2022 Supreme(SC) 150

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
AJAY RASTOGI, BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.
Union of India - Appellant
Versus
Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association And Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 8329 of 2011
Decided on : 22-02-2023

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Pay Scale – Classification of posts and determination of pay structure falls within exclusive domain of Executive and Courts or Tribunals cannot sit in appeal over wisdom of Executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service.
(2) File Notings cannot be treated as a decision of Government.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Pay Scale – Equation of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing pay scale for a given post and interference of Court was absolutely necessary to undo injustice – Though doctrine “equal pay for equal work” is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of Law, equal pay must be for equal work of equal value – Equation of posts and determination of pay scales is primary function of Executive and not of Judiciary – Courts should not enter upon task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like Pay Commissions which undertake rigorous exercise for job evaluation after taking into consideration several factors like nature of work, duties, accountability and responsibilities attached to posts, extent of powers conferred on persons holding a particular post, promotional avenues, Statutory rules governing conditions of service, horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs etc. (Paras 9 and 14)

(B) Service Law – Pay Scale – Nature of work involved in two posts may sometimes appear to be more or less similar, however, if classification of posts and determination of pay scale have reasonable nexus with the objective or purpose sought to be achieved, Pay Commissions would be justified in recommending and State would be justified in prescribing different pay scales for seemingly similar posts – A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues or frustration due to longer duration of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation – There could be more than one grade in a particular service – Classification of posts and determination of pay structure falls within exclusive domain of Executive and Courts or Tribunals cannot sit in appeal over wisdom of Executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service – Duties and responsibilities of posts of CTOs and JDOs are different and promotional avenues also have different duration and different criteria – Duties and responsibilities of both posts are different and promotional avenues also have different duration and different criteria – Powers of judicial review in matters involving financial implications are also very limited – Wisdom and advisability of Courts in matters concerning finance, are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless a gross case of arbitrariness or unfairness is established by aggrieved party – Impugned orders passed by High Court and Tribunal quashed and set aside. (Paras 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19)

(C) Administrative Law – File Notings – Noting recorded in file is merely an expression of opinion by a particular officer and by no-stretch of imagination such noting could be treated as a decision of Government. (Para 16)

Facts of the case:

By way of present appeal, the appellant-Union of India has challenged the judgment and order dated 02.08.2010 passed by High Court of Delhi, in WP(C)No. 1006 of 2008, whereby High Court had dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant and confirmed the judgment and order dated 08.06.2007 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal - Main question that falls for consideration before this Court is whether Tribunal and the High Court were justified in equating posts of JDOs with CTOs, and in fixing pay scales of JDOs equivalent to that of CTOs, in utter disregard of the legal position settled by Supreme Court in catena of decisions to the effect that Courts should not interfere with the complex issues of evaluating nature of duties and responsibilities of posts, and of fixing pay scales, which task otherwise is best done by expert bodies like Pay Commission.

Findings of Court:

Tribunal and High Court had committed gross error in interfering with pay scales recommended by Fifth Central Pay Commission and accepted by the appellant for the posts of JDOs and CTOs, and in upgrading the pay scale of JDOs making it equivalent to pay scale of CTOs.

Result : Appeal allowed.