and other benefits being. given to such Railway Officers and
they were still treated as subordinates and not officers; that they had similar
nature of duties as that of the Presenting Officers but there is a gross ,disparity
D in their pay; that while one set of Presenting Officers are getting pay scale
in the grade of Rs. 3700-5100, the second set c.of Presenting Officers are
getting pay s~ale in the grade of Rs. 1600-2600 and Rs.2000-3200 and this,
they contended, would result in hostile discrimination; that their initial mode
of recruitment is through departmental selection amongst the staff possessing
E a bachelor of laws degree and five years experience of working in the Railways
and through Railway Service Commission amongst the candidates holding
Bachelor of laws degree and at least three years of practice at bar and
depending on the length of service Law Assistan.ts are called the Chief Law
Assistants who are in the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200; that the nature of work
of both the posts remains the same; that prior to the transfer of the cases to
F the Tribunal, all cases were handled and conducted before courts by the
Railway Advocates, who were appointed by the Railway Administration for
the said purpose and the only duty of the Law Assistants and Chief Law
Assistants were to administratively assist the Railway Advocates and all the
legal work were to be done/conducted by the Railway Advocates and the
G Law Assistants and the Chief Law Assistants were not required to appear
before the court; that now there are only 8 Railway Advocates to conduct
specific cases and the Law Assistants and the Chief Law Assistants were
appointed as Presenting Officers under Section 19(2) of the Act to conduct
all the rest of the cases whereas there were 150 Railway Advocates previously
appointed have been reduced to only 8 advocates; that they have also to
H coordinate with different sections or departments of the Railways to secure
U.0.I. v. lNDU LAL [S. RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 589

the necessary data for preparation of the written statements/ replies, procuring A
of evidence, giving legal opinion in cases, to decide whether to contest or
settle the case out of court, to evaluate and examine decrees and other official
administrative work; that they also drafted pleadings and advanced arguments
which involve professional work of great skill and they are not paid the
appropriate emoluments thereto; that their claim in substance was to convert B
their Group 'C' Presenting Officer to Group 'B' gazetted status; to pay
practising allowance; to pay kit allowance and to accord benefits commensurate
with the post.

Factually it was averred on behalf of the appellants that respondents
Nos. 5, 12, 13 and 14 were never authorised to represent the cases in the C
Tribunal and have never represented before the Tribunal or any other court
and, therefore, their claim that they were appointed as Presenting Officers
would not be correct. The post of Presenting Officer in the Railways is not
an ex-cadre post. Even Junior Administrative Officer of the Indian Railway
Traffic can be posted as a Presenting Officer and it cannot be said that the
Law Assistants or Chief Law Assistants have been appointed as Presenting D
Officers and the nature of duties are not the same.

The provisions of Section 19(2) reads as follows:

"A railway administration may authorise one or more legal practitioners
or any of its officers to act as Presenting Officers and every person E
so authorised by it may present its case with respect to any application
before the Claims Tribunal."

When a matter is to be represented before the Tribunal, the railway
administration may authorise a legal practitioner to appear on their behalf or
in appropriate cases any of its officers to act as Presenting Officers on their F
behalf. Thus the authorisation of an officer to present a case before the
Tribunal will not convert them as a separate cadre of officers. Thus, the
whole case put forth before the Tribunal that there is an ex-cadre of Presenting
Officer is misconceived. The factual position is that only one Gazetted Officer
of Junior Administrative Grade was appointed as Presenting Officer and the G
other respondents were working under the supervision and guidance of such
officer. He has full administrative control over them and they do not have
similar nature of duties and at no stage these officers were authorised to act
independently and had to get the approval for every act done by them except
for arguments in the Tribunal and they were also to get guidance from Junior
Administrative grade Presenting Officer, written statement to be filed in the H
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002] 3 S.C.R.

A Tribunal was to be prepared by the concerned Law.Assistants and Chief Law
Assistants but was approved by the Presenting Officer.

On the overall consideration of the _matter, we do not think that the
Tribunal was justified in giving the directioos as aforesaid, particularly in the
light of the law to which we have adverted to in relation to equation of posts
B or drawing a parity in the pay scales. Hence this appeal stands allowed, the
order of the Tribunal is set aside and the applications filed by the respondents
before the Tribunal stand dismissed. No costs.

K.K.T. Appeal allowed.