UNION OF INDIAversusMAKHAN CHANDRA ROY ETC.

                                UNION OF INDIA                                       A
                                         v.
                       MAKHAN CHANDRA ROY ETC.
-                                 APRIL 22, 1997

           [S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.)                                B ·

          Service Law-Central Civil Services Revised Pay Rules, 1986-Pay scale
    hike by Tribunal unjustified-Policy decisions to be made by the concemed
    aut~iorities-Decisions relating to pay scales is within the perview of the ap-
    pointing authorities-Tribunal not to interfere-Constitution of India, ATt.       C
    39(d)-Equal pay for equal work.

         Appellants not being satisfied with the recommendation of the Pay
    Commission regarding revised pay scales approached the Central Ad-
    ministrative Tribunal for higher pay scales. The Tribunal allowed the
    prayer, which was challenged before this Court.                                  D
          Allowing the Appeals, this Court

          HELD : 1. The Tribunal compared the earlier pay-scale of the
    respondent and thought it fit to grant the same hike in the pay-scales which
    was made available under the Revised Pay Rules to Auxiliary Nurses and E
    Midwife to the respondent also. That exercise was totally unauthorised as
    it amounted to taking a policy decision which was within the domain of the
    authorities themselves who are the authors of the revised pay-scales. The
    Tribunal had committed patent error of law in passing the impugned
    order. When the Court turns to the Central Civil Services revised Pay F
    Rules, 1986, it is found that the First Schedule to the said Rules framed
    in the light of Rules 3 and 4, item 6 Part 'A' dealing with all posts carrying
    present pay-scales and pay· scales of Rs. 260-400 which was revised to Rs.
    950-1500. The respondent admittedly got the benefit of those revised pay-
    scales. But the Tribunal thought it fit to award the respondent still higher
    pay-scale which was made available under the Rules to the Auxiliary G
    Nurses and Midwife. Their pay-scale is mentioned in Part B of the
    Schedule at item No. 4 in paragraph IX dealing with paramedical staff.
    The Auxiliary Nurses and Midwife who were getting the pay-scale of Rs.
    260-350 and Rs. 260-400 were given a uniform higher pay-scale of Rs.
    975-1540. The Tribunal compared the earlier pay-scales of Auxiliary Nor- H
                                          959
                                                                                  t
    960                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [1997) 3 S.C.R.

A ses and Midwife with the earlier pay-scales of the respondent and thought
    it lit to grant the same hike in the pay-scale which was made available
    under the Revised Pay Rules to Auxiliary Nurses and Midwife to the
    respondent also. The Tribunal having come to the conclusion that on               -
    merits the respondent had no case on the ground of equal pay for equal
B   work, the O.A. ought to have been dismissed. [962-C; 961-G-H; 962-A·D]

          State of U.P. and Others v. J.P. Chaurasia & Ors., [1989) 1 SCC 121,
    referred to.

          2. The Tribunal considered the fact that Pharmacists, Radiog·
C raphers and X-Ray Technicians who are earlier getting the pay scale of Rs.
  330-560 were granted a higher pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200. The same pay
  scale should be made available to the respondent also who was earlier
  getting the pay scale of Rs. 380· 560. It is difficult to appreciate this line
  of reasoning which appealed to the Tribunal. In the Central Civil Services
D Revised Pay Rules, one finds in the First Schedule I, Part B, Item No. 12
  which deals with all posts carrying present pay scales wherein pay scale of
  3811-5611 which was earlier available to the respondent is mentioned and the
  revised pay scale as per Revised Pay Rules is stated to be Rs. 1320-21140.
  This pay scale is admittedly made available to the respondent. But the
  Tribunal found out another pay scale mentioned in Part 8 of the Schedule
E to the Rules wherein paragraph IX deals with Paramedical staff, radiog·
  raphers, X-ray Technicians and Pharmacists. Their earlier pay scale was
  Rs. 3311-560 which was increased to Rs. 1350-22011. According to the
  Tribunal this pay scale should have been given to the respondent. It is
  difficult to appreciate how the respondent who was a Malaria Technician
F should be straightaway given pay scale of Radiographers or Pharmacists
  who are admittedly working in a different department and were doing
  entirely different type of work. What enhanced pay scale should be given
  to a particular employee is within the domain of the authorities themselves
  who appoint them and the Tribunal should not have ventured into this
  forbidden field. [963-E-H; 964·A·B]
G
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10608 of
    1995 Etc.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.88 of the Central Ad·
H ministrative Tribunal, Cuttak in O.A: No. 287 of 1987.
             U.O.l. v. M. CHANDRAROY(MAIMUDAR,J.}                        961

    T.L. Viswanatha Iyer, Shashi Kiran, C.V.S. Roa, Anil Katiyar and            A
Hemant Sharma for the Appellant.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       MAJMUDAR, J. These two civil appeals on special leave have been          B
moved by the Union of India and its officers challenging the orders passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench at Cuttack by which
each of the respondents in these appeals was given a higher pay-scale. We
shall first deal with Civil Appeal No. 10608 of 1995.

       The respondent herein was working as a Laboratory Assistant under        C
Dandakaranya Development Authority. He was granted pay-scale of Rs.
260-400. After the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission, the
Central Government promulgated Central Civil Service Revised Pay Rules,
1986. As per these Pay Rules, respondent's pay scale got a hike. This
revised pay-scale with effect from 1.1.1986 worked up to 950-1500. Accord-      D
ing to the respondent he was entitled to a still higher pay-scale and as that
was not granted to him, he moved the Tribunal by Original Application.
The Tribunal after hearing the contesting parties took the view that the
respondent was not entitled to any higher pay-scale only on the ground of
equal pay for equal work. That a higher pay-scale given to Laboratory
Assistant both in the Ministry of Defence and Railways could not automat-       E
ically be given to the respondent as he was a mere matriculate having only
5 weeks' training in the Central Laboratory of Indor .... While those
Laboratory Assistants in the aforesaid Ministries of Defence and Railways
were having better educational qualifications. On the aforesaid finding
reached by the Tribunal on facts, the O.A. should have been dismissed.          F
Instead, the Tribunal perhaps thinking that because the petitioner had
moved the Tribunal, he should not go empty handed and must be given
some relief from somewhere, took the view that because the Auxiliary
Nurses and Midwife who were also earlier getting two scales of pay of Rs.
260-350 and Rs. 260-400 were given a revised pay-scale of Rs. 975-1540
under the same Pay Rules, the respondent should also be granted the said        G
pay scale of Rs. 975- 1540 instead of Rs. 950-1500. In our view the aforesaid
reasoning adopted by the Tribunal is totally misconceived and cannot be
sustained. When we turn to the Central Civil Services Revised Pay Rules.
1986, we find in the First Schedule to the said Rules framed in the light of
Rules 3 and 4, item 6 of Part 'A' dealing with all posts carrying present       H
    962                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   (1997) 3 S.C.R.

A pay-scales and pay-scales of Rs. 260-400 which were revised to Rs. 950-
  1500. The respondent admittedly got the benefit of those revised pay-scales.
  But the Tribunal thought it fit to award to the respondent still higher pay-scale
  which was made available under the Rules to the Auxiliary Nurses and
  Midwife. Their pay-scale is mentioned in Part B of the Schedule at item No.
B 4 in paragraph IX dealing with Paramedical Staff. The Auxiliary Nurses and
  Midwife who were getting the pay-scale of Rs. 260-350 and Rs. 260-400 were
  given a uniform higher pay-scale of Rs. 975-1540. The Tribunal compared the
  earlier pay-scales of Auxiliary Nurses and Midwife with the earlier pay-scales
  of the respondent and thought it fit to grant the same hike in the pay-scale
  which was made available under the Revised Pay Rules to Auxiliary Nurses
C and Midwife to respondent also. In our view that exercise was totally un-
  authorised as it amounted to taking a policy decision which was within the
  domain of the authorities themselves who are the authors of the Revised
  Pay-scales. The Tribunal having come to the conclusion that on merits the
  respondent had no case on the ground of equal pay for equal work, the
D O.A. ought to have been dismissed. Our attention was also drawn by the
  learned Senior Counsel for the appellant to a decision of this Court
  reported in (1989) 1 SCC 121 (State of U.P. and Others v. J.P. Chaurasia
  & Others). In that judgment the following observations are made :

             "The fir~t question regarding entitlement to the pay scale admis-
E            sible to Section Officers should not detain us longer. The answer
             to the question depends upon several factors. It does not just
             depend upon either the nature of work or volume of work done
             by Bench Secretaries. Primarily it requires among others, evalua-
             tion of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts. More
F            often functions of two posts may appear to be the same or similar,
             but there may be difference in degrees in the performance. The
             quantity of work may be the same, but quality may be different
             that cannot be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits
             of interested parties. The equation of posts or equation of pay must
             be left to the Executive Government. It must be determined by
G            expert bodies like Pay Commission. They would be best judge to
             evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts. If there
             is any such determination by a commission or Committee, the court
             should normally accept it. The Court should not try to tinker with
             such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with ex-
                                                                                      -
H            traneous consideration."
              U.O.I. v. M. CHANDRA ROY [MAJMUDAR,J.]                       %3

       Consequently, it must be held that the Tribunal had committed A
patent error of law in passing the impugned order. In the result, this appeal!
is allowed. The judgment and order of the Tribunal are quashed and set· ·
aside and the Original Application filed by the respondent is dismissed.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order
as lo costs.
                                                                                  B
      That takes us to the Civil Appeal No. 10609/95.

       In this case the respondent was a Malaria Technician working with
the Dandakarnaya Development Authority. His earlier pay-scale was Rs.
380-560. As per ·the Revised Pay Rules, 1986 his pay scale was raised to          C
Rs. 1320-2040 with effect from 1.1.1986. The respondent felt aggrieved by
the said hike as in his view he first deserved lo be placed in selection grade
by the authorities and then the increased pay sea.le for selection grade
employees should have been made available to him. With that grievance he
approached the same Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected his contention that           D
he was entitled to be placed in selection grade as there was no vacancy in
that grade. Once that conclusion is reached, the respondent's 0.A. should
have been dismissed. Instead, following the same logic which appealed to
the Tribunal in the earlier case, the Tribunal thought that some relief
atleast should be given to the respondent who should not be turned out
empty handed. With the result, the Tribunal undertook a very curious              E
unauthorised exercise. The Tribunal considered the fact that Pharmacists.
Radiographers and X-Ray Technicians who were earlier getting the pay
scale of Rs. 330-560 were granted a higher pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200. The
same pay scale should be made available to the respondent also who was
earlier getting the pay of Rs. 380-560. It is difficult to appreciate this line   F
of reasoning which appealed to the Tribunal. When we turn to the Revised
Pay Rules, we find in schedule I, Part B, item No. 12 which deals with all
posts carrying present pay scales wherein the pay scale. of Rs. 380-560
which was earlier available to the respondent is mentioned and the revised
pay scale as per Revised Pay Rules is stated to be Rs. 1320-2040. This pay
scale is admittedly made available to the respondent. But the Tribunal            G
found out another pay scale mentioned in part B of the Schedule to the
Rules wherein in paragraph IX dealing with Paramedical staff. radiog-
raphers, X- ray Technicians and Pharmacists are referred to. Their earlier
pay scale was Rs. 330-560 which was increased to Rs. 1350-2200. According
to the Tribunal this pay scale should have been given to the respondent. It       H
    964                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1997] 3 S.C.R.

A is difficult to appreciate how the respondent who was a Malaria Technician
    should be straightaway given pay scale of Radiographers or Pharmacists
    who are admittedly working in a different department and were doing
    entirely different type of work. What enhanced pay-scale should given to a
    particular employee is within the domain of the authorities themselves who
B   appoint them and the Tribunal should not have ventured in this forbidden
    field.

           Consequently, the decision of the Tribunal in this case also cannot
    be sustained. In the result this appeal is also allowed. The judgment and
    order of the Tribunal are set aside and the 0 .P. filed by the respondent is
C   dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to
    costs.

    l.M.A.                                                     Appeal allowed.