Suryanarayan Sahu vs Council Of Scientific And Industrial Research

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1997 Supreme(SC) 1523

1998(1) Supreme 12
Supreme Court of India
(From CAT, Cuttack)
Sujata V. Manohar & D.P. Wadhwa, JJ.
Sri Suryanarayan Sahu etc. -Appellants
versus
Council of Scientific & Industrial Research -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 507 of 1993
With
Civil Appeal No. 508 of 1993
Decided on 25-11-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : In person.
For the Respondent : A.K. Sikri, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Madhu Sikri and V.K. Rao, Advocates.

Headnote:Service Law-Determination of pay scales-Different scales of pay can be granted based on experience and merit to employees working in the same grade-Classification based on experience is valid-Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, an independent body, not bound to adopt Government of India scales of pay-CSIR did not violate principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ when it resolved that 50% of members of cadre of Senior Draughtsmen would be placed in higher scale of pay leaving other 50% for lower scale of pay-Claim of appellant of same pay scale as awarded by Board of Arbitration to Draughtsmen working in CPWD-Erroneous-CSIR not bound to adopt same pay scale as in CPWD-Work of Draughtsmen in CPWD and those in CSIR is not similar-Direction of Tribunal to give scale of pay of Rs. 425-700 to appellant w.e.f. 29.4.1974 when he was promoted to grade of Senior Draughtsman-Not sustainable-Grant of scale of Rs. 425-700 by CSIR to appellant w.e.f. 1.6.1978 as per rules of CSIR-Valid.
       Held that CSIR is not bound to adopt all the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission and it is not material if the Central Government accepted the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission. CSIR is an independent body. Principle of law which has been settled by this Court in string of judgments is that different scales of pay can be granted based on experience and merit to the employees working in the same grade. Classification based on experience is valid. An employee having more length of service is certainly better equipped to perform his duties of an office than a relatively new employee. We have already noticed above that Sahu is certainly better placed than Draughtsmen in Government service to whom principle laid in P. Savita’s case has been applied by the Central Government. Once we have reached this conclusion the answer to the question raised in these appeals become self-evident. Tribunal was not right in holding that CSIR violated the principle of “equal pay for equal work” when it resolved that 50% of the members of the cadre of Senior Draughtsmen would be placed in higher scale of pay leaving the other 50% for the lower scale of pay. It would be seen that revised pay-scales for Draughtsmen in the CSIR are more beneficial to them than what was given in the Third Pay Commission and which recommendation had been accepted by the Central Government for its employees. Reliance of Sahu on the proceeding of the Board of Arbitration of the Ministry of Labour to claim the same pay scale as awarded by the Board of Arbitration to Draughtsmen working in CPWD is erroneous. For firstly CSIR is not bound to adopt the same pay scale given to Draughtsmen working in CPWD, a Department of the Central Government, and secondly it has been pointed out that work of Draughtsmen in CPWD and those in CSIR is not similar. (Para 12)
       Direction of the Tribunal to give scale of pay of Rs. 425-700 to Sahu with effect from 29.4.74 when he was promoted to the grade of Senior Draughtsman cannot be sustained. Grant of pay scale of Rs. 425-700 by the CSIR to Sahu with effect from 1.6.78 is as per the rules of the CSIR and is valid. (Para 13)
       (ii) Service Law-Doctrine of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’-Applicability-Classification based on experience-Reasonable classification. (Para 11)

Judgment

D.P. Wadhwa, J.-These two cross appeals arise out of the judgment dated June 19, 1989 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench (for short, “the Tribunal”) on a writ application filed by Suryanarayan Sahu (appellant in Civil Appeal No. 507 of 1993). At the relevant time, Sahu was working as a senior Draughtsman in the Regional Research Laboratory Bhubaneshwar, a unit of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). While Sahu is aggrieved by the impugned judgment is not granting him pay scale of Rs. 425-700/- from 1.1.1973 as Junior Draughtsman and as senior Draughtsman in the pay scale of Rs. 550-900/- from 29.4.1974, Union of India is aggrieved as the Tribunal in the impugned judgment directed that Sahu be given pay scale of Rs. 425-700/- w.e.f. 29.4.74.

2. Gensis of the dispute lies in the Third Pay Commission’s Report which the Central Government decided to implement from 1.1.1973 and rules applicable to the employees working in the CSIR.

3. CSIR is a society registered under the Society Registration Act. Rules & Regulations and Bye-laws govern the functioning of the CSIR. Under Rule 29, the affairs of the CSIR shall be administered, directed and controlled, subject to Rules & Regulations and Bye-laws and orders of the society, by the Governing Body. We do not have to refer to the Rules & Regulations and Bye-laws of the CSIR in details as these are not in controversy. Under Bye-law 12, conditions of service of officers and staff of CSIR are governed by the Central Civil (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules and the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules for the time being in force. Under Bye-law 14, the scales of pay applicable to all the employees of the society shall not be in excess of those prescribed by the Government of India for similar personnel, save in the case of specialists. Under Bye-law 15, in regard to all matters concerning service conditions of employees of the Society, the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules framed by the Government of India and such other rules and orders issued by the Government of India from time to time shall apply to the extent applicable to the employees of the Society. Bye-laws 14 and 15 of the CSIR framed by the Governing Body are as under :

“14. The scales of pay applicable to all the employees of the Society shall not be in the excess of those prescribed by the Government of India for similar personnel, save in the case of specialists.

15. In regard to all matters concerning service conditions of employees of the Society, the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules framed by the Government of India and such other rules and orders issued by the Government of India from time to time shall apply to the extent applicable to the employees of the Society.

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Bye-law, the Governing Body may establish and maintain Schemes providing for benefits to employees of the Society on Superannuation/Retirement.’’

Rule 75 of CSIR Rules and Regulations as referred to in the grounds of appeal in the appeal of the CSIR is as under:

“75(a) The scales of pay applicable to the officers and establishments in the service of the Society shall not be in excess of those prescribed by the Government of India for similar personnel, save in the case of specialists.

(b) In regard to all matters concerning service conditions of employees of the Society, the Fundamental and Supplementary Rules framed by the Government of India and such other rules and orders issued by the Government of India from time to time shall apply to the extent applicable to the employees of the Society.

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Bye-law, the Governing Body shall have the power to relax the requirement of any rule to such extent and subject to such conditions as it may consider necessary.

It was not clarified as to why By-laws 14 and 15 and Rule 75 exist though effect would appear to be the same.

4. The petitioner who was a matriculate and po

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(SC) 1523

Cases Referred (5)