The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of non-discrimination in pay scales based on the nature of duties and functions of the officers.

Judgment

D. M. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

( 1 ) THE State of Uttar Pradesh is in appeal against the judgment of the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court dated 30-11-1998 whereby the Sales Tax Offi- cers Gr. II [now re-designated as Trade Tax Officers Gr. II and hereinafter referred to as Trade tax Officers] have been directed to be fixed in the revised pay scale of Rs. 690-1420/- with consequential further revision of pay in accordance with the pay revision recommended by second U. P. Pay Commission.

( 2 ) THE claim of Trade Tax Officers through their association [respondent herein] in the high Court was that at par with other District level Officers in the State services who are carrying pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 400- 750/-, the Trade Tax Officers should also have been given revised pay scale of Rs. 690-1420/- in implementation of the Government Resolution dated 29. 12. 1981 which was taken pursuant to the report of the Second U. P. Pay commission set up for revision of pay scales of government servants w. e. f. 1. 7. 1979. The high Court, after going through the relevant part of the report of the Pay Commission and the Government Resolution dated 29. 12. 1981 taken pursuant thereto, came to the conclusion that since the Trade Tax Officers were carrying pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 400-750/- at par with other District Level Officers in other departments of the State, the pay scale of Rs. 625-1240/- granted to them which is a step below the revised pay scale of Rs. 690- 1420/- given to the District Level Officers in other departments, is per se discriminatory. It is held that keeping in view the nature of the duties and functions of Trade Tax Officers, they are equal in rank to District Level Officers and have to be given revision of pay scales at par with other District Level Officers as both of them were carrying the same pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 400-750/ -.

( 3 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the state of Uttar Pradesh, in assailing the judgment of the High Court, has contended that the report of the Second U. P. Pay Commission deals with the pay revision of Sales Tax or trade Tax Officers of the Sales Tax Department distinctly under Chapter 20 under the heading institutional Finance. It is pointed out that the case of pay revision of District Level officers in various departments, other than Tax department, have been separately dealt with by the Pay Commission in its report. It is, therefore, submitted that no parity is found status- wise and functionally between Trade Tax officers in the Tax Department and District level Officers in other departments of the State. It is submitted that by Resolution dated 29. 12. 1981, the government has fixed pay scales for different posts a step above the pay scale recommended by the Pay Commission. In doing so on reasonable grounds, a separate treatment has been given by making a distinction between officers in Tax Department and district Level Officers in other departments, amongst whom are those involved in developmental activities. Looking to the nature of onerous duties of District Level Officers engaged in developmental activities of the State, the government in its resolution have granted them pay scale of Rs. 690-1420/- and Trade Tax officers have been given revised scale of Rs. 625-1240/- although prior to the above revision both Trade Tax Officers and District Level officers were carrying pre-revised scale of Rs. 400-750/ -.

( 4 ) IT is contended that pay fixation is a subject for experts who undertake comparative study of nature oi duties and functions of various employees to be considered for pay revision. Such a decision of the Pay Commission and the government decision based thereon is not open to judicial review.

( 5 ) LEARNED counsel appearing for the respondent (Association of Trade Tax Officers herein] in supporting the impugned judgment has tried to project a point of view different from the one accepted by the High Court. It is pointed out that the Officers who were