Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur)
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
State of Madhya Pradesh – Appellant
Versus
R.D. Sharma and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 474-475 of 2022, SLP (Civil) Nos. 547-548 of 2021
Decided On : 27-01-2022
(1) Constitution of India -- Art. 136 -- appeal -- maintainability -- Supreme Court granted liberty to appellant to approach High Court and disposed SLP without expressing any opinion on merits
-- intended to keep all issues open for consideration by High Court in review petition and to permit appellant to approach Supreme Court in case appellant was aggrieved by order passed in review petition as well as in writ petition -- appeals against orders passed in review petition and writ petition are legally maintainable. (2020) 11 SCC 399 relied on. [Para 8
(2) Indian Forest Service (Pay) Second Amendment Rules, 2008 -- R.3 (1) (as amended on 27.9.2008) -- respondent No. 1 retired in 2001 as Principal Chief Conservator of Forest -- much prior to coming into force of Amended Rules, 2008 -- his claim to benefit of apex scale as per said Rules was thoroughly misconceived -- apex scale was fixed for upgraded post of Head of Forest Force w.e.f. 27.9.2008 -- post was to be filled by way of selection, not as matter of course -- filling up post by selection would always require process of screening eligible employees -- cannot be automatic on basis of seniority -- application of principle of "equal pay for equal work"misdirected -- impugned orders set aside. (2017) SCC 148 distinguished. (2006) 13 SCC 215 referred to. [Paras 7, 13 & 14
(3) Civil Service -- selection process -- filling up post by selection would always require process of screening eligible employees -- cannot be automatic on basis of seniority. [Para 13
(4) Civil Service -- "equal pay for equal work" -- equation of post and determination of pay scales is primary function of executive, not judiciary -- ordinarily Courts will not enter upon task of job evaluation -- generally left to expert bodies like Pay Commissions
-- unless there is cogent material on record to come to firm conclusion that grave error had crept in while fixing pay scale for post, and that Court's interference was absolutely necessary to undo injustice, Courts would not interfere with such complex issues -- "equal pay for equal work" is not fundamental right vested in any employee, though it is a constitutional goal to be achieved by Government. 1993 (Supp.) 1 SCC 153 and (2002) 6 SCC 72 relied on. [Para 14
(5) Constitution of India -- Art. 227 -- scope of power -- power under Art. 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for keeping subordinate Courts and tribunals within bounds of their authority, not for correcting mere errors. [Para 15
JUDGMENT :
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant-State of Madhya Pradesh by way of present appeals filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India has assailed the Judgments and Orders dated 28.04.2017 and 17.09.2019 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in W.P. No. 14940 of 2013 and R.P. No. 1386 of 2018 respectively.
3. The respondent no. 2 herein i.e. Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section 1 of section 3 of All India Services Act, 1951 and in super-session of the Indian Forests Service (Pay Rules 1968) had made the Rules namely the Indian Forests Service (Pay) Rules 2007). The said Rules of 2007 came to be amended by the respondent no. 2 vide the notification dated 27the September 2008. The said Amended Rules were called the Indian Forests Service (Pay) Second Amendment Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Amended Rules of 2008). Sub-Rule 1 of the Rule 3 of the said Amended Rules of 2008 provided for the upgradation of one existing post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF), to be designated as the Head of Forest Force in the each State cadre. The said rule further provided for the apex scale at Rs. 80,000/- (fixed) for the said upgraded post designated as the Head of Forest Force. It also provided that the said upgradation was to be made w.e.f. the date of issue of the notification of the Amended Rules, 2008 i.e. 27th September, 2008 and that the said upgraded post was to be filled by “selection” from amongst the officers holding the post of PCCF in the State cadre in the HAG+ scale of Rs. 75,500 - Rs. 80,000.
4. The respondent no. 1 (the petitioner before the High Court) retired from the post of PCCF on 31st December, 2001. On 2nd April, 2011, the respondent no. 1 made a representation to the Government of India requesting it to revise his pension from Rs. 37,750/- (50% of HAG Scale 75000-80000) to Rs. 40,000/- (50% of apex scale 80000) as per the Indian Forests Service (Pay) Second Amendment Rules, 2008. The said representation came to be rejected by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare vide the order dated 24th June, 2011. The aggrieved respondent filed an O.A. being No. 1142/2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunl (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh on 27th November, 2011. The said O.A. came to be dismissed by the Tribunal vide the order dated 17th May, 2013. However, the Writ Petition being No. 14940 of 2013 filed by the respondent challenging the said order passed by the Tribunal, came to be allowed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur vide the order dated 24th August, 2013. The High Court by the said order held that the respondent no. 1 was eligible to get the benefit of Rs. 40,000/- as pension at par with the other officers, as per the Rules of 2008.
5. The aggrieved appellant-State of MP challenged the said order passed by the High Court before this Court by filing the special leave petition (Diary) No. 36531 of 2017. The said SLP came to be disposed of by this Court vide order dated 1st December, 2017, which reads as under:
In the judgment it is observed as follows:
“It is an admitted fact that the petitioner retired from the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Head of the Forest Department.......”
According to the learned counsel appearing for the State this is not true to facts.
If that be so, it is for the petitioner to go back to the High Court and get the records corrected.
With the liberty, as above, the special leave petition is disposed of.
We make it clear that we have not otherwise considered the matter on merits.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.”
6. The appellant availed the liberty granted by this Court and approached the High Court by
The principle that a senior employee cannot receive less pay than a junior is upheld, prompting the court to direct equal pay adjustments based on established seniority and promotion timelines.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the law in force at the time of eligibility for financial upgradations shall govern the entitlement of the employee, and there are limitations....
ACP financial upgradation follows existing post hierarchy on eligibility date; retrospective recruitment rules cannot deny vested rights without justification, ensuring parity with similarly placed e....
Merger of Section Officer and AAO pay scales w.e.f. 01.01.2006 entitles seniors promoted pre-date to minimum of merged scale for 6th CPC fixation at Rs.13,950 + GP 4800, overriding prior pay differen....
Denial of notional pay scale upgradation w.e.f. 01.01.1996 to Inspectors/Superintendents, when granted to comparable accounts cadres, violates Article 14 equality; uniform notional benefits mandated ....
The court ruled that a previous judgment granting a pay scale increase was specific to an individual and did not create a general entitlement for similarly situated employees, emphasizing the princip....
The determination of pay scales is the exclusive domain of the state, and courts should only intervene in cases of constitutional violations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
