2004(5) Supreme 761
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Gauhati High Court)
Brijesh Kumar & Arun Kumar, JJ.
State of Mizoram & Anr. -Appellants
versus
Mizoram Engineering Service Association & Anr. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 793 of 1998
Decided on 6-5-2004
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : L. Nageshwar Rao, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Sumita Hazarika and Ms. Archana Palkar Khopde, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Harish N. Salve, Kailash Vasudev, Sr. Advocates, P.C. Prushi, S.K. Shandilya, Prateek Kumar, Mrs. V.D. Khanna, Advocates.
For the Intervenors : K.N. Madhusoodhanan and R. Sathish, Advocates.
Held : In the facts of the present case we do not find any justification for confining the higher scale to a particular individual and deny the same to others. There may be special reasons for instance special merit, expertise or the like, for giving special pay to a particular individual. In the present case no such reason is forthcoming. On the other hand the reason given is that since he was holding the post on 1.1.1986, the date from which Fourth Central Pay Commission recommendations were given effect to, he was being allowed the higher pay scale. This reason rather supports the case of respondent. It shows an admission on the part of the appellant that the revised pay scales for the post of Chief Engineer as per the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission was Rs. 5900-6700 and was allowed to a Chief Engineer. The State Government cannot be permitted to discriminate between similarly placed individuals in this behalf between those holding the post at the time of revision of pay scales and future incumbents of the post. (Para 5)
For failure of the State Government to frame recruitment rules and bring Engineering Service within the framework of organized service, the engineers cannot be made to suffer. Apart from the reason of absence of recruitment rules for the Engineering Service, we see hardly any difference in organized and unorganized service so far as Government service is concerned in Government service such a distinction does not appear to have any relevance. Civil Service is not trade unionism. We fail to appreciate what is sought to be conveyed by use of the words organised service and unorganised service . (Para 6)
It has been found that the claim of the respondents is fully justified by the facts on record. The Central Government as well as the State Government accepted the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission and the scales being allowed to the members of the respondent Association are based on those recommendations. (Para 7)
JUDGMENT
Arun Kumar, J.-This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28th February, 1997 passed by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court. By the impugned judgment the Division Bench dismissed the appeal against the judgment dated 17th May, 1996 passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge had allowed a writ petition filed by respondent herein challenging a notification No. G. 12011/3/87 F.Est dated 3rd Febuary, 1989 whereby certain categories of engineers in the State Engineering Service had been excluded for purposes of revision of pay scales accepted by the State vide Notification No.G. 12011/3/87F.Est dated 19th January, 1989. The Mizoram Engineering Service Association (respondent) has been demanding higher pay scales for its members. The background is that prior to 1971 what is now known as the State of Mizoram was a district called the Lushai Hills District within the State of Assam. From 1971 to 1986 Mizoram was a Union Territory under the North Eastern Areas Reorganisation Act, 1971. It attained full state-hood on 20th February, 1987. In 1974 when the State was a Union Territory, the Government of India constituted a Departmental Pay Committee to suggest scales of pay and allowances for employees of Mizoram on the pattern of Central Government employees vide Ministry of Home Affairs letter No. 1.3.1973. MP dated 4th November, 1974. On the recommendation of the said Departmental Pay Committee, the Government of India revised the scales of pay and allowances for the employees of the State of Mizoram w.e.f. 1.1.1973. On a demand made by Superintending and Executive Engineers of the respondent Association for equalizing their respective scales of pay with their counterparts in the Central Public Works Department, the Government of India vide letter dated 16.10.1983 intimated to the Secretary to the Mizoram Administration, Public Works Department conveying the sanction of President of India for revision of pay scales of the Engineers (Group A posts) in tune with the pay scales enjoyed by the engineers in the CPWD.
2. The Government of India accepted the Fourth Central Pay Commission Report regarding revision of pay scales for Group A, B, C, D & E posts in the Central Civil Services w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission accepted by the Government of India became applicable for the civil services in Mizoram also. The Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1986 came into force w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and they were made applicable to the employees forming part of the civil services in Mizoram. Certain representations were made on behalf of employees for removal of anomalies resulting from the Fourth Central Pay Commission Report. In 1987 an Anomalies Committee was appointed to look into the alleged anomalies and make suitable recommendations. The recommendations of the Anomalies Committee created further anomalies rather than resolving them. On 7th November, 1988 another Anomalies Committee was appointed. The report of the Anomalies Committee was accepted by the Government of the State of Mizoram. A notification No. G 12011/3/87F. Est. dated 19th January, 1989 accepting the recommendations was issued. Soon thereafter the State Government issued another notification dated 3rd February, 1989 (the impugned notification) to the effect that the scales of pay for Group A officers as mentioned in paras 28 of Schedule A and Schedule B did not include pay scales for MCS officers/MPS officers whose pay scales were governed by their respective service rules. The notification further excluded engineering officers of the rank of Executive Engineer and Superintending Engineer from the benefits of the notification dated 19th January, 1989. This notification was challenged by the respondent Association by filing a Writ Petition in the Gauhati High Court. In the Writ Petition the first prayer was with regard to quashing the notification dated 3rd February, 1989 which excluded the Ex
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.