2019 Supreme(SC) 27

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited - Appellant
Versus
Rajesh Kumar Jindal & Others - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 195-198 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 35109-12 of 2012)
Decided On : 08-01-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
Job evaluation is left to expert bodies like Pay Commission. Ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task.
Person claiming parity must establish that nature method of recruitment; level of induction; cadre and hierarchy of service in the given cadre; minimum educational/technical qualifications required; avenues of promotion; nature of duties and responsibilities etc are similar for the two posts.
Merely being out in the same group not a ground for claiming parity.
Conclusion arrived at by the experts/Pay Anomaly Committee are not susceptible to judicial review.
It is always open to the employer to revise pay scales differently.
Persons consciously opting for Internal Auditor channel cannot claim parity with Head Clerks.

Headnote:(a) Service law – Pay scale parity – Job evaluation – Left to expert bodies like Pay Commission – Ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task – Employees claiming parity must establish that they are unjustly treated by arbitrary action or discriminated. (Para 14)

       (2001) 1 SCC 353; (2007) 8 SCC 279; (2011) 2 SCC 452; (2006) 9 SCC 321; (2012) 12 SCC 666; (2011) 11 SCC 122 – Relied upon

       (b) Service law – Parity in pay scales – Pay scale depends on many factors, like – Instantly Internal editors claiming parity of scale with Head Clerks – Person claiming parity must establish that nature method of recruitment; level of induction; cadre and hierarchy of service in the given cadre; minimum educational/technical qualifications required; avenues of promotion; nature of duties and responsibilities etc are similar for the two posts – Further, financial implications is an important factor – Instantly these factors are quite different for the posts of Internal Auditors and the Head Clerk – Merely being out in the same group not a ground for claiming parity. (Para 21, 23, 25, 26, 39)

       AIR 1968 SC 850; (2011) 11 SCC 122 – Relied upon

       (c) Service law – Pay scale parity – Internal Auditors and Head Clerks in same pay scale for two decades – Then after second pay anomaly committee report head clerks given higher pay scale than Internal Auditors – Conclusion arrived at by the experts/Pay Anomaly Committee are not susceptible to judicial review – Having same scale for two decades no ground for claiming parity – No discrimination – Article 14, Constitution of India – Always open to appellant Board to revise pay scales differently. (Para 31, 34)

       (2006) 9 SCC 643 – Relied upon

       (d) Service law – Pay scale – Internal Auditors – Two modes of recruitment – In case of promotion, Circle Assistants were asked to give option to go in the channel of promotion of Head Clerks or in the channel of Internal Auditors – Persons consciously opting for Internal Auditor channel cannot claim parity with Head Clerks – Similarly, direct recruits who also consciously applied for Internal Auditor cannot claim parity with Head Clerks. (Para 32)

       Facts of the case:

       Initially, the pay scale of Head Clerks was Rs.150-300 and the pay scale of Internal Auditors was Rs.130-240. The pay scale of Internal Auditors was revised to Rs.150-300 w.e.f. 01.08.1963. Head Clerks and Internal Auditors were getting same pay scale of Rs.225-500 from 01.06.1967 and Rs.620-1200 from 01.01.1978. From 21.03.1989, revised scale of pay of regular employees was issued by the PSEB, and w.e.f. 01.01.1986, the scale of pay of the Head Clerks and the Internal Auditors was revised to Rs.1640-2925.

       The Internal Auditors have been allowed the revised scale of Rs.1800-3200 w.e.f. 01.01.1986. The Head Clerks have been allowed the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 with effect from 01.01.1986 and thus linked the scale of Head Clerk with Superintendent Grade-II under State Government.

       The respondents Internal Auditors preferred Civil Writ Petition before the High Court seeking parity of pay scale with head clerks.

       The learned Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Civil Writ Petition filed by the respondents-Internal Auditors claiming parity of pay scale with the Head Clerks. Appeal preferred by the appellant-Board also came to be dismissed on the ground that SLP (C) No.10896 of 2011 is pending before the Supreme Court.

       Finding of the Court:

       Internal auditors are not entitled to same pay scale as that of Head Clerks.

       Result: Appeals allowed.