Supreme Court of India
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusMANOJ KUMAR & ORS.
- Citation
- 2021 INSC 428
- Decided
- 31 August 2021
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
Holding
The 6th CPC’s paragraph 3.1.14 applies to the railway zonal offices, which are non‑Secretariat organisations, and therefore absolute pay parity is not to be granted.
Summary
The petitioners, Private Secretaries (Grade‑II) serving in the Eastern Central Railway’s zonal offices, sought pay‑scale parity with their counterparts in the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service, Railway Board Secretariat Stenographers Service and the Central Administrative Tribunal. The dispute centered on whether the 6th Central Pay Commission’s recommendation in paragraph 3.1.9 (applicable to Secretariat organisations) or paragraph 3.1.14 (applicable to non‑Secretariat organisations) should govern their pay. The Court examined the functional differences, recruitment rules and historical parity between the railway field offices and Secretariat bodies, concluding that the railway zonal offices are non‑Secretariat organisations. Consequently, paragraph 3.1.14, not 3.1.9, controls the matter and does not mandate absolute parity beyond the grade of Assistant. The Court set aside the lower court’s order granting parity and allowed the appeals, thereby denying the respondents’ claim for higher pay.
Issues considered
- The appropriate clause of the 6th Central Pay Commission (para 3.1.9 vs para 3.1.14) applicable to Private Secretaries (Grade‑II) in railway zonal offices.
- Whether railway zonal offices constitute Secretariat or non‑Secretariat organisations for the purpose of pay‑scale recommendations.
- Whether historical parity or functional equivalence obliges the Commission to grant absolute pay parity.
- Whether the courts can intervene in the Pay Commission’s specialised determinations.
Subjects
service lawpay parity6th Central Pay Commissionprivate secretariesnon‑Secretariat organizationIndian Railwayspay scalesCentral Secretariat Stenographers ServiceCentral Administrative Tribunal
Judgment
[2021] 8 S.C.R. 1161 1161
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. A
v.
MANOJ KUMAR & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 913 – 914 of 2021)
AUGUST 31, 2021 B
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Service Law – Pay Scales – Parity in – Private Secretaries
(Grade-II) (“PS-II”) employed in the Eastern Central Railways
(Field Office/Zonal Railways) made claim for parity in pay with
C
their counterparts working in the Central Secretariat Stenographers
Service (“CSSS”)/Railway Board Secretariat Stenographers Service
(“RBSSS”)/Central Administrative Tribunal (“CAT”) – Held: There
is no continued history of parity insofar as present case is
concerned, i.e., sometimes parity was given and sometimes not – It
is not as if the 6 th Pay Commission was unaware of the plea of D
disparity between the Secretariat and field offices, but despite having
taking note of the same some difference was sought to be made
between Secretariat and non-Secretariat offices – Yet to some extent,
a separate recommendation was made qua Secretariat Organizations
and non-Secretariat Organizations – Once these recommendations
E
are separately made, to direct absolute parity would be to make the
separate recommendations qua non-Secretariat Organizations otiose
– Further, the Courts ought not to interfere if the Commission itself
had considered all aspects and after due consideration opined that
absolute equality ought not to be given.
F
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The correct perspective has been taken in V.N.
Narayanappa & Ors. insofar as which clause of the 6 th CPC
recommendations would be applicable. This Court finds that once
it comes to the conclusion that the regional offices of the Railways
are to be treated as non-Secretariat Organizations, then the G
specific recommendations in para 3.1.14 of the report of the
6th CPC relating to such non-Secretariat Organizations will apply.
The observations made in para 3.1.9 which are qua Secretariat
offices giving parity between the Private Secretary/equivalent to
a Section Officer cannot be said to be mutatis mutandis applicable H
1161
1162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 8 S.C.R.
A even to non-Secretariat Organizations. If this Court were to opine
otherwise and equate everybody there would have been no
purpose in the 6th CPC making separate recommendations for
non-Secretariat Organizations in their wisdom. It is not as if the
Commission was unaware of the plea of disparity between the
Secretariat and field offices as that was dealt with in paras 3.1.2
B
and 3.1.3 but despite having taken note of the same some
difference was sought to be made between Secretariat and non-
Secretariat offices. [Para 14][1173-E-H]
2. The Pay Commission is a specialized body set up with
the objective of resolving anomalies. It is relevant to note that
C the anomaly in question was referred to the Pay Commission at
the request of candidates similarly situated to the respondents
and thus, the 6th CPC was aware of the claim for parity and the
requirement of making a recommendation in that regard. In its
wisdom while giving better scales it has still sought to maintain a
D separate recommendation for non-Secretariat Organizations. [Para
15][1174-A-B]
3. There is also a plea by the respondents that the
recruitment process for the two cadres was common and persons
used to be transferred from one to the other. Some illustrations
E have been given of this. In fact, the plea of the respondents is
that there have been times when a common competitive exam
was conducted and sometimes the exams were conducted
separately. In this regard, it has been explained by the Additional
Solicitor General on behalf of the appellants that the cadres are
separate and the rules governing them are also separate. The
F Stenographers under the Railway Board are governed by the
RBSS Rules, 1971, the Central Secretariat Stenographers are
governed by the CSS Rules, 1969 and the CSSS Rules, 2010 and
the Stenographers in the Central Administrative Tribunal are
governed by the CATSS Rules, 2013. These are the posts with
G which the respondents sought parity. On the other hand, the
respondents working in the Zonal Railways were governed by
Rule 107 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. The avenue
and channel of promotion of stenographers in the Railway Board
and the Zonal Railways, it has been stated, are entirely different.
[Para 16][1174-C-F]
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. MANOJ KUMAR & ORS. 1163
4. The appellants did accept that there were some cases of A
transfer, but those were persons who were brought to the Railway
Board for exigency of work – it was not as if they were absorbed
in the Railway Board. There were also cases where transfers
took place from the Railway Board to the Zonal Railway offices,
but that was on the specific request of such officers and considered
B
on a case-to-case basis and they had to take then seniority at the
bottom of the list. [Para 17][1174-F-G]
5. Para 3.1.3 which dealt with the disparity between the
Secretariat and field offices has canvassed a case for parity
between similarly placed persons employed in field offices and
the Secretariat; in view of the field offices being at the cutting C
edge of administration. However, it came to the conclusion that
parity would need to be absolute till the grade of Assistant. It
was clearly stipulated that beyond that “it may not be possible or
even justified to grant complete parity because the hierarchy and
career progression will need to be different taking in view the D
functional considerations and relativities across the board.” If this
principle is observed, the benefit cannot accrue to the
respondents and we cannot accept the plea that as a result of
parity being given up to the level of Assistant (which would put
them in the grade of Rs.4200 (later Rs.4600)), the respondents,
being one post higher, would automatically have to get one higher E
grade. [Para 18][1174-G-H; 1175-A-B]
19. This Court is fortified in the view we are seeking to
adopt in interpreting the paragraphs of the report of the Pay
Commission by the observations in Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan
Das, where it was opined that the principle of equal pay for equal F
work cannot be applied merely on basis of designation. While
dealing with the 5 th Pay Commission recommendations with
respect to functional requirements, it was held that there was no
question of any equivalence on that basis. The said case dealt
with Stenographers of the Geological Survey of India. While G
observing that as a general statement it was correct to state that
the basic nature of work of a Stenographer remained by and large
the same whether they were working for an officer in the
Secretariat or for an officer in a subordinate office; it was held
that Courts ought not to interfere if the Commission itself had
H
1164 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 8 S.C.R.
A considered all aspects and after due consideration opined that
absolute equality ought not to be given. [Para 19][1175-C-E]
20. In the end this Court would like to reiterate that the
aspect of disparity between the Secretariat and the field offices
was a matter taken note of by the Commission itself while making
B the recommendations. Yet to some extent, a separate
recommendation was made qua Secretariat Organizations and non-
Secretariat Organizations. Once these recommendations are
separately made, to direct absolute parity would be to make the
separate recommendations qua non-Secretariat Organizations
C otiose. If one may say, there would have been no requirement to
make these separate recommendations if everyone was to be
treated on parity on every aspect. [Para 20][1175-E-G]
V. N. Narayanappa & Ors. v. The Secretary, Railway
Board Etc. (CAT, Bangalore in Original Application
D Nos.640-649 and 1001-1030 of 2014 decided on
13.04.2016); S. R. Dheer & Ors. v. Union of India &
Ors. (CAT at Delhi in case OA No.164/2009 decided
on 19.02.2009); Rabindra Nath Basu & Ors. v. Union
of India & Ors. (Bangalore Bench, CAT in OA
No.2102/2010 decided on 16.05.2011); Union of India
E v. Tarit Ranjan Das (2003) 11 SCC 658 : [2003] 4 Suppl.
SCR 339 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2003] 4 Suppl. SCR 339 referred to Para 19
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 913-
914 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.03.2017 of the High Court
of Judicature at Patna in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case [CWJC] No.15717
G of 2016 and order dated 23.08.2017 in R.A. No.191 of 2017 in CWJC
No.15717 of 2016.
R.S. Suri, ASG, Ms. V. Mohana, R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Advs.,
Nalin Kohli, P.V. Yogeswaran, Amrish Kumar, Advs. for the Appellants.
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. MANOJ KUMAR & ORS. 1165
Vikas Singh, Shanker Raju, Sr. Advs., Vivek Singh, Ms. Deepeika A
Kalia, Kapish Seth, Mritunjay Singh, C.P. Rajwar, Udita Singh, Lakshmi
Raman Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
B
1. Indian Railways is the largest civilian employer in the country
comprising of six production units and eighteen zones, with each zone
having three to six divisions.1 The total number of employees as on
31.03.2005 was stated to be about 14 lakh with the following distribution
of staff strength:
C
Group In position
A 8285
B 7247
C 873536
D 521578
Total 1410646*
D
* As per the Indian Railways Annual Report and Accounts
2019-20, the current strength is about 12,53,592 as on 31.03.2020.
2. The Sixth Central Pay Commission (“6th CPC”) report in
chapter 7.36 deals with the Ministry of Railways and shows that it has
fourteen departments, including the Railway Board. The report examined E
the demands of these different departments seeking higher pay-scales
and allowances for various categories in different departments. We are
concerned in the present matter with claims made by Private Secretaries
(Grade-II) (“PS-II”) employed in the Eastern Central Railways (Field
Office/Zonal Railways),for parity in pay with their counterparts working
F
in the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service (“CSSS”)/Railway
Board Secretariat Stenographers Service (“RBSSS”)/Central
Administrative Tribunal (“CAT”). We may note at this stage itself that
there have been conflicting judicial views on the claim for such parity
which we will come to later.
3. We may notice that the 6th CPC referred to the demands made G
by common category posts relating to certain cadres in the Ministry of
Railways in para 7.36.95. One of the common category posts is that of
“Typists and Stenographers”. Thereafter, in para 7.36.96, it was observed
1
Indian Railways Annual Report and Accounts 2019-20 pg. 6. H
1166 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 8 S.C.R.
A that these common categories have been covered by the Commission
elsewhere in the report. It was stated that the recommendations made
therein shall apply in respect of the common category posts in the Ministry
of Railways as well, there being no separate recommendations made
for this category. In the aforesaid conspectus we have to turn to Chapter
3.1 of the report of the 6th CPC, which deals with “Headquarters
B
Organisations in Government of India & Office Staff in field offices”.
The disparity between Secretariat and Field offices is set out in clauses
3.1.2 and 3.1.3, which read as under:
“Disparity between Secretariat and field offices
C 3.1.2 The senior administrative posts in the Secretariat are mainly
filled by officers of All India Services and Central Group A services
on deputation under the Central Staffing Scheme. Some of the
posts in the middle level are also held by officers of the Central
Secretariat Services, Railway Board Secretariat Service in
Ministry of Railways, Defence Forces Headquarters Services in
D Ministry of Defence and by Indian Foreign services (B) in Ministry
of External Affairs. Historically, various services in the Secretariat
have been given an edge over analogous posts in the field offices.
This was done on the ground that office staff in the Secretariat
performs complex duties and are involved in analyzing issues with
E policy implications whereas their counter parts in field offices
perform routine work relating to routine matters concerning
personnel and general administration, etc. Another argument that
is used to justify the edge for various posts in Secretariat is that in
Secretariat, level jumping occurs and personnel in the grade of
Assistant etc. submit files directly to decision making levels of
F Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary, etc.”
3.1.3 Higher pay scales in the Secretariat offices may have been
justified in the past when formulation of proper policies was of
paramount importance. The present position is different. Today,
the weakest link in respect of any Government policy is at the
G delivery stage. This phenomenon is not endemic to India.
Internationally also, there is an increasing emphasis on
strengthening the delivery lines and decentralization with greater
role being assigned at delivery points which actually determines
the benefit that the common citizen is going to derive out of any
H policy initiative of the Government. The field offices are at the
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. MANOJ KUMAR & ORS. 1167
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
cutting edge of administration and may, in most cases, determine A
whether a particular policy turns out to be a success or a failure in
terms of actual benefit to the consumer. Accordingly, the time has
come to grant parity between similarly placed personnel employed
in field offices and in the Secretariat. This parity will need to
be absolute till the grade of Assistant. Beyond this, it may
B
not be possible or even justified to grant complete parity
because the hierarchy and career progression will need to
be different taking in view the functional considerations
and relativities across the board.”
(emphasis supplied)
C
4. The recommendations in para 3.1.9 have been made for various
posts from the LDC to the Director including Section Officer, with a
caveat that in the case of Sections Officers having pay scale of
Rs. 8000-13500, the scale would only be available to such of these
organizations/services which have had a historical parity with CSS/CSSS.
We, however, note that before setting forth in a tabular form the revised D
pay-scales of the different posts, it has been observed in para 3.1.9 that:
“these recommendations shall apply mutatis-mutandis to post of
Private Secretary/equivalent in these services as well.”
5. We may note that the submission of the respondents is that it is
this clause which ought to govern; and that it recommends parity between E
the post of Private Secretaries/equivalent and the post of a Section Officer.
We now turn to clause 3.1.14 which deals with recommendations for
non-Secretariat Organizations. According to the appellants, the aspects
sought to be raised before us are specifically dealt with under this
paragraph; and thus, the respondent’s claim that their pay-scale ought to F
be governed by para 3.1.9 is misplaced. These paragraphs read as under:
“Recommendations
3.1.9 Accordingly, the Commission recommends upgradation of
the entry scale of Section Officers in all Secretariat Services
(including CSS as well as nonparticipating ministries/departments/ G
organizations) to Rs.7500-12000 corresponding to the revised pay
band PB 2 of Rs.8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs.4800.
Further, on par with the dispensation already available in CSS, the
Section Officers in other Secretariat Offices, which have always
had an established parity with CSS/CSSS, shall be extended the
H
1168 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 8 S.C.R.
A scale of Rs.8000-13500 in Group B corresponding to the revised
pay band PB 2 of Rs.8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs.4800
on completion of four years service in the lower grade. This will
ensure full parity between all Secretariat Offices. It is clarified
that the pay band PB 2 of Rs.8700-34800 along with grade pay of
Rs.4800 is being recommended for the post of Section Officer in
B
these services solely to maintain the existing relativities which
were disturbed when the scale was extended only to the Section
Officers in CSS. The grade carrying grade pay of Rs.4800 in pay
band PB-2 is, otherwise, not to be treated as a regular grade and
should not be extended to any other category of employees. These
C recommendations shall apply mutatis-mutandis to post of Private
Secretary/equivalent in these services as well. The structure of
posts in Secretariat Offices would now be as under:-
Post Pre revised pay scale Corresponding revised
pay band and grade pay
LDC Rs.3050-4590 PB-1 of Rs.4860-20200
D along with grade pay of
Rs.1900
UDC Rs.4000-6000 PB-1 of Rs.4860-20200
along with grade pay of
Rs.2400
Assistant Rs.6500-10500 PB-2 of Rs.8700-34800
along with grade pay of
Rs.4200
E Section Officer Rs.7500-12000 PB-2 of Rs.8700-34800
Rs.8000-13500* along with grade pay of
(on completion of four Rs.4800.
years) PB-2 of Rs.8700-34800
along with grade pay of
Rs.5400*
(on completion of four
years)
Under Secretary Rs.10000-15200 PB-3 of Rs.15600-39100
F along with grade pay of
Rs.6100
Deputy Secretary Rs.12000-16500 PB-3 of Rs.15600-39100
along with grade pay of
Rs.6600
Director Rs.14300-18300 PB-3 of Rs.15600-39100
along with grade pay of
Rs.7600
G
* This scale shall be available only in such of those organizations/
services which have had a historical parity with CSS/CSSS.
Services like AFHQSS/AFHQSSS/RBSS and Ministerial/
Secretarial posts in Ministries/Departments organizations like
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. MANOJ KUMAR & ORS. 1169
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
MEA, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, CVC, UPSC, etc. would A
therefore be covered.”
“Recommendations for non - Secretariat Organizations
3.1.14 In accordance with the principle established in the earlier
paragraphs, parity between Field and Secretariat Offices is
recommended. This will involve merger of few grades. In the B
Stenographers cadre, the posts of Stenographers Grade II and
Grade I in the existing scales of Rs.4500-7000/Rs, 5000-8000 and
Rs.5500-9000 will, therefore, stand merged and be placed in the
higher pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. In the case of ministerial post
in non- Secretariat Offices, the posts of Head Clerks, Assistants, C
Office Superintendent and Administrative Officers Grade III in
the respective pay scales of Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000 and
Rs.6500-10500 will stand merged. The existing and revised
structure in Field Organization will, therefore, be as follows:-
Designation Present Recommended Corresponding Pay D
Pay Scale Pay Scale Band and Grade Pay
Pay Band Grade Pay
LDC 3050-4590 3050-4590 PB-1 1900
UDC 4000-6000 4000-6000 PB-1 2400
Head Clerk/ 4500-7000/
Assistants/ Steno 5000-8000
GradeII/equivalent
E
Office 5500-9000
Superintendent/
Steno Grade
I/equivalent 6500-10500 PB-2 4200
Superintendent/ 6500-10500
Asst. Admn.
F
Officer/ Privat e
Secretary/
equivalent
Administrative 7500-12000 7500-12000 entry PB-2 4800
Officer Grade II /Sr. grade for fresh (5400 aft er 4
Pri vate recruits) years)
Secretary/equ. 8000-13500 G
(on completion of
four years)
Administrative 10000- 10000-15200 PB-2 6100
Officer Grade I 15200
H
1170 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 8 S.C.R.
A A perusal of paragraph 3.1.14 would show that Steno (Grade-II)
has specifically been mentioned under this paragraph and it deals
with the aspect of parity between field and Secretariat offices.
6. We consider it appropriate to settle the aforesaid issue which is
on a plain reading of the recommendations of the 6th CPC as a lot of
B other arguments and claims of parity will flow from which clause would
govern.
7. There is no doubt, in our considered view, that though there is
an observation that the recommendations shall apply mutatis mutandis
to Private Secretaries and posts equivalent thereto in the service under
C para 3.1.9; the subsequent paragraph 3.1.14 has specifically dealt with
the aspect of parity between the field and Secretariat offices, which is
really the subject matter of the claim before us.
8. The plea of the respondents is that para 3.1.9 of the
recommendations of the 6th CPC has been issued pursuant to paras
D 7.36.95 and 7.36.96. No separate recommendations for Stenographers
in zonal offices of Railways have been made. Para 3.1.9, which relates
specifically to Section Officers also provides that it applies mutatis
mutandis to private secretaries in these services. The premise of this
plea is therefore that para 3.1.14 deals with the recommendations for
E non-Secretariat Organizations other than the Railways, and that they
should be treated as Secretariat organizations. In our view this becomes
a crucial issue. In the spectrum of conflicting views of different Central
Administrative Tribunals, the view of the CAT, Bangalore in Original
Application Nos. 640-649 and 1001-1030 of 2014 seek to favour the
case of the appellants.
F
9. If we turn to that judgment (V.N. Narayanappa & Ors. v.
The Secretary, Railway Board Etc.) decided on 13.04.2016, the factual
matrix deals with a case of similarly situated Private Secretaries (Grade
II) in the Southern Railways. In considering this plea, the Tribunal took
note of a different view in O.A. No.658/2010 decided on 05.06.2012 by
G
the Madras Bench of the Tribunal, which the applicants therein sought
to rely upon. That judgment in turn was based on an earlier view of the
Principal Bench of the CAT at Delhi in the case of OA No.164/2009
decided on 19.02.2009 (S.R. Dheer & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.),
H
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. MANOJ KUMAR & ORS. 1171
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
in respect of Private Secretaries (Grade-II) of the CAT. At this juncture, A
it may be important to note that the respondents herein in their OA before
the CAT Patna, also claimed parity with the aforementioned decision of
the CAT Madras. The Madras Bench of the CAT had noticed that no
recruitment rules had been placed on record by the Government while
stating that different standards of academic and professional
B
qualifications, etc. exist. Thus, the view of the Madras Bench of the
Tribunal was based on absence of material and on a reason of parity
with the Principal Bench at Delhi, even though the Principal Bench at
Delhi dealt with the case of CAT Stenographers (Grade II) officers and
had allowed the OA on the basis of historical parity.
C
10. We may add here that the views of the Madras CAT have not
been interfered with by this Court. Both an SLP challenging the decision
and a subsequent Review Petition met with a summary dismissal and
resultantly, the question to be decided in this case has not been specifically
dealt with by this Court. This has resulted in the implementation of different
orders in different matters, which are really contradictory in nature. D
11. The Bangalore Bench of the CAT in seeking to determine the
issue on merits sought strength from an earlier decision of the Principal
Bench (Delhi) in OA No.2102/2010 in Rabindra Nath Basu & Ors. v.
Union of India & Ors. and other connected matters decided on
16.05.2011 dealing with the case of the Assistant Staff Officers of the E
Ordnance Factory Board. The CAT therein opined that the applicants
belonged to a non-Secretariat organization and would therefore be
covered by the pay-scale prescribed in para 3.1.14 of the 6th CPC.
12. If we notice the discussion in V.N. Narayanappa & Ors.2,
historical parity is one of the aspects which has been examined. The F
factual matrix in the present case is that there was such historical parity
under the first and second Pay Commissions’ recommendations.
However, the third and fourth Pay Commissions did not give parity and
the fifth Pay Commission gave parity to a limited extent. Thus, there is
no continued history of parity insofar the present case is concerned, i.e., G
sometimes parity was given and sometimes not. The history as available
from the brief note submitted by the respondents and is as under:
2
(supra)
H
1172 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 8 S.C.R.
A Central Pay Commission RBSS Zonal Railways/Field
Officers
1st Pay Commission Rs.160-450/- Rs.160-450/-
2nd Pay Commission Rs.210-530/- Rs.210-530/-
3rd Pay Commission Rs.650-1200/- Rs.650-960/-
4th Pay Commission Rs.2000-3500/- Rs.2000-3200/-
5th Pay Commission Rs.6500-10500/- Rs.6500-10500/-
B 6th Pay Commission (Grade Pay) Rs.4800 Rs.4200 (Later Rs.4600/-)
13. We now turn to the aspect of whether the post in the case in
hand can be said to be that of a Secretariat or non-Secretariat
organization. This aspect, once again, has been dealt with in the judgment
in V.N. Narayanappa & Ors.3, taking note of Swamy’s Compilation of
C 6th CPC Report Part I (pages 141 to 147) and Swamy’s Manual on
Office Procedure 2006 and 2009. In the definition Chapter at entry 53,
Secretariat Offices are said to have been defined as those which are
responsible for formulation of the policies of the Government and also
for the execution and review of those policies. Relying on this definition,
D it was opined that the organizations where the applicants in V.N.
Narayanappa & Ors. 4 were working, were not Secretariat
Organizations, but were non-Secretariat Organizations or attached offices
or subordinate offices thereto. The meaning of subordinate offices is
stated to signify their function as field establishments or as agencies
responsible for the detailed execution of the policies of Government.
E They function under the direction of an attached office or directly under
a department. In that context, it was opined that there exists a distinction
in the works, functions and responsibilities between Secretariat and non-
Secretariat organizations. As such, it was noted that if there are functional
dissimilarities between the cadres, there are bound to be financial
F disparities in pay and allowances. It would be useful to reproduce paras
38 and 39 of the judgment in V.N. Narayanappa & Ors.5, which read
as under:
“38. As it would be evident from the discussions in the preceding
paras, there is a significant difference in the recruitment rules,
G promotional hierarchy etc. between the applicants who are Private
Secretaries Grade-II in the Zonal Railways with that of Private
Secretaries in the Railway Board/Central Secretariat Services/
3
(supra)
4
(supra)
H 5
(supra)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. MANOJ KUMAR & ORS. 1173
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
CSSS or CAT. There also no case of any historical parity between A
the applicants and their counterparts in CSSS or CAT or RBSS.
Therefore the applicants cannot claim the benefits of pay scales
allowed to CSSS in the ratio of judgments in OA No.164/2009 in
S.R. Dheer & Ors. v. Union of India wherein the Private
Secretaries in the CAT were granted the benefit on the basis of
B
establishment of a historical parity with CSS.
39. In this context, we also note the submission made by the
respondents about the consequential implications on various other
categories/groups under the respondents if such benefit is granted
to the applicants even though they do not have any parity with C
RBSS and CSSS and are not entitled to the same. The Railways
is a vast organization where there are many cadres/category of
employees having identical pay scales and equal parity with that
of Private Secretaries Grade-II in the Zonal Railways. A list of
such groups has been highlighted in the reply statement. Therefore,
grant of benefit which the applicants are otherwise not entitled to D
will also have an effect on the other cadres of Railways as
contended.”
14. We do believe in the conspectus of the aforesaid discussion
that the correct perspective has been taken in V.N. Narayanappa &
Ors.6 insofar as which clause of the 6th CPC recommendations would E
be applicable. We find that once we come to the conclusion that the
regional offices of the Railways are to be treated as non-Secretariat
Organizations, then the specific recommendations in para 3.1.14 relating
to such non-Secretariat Organizations will apply. The observations made
in para 3.1.9 which are qua Secretariat offices giving parity between the F
Private Secretary/equivalent to a Section Officer cannot be said to be
mutatis mutandis applicable even to non-Secretariat Organizations. If
we were to opine otherwise and equate everybody there would have
been no purpose in the 6th CPC making separate recommendations for
non-Secretariat Organizations in their wisdom. It is not as if the
Commission was unaware of the plea of disparity between the Secretariat G
and field offices as that was dealt with in paras 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 but
despite having taken note of the same some difference was sought to be
made between Secretariat and non-Secretariat offices.
6
(supra) H
1174 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 8 S.C.R.
A 15. The Pay Commission is a specialized body set up with the
objective of resolving anomalies. It is relevant to note that the anomaly
in question was referred to the Pay Commission at the request of
candidates similarly situated to the respondents and thus, the 6th CPC
was aware of the claim for parity and the requirement of making a
recommendation in that regard. In its wisdom while giving better scales
B
it has still sought to maintain a separate recommendation for non-
Secretariat Organizations.
16. We may also notice another aspect. There is a plea by the
respondents that the recruitment process for the two cadres was common
and persons used to be transferred from one to the other. Some
C illustrations have been given of this. In fact, the plea of the respondents
is that there have been times when a common competitive exam was
conducted and sometimes the exams were conducted separately. In this
regard, it has been explained by the learned Additional Solicitor General
on behalf of the appellants that the cadres are separate and the rules
D governing them are also separate. The Stenographers under the Railway
Board are governed by the RBSS Rules, 1971, the Central Secretariat
Stenographers are governed by the CSS Rules, 1969 and the CSSS Rules,
2010 and the Stenographers in the Central Administrative Tribunal are
governed by the CATSS Rules, 2013. These are the posts with which
the respondents sought parity. On the other hand, the respondents working
E in the Zonal Railways were governed by Rule 107 of the Indian Railway
Establishment Code. The avenue and channel of promotion of
stenographers in the Railway Board and the Zonal Railways, it has been
stated, are entirely different.
17. Learned counsel for the appellants did accept that there were
F some cases of transfer, but those were persons who were brought to the
Railway Board for exigency of work – it was not as if they were absorbed
in the Railway Board. There were also cases where transfers took place
from the Railway Board to the Zonal Railway offices, but that was on
the specific request of such officers and considered on a case-to-case
G basis and they had to take then seniority at the bottom of the list.
18. Para 3.1.3 which dealt with the disparity between the
Secretariat and field offices has canvassed a case for parity between
similarly placed persons employed in field offices and the Secretariat; in
view of the field offices being at the cutting edge of administration.
H However, it came to the conclusion that parity would need to be absolute
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. MANOJ KUMAR & ORS. 1175
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]
till the grade of Assistant. It was clearly stipulated that beyond that “it A
may not be possible or even justified to grant complete parity
because the hierarchy and career progression will need to be
different taking in view the functional considerations and relativities
across the board.” If this principle is observed, the benefit cannot accrue
to the respondents and we cannot accept the plea that as a result of
B
parity being given up to the level of Assistant (which would put them in
the grade of Rs.4200 (later Rs.4600)), the respondents, being one post
higher, would automatically have to get one higher grade.
19. We are fortified in the view we are seeking to adopt in
interpreting the aforesaid paragraphs of the Pay Commission by the
observations in Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das,7 where it was C
opined that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied
merely on basis of designation. While dealing with the 5th Pay Commission
recommendations with respect to functional requirements, it was held
that there was no question of any equivalence on that basis. The said
case dealt with Stenographers of the Geological Survey of India. While D
observing that as a general statement it was correct to state that the
basic nature of work of a Stenographer remained by and large the same
whether they were working for an officer in the Secretariat or for an
officer in a subordinate office; it was held that Courts ought not to
interfere if the Commission itself had considered all aspects and after
due consideration opined that absolute equality ought not to be given. E
20. In the end we would like to reiterate that the aspect of disparity
between the Secretariat and the field offices was a matter taken note of
by the Commission itself while making the recommendations. Yet to
some extent, a separate recommendation was made qua Secretariat
Organizations and non-Secretariat Organizations. Once these F
recommendations are separately made, to direct absolute parity would
be to make the separate recommendations qua non-Secretariat
Organizations otiose. If one may say, there would have been no
requirement to make these separate recommendations if everyone was
to be treated on parity on every aspect. G
21. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we find the impugned
judgment, which in turn relies upon other orders passed by different
Tribunals and Courts unsustainable, and is accordingly set aside.
7
(2003) 11 SCC 658. H
1176 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 8 S.C.R.
A 22. The appeals are accordingly allowed.
23. We hope this puts to rest this controversy which has been
agitated before different forums without receiving a final reasoned view
of this Court.
B
Ankit Gyan Appeals allowed.
C
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "service law"Sign in to search