Back
2020 Supreme(SC) 41
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
Union of India & Ors. – Appellant(s)
versus
Brig. Balbir Singh (Retd.) – Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 337 of 2020 (@D. No. 32143 of 2016)
Decided On : 16-01-2020
For the Appellant(s) :Madhavi Divan, Devashish Bharuka, Meru Sagar Samantray, Smita Choudhury, Vaishali Verma, Arvind Kumar Sharma, K. Luikang Micheal, Anil Katiyar, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Rajeev Manglik, Piyush Sharma, S.K. Garg, Neeraj Dutt Gaur, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Pay Scale – Classification of military personnel as different class from non-military personnel is permissible and valid.
Headnote:
Service Law – Pay Scale – Military Engineer Services (Army Personnel) Regulations, 1989 – Regulation 3 – Army Act, 1950 – Section 192 – Indian Defence Service of Engineers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2016 – Rule 3 – Respondent was appointed on a tenure basis in accordance with the MES Regulations – IDSE Rules are not applicable to Respondent – Army Officers form a separate class in comparison to civilian employees – Classification of military personnel as different class from non-military personnel is permissible and valid – Though there is no dispute that principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is applicable even to tenure or temporary appointments, in view of IDSE Rules which govern grade pay of post of Chief Engineer, Senior Administrative Grade, Respondent is not entitled to claim parity with members of IDSE – Respondent continues to be a Brigadier for all practical purposes and is entitled for benefits attached to post of Brigadier, irrespective of place and post in which he works – Judgment of Armed Forces Tribunal set aside. (Paras 7, 8 and 9)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal is directed against the judgment of Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kolkata by which Appellants were directed to consider the claim of Respondent for payment of grade pay of Rs.10,000/- or more, at par with his civilian counterparts holding post of Chief Engineer in the Military Engineering Services (MES), with all consequential benefits.
Findings of Court:
Classification of military personnel as different class from non-military personnel is permissible and valid. The submissions made on behalf of the Appellant that the Army Officers serving in the MES as Chief Engineers continue to get the same benefits and perks attached to the post of Brigadier has not been controverted by the Respondent.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
L. NAGESWARA RAO,J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kolkata by which the Appellants were directed to consider the claim of the Respondent for payment of grade pay of Rs.10,000/- or more, at par with his civilian counterparts holding the post of Chief Engineer in the Military Engineering Services (MES), with all consequential benefits.
2. The Respondent was commissioned in the Army on 16.12.1978 and he was allotted to the Corps of Engineers in July, 2005. The Respondent was promoted to the rank of Brigadier and was posted as Chief Engineer, Shillong Zone in the Military Engineering Service. Aggrieved by the disparity with regard to grade pay of Brigadier vis-à-vis civilian Chief Engineer in the MES, the Respondent filed O. A. No.155 of 2012 before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Jaipur and sought a direction to the Appellants that he shall be entitled to the grade pay of Rs.10,000/- at par with his civilian counterparts. The Respondent further sought a direction to the Appellants herein to pay the arrears consequent to re-fixation of grade pay at Rs.10,000/- with all benefits along with interest at 18 % on such arrears. The O.A. filed before the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Jaipur was transferred to the Armed Forces Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kolkata. By a judgment dated 13.08.2015, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. filed by the Respondent and granted the relief sought by the Respondent. The application filed by the Appellants seeking leave to appeal to this Court was dismissed by the Tribunal.
3. The Tribunal held that the post of the Chief Engineer carries the same duties whether they are performed by a military person or a civilian. The Tribunal was of the opinion that in case the work and duties are similar then the source is immaterial, and whosoever may be assigned the same duties shall be entitled for the same pay and pay band. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the disparity in pay leads to the reduction of status of an employee, and amounts to an adverse public perception of their capability and their efficiency. By placing reliance on several judgments of this Court on the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ including in Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 Bhagwan Dass and Others v. State of Haryana and Others, (1987) 4 SCC 634 and Jaspal & Others v. State of Haryana and Others, (1976) 4 SCC 303 the Tribunal held that the nature of appointment being tenure or temporary in nature does not make a difference to the claim made by the Respondent. In the opinion of the Tribunal, the payment of lesser salary to an employee or officer holding the same post affects his fundamental rights. On the basis of the above findings, the Tribunal allowed the O.A. filed by the Respondents.
4. Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Appellants-Union of India argued that an Army Officer posted as Chief Engineer in the MES cannot seek parity of grade pay with his civilian counterparts in the Indian Defence Service of Engineers (IDSE) because members of the Armed Forces are a distinct and distinguishable class. The learned Solicitor General submitted that the Indian Defence Service of Engineers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the IDSE Rules”) are not applicable to the Respondent and he cannot seek the same grade pay as IDSE officers working as Chief Engineers. By relying on the judgment of this Court in Confederation of Ex. Servicemen Associations v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 399 the learned Additional Solicitor General argued that the classification between defence personnel and other than defence personnel is reasonable and valid. It was further contended on behalf of the Appellants that the conditions of service of Commissioned Officers in the Army and civilian Chief Engineers are entirely different. Commissioned Officers are liable to be posted anywhere
