IMPORTANT POINT
Pay scale – Though Courts would not undertake exercise of determining pay scale keeping in view nature of work by comparing employees who are not similarly placed in cases where exercise of determining such complex issues would arise, relief cannot be denied to employees when entitlement is denied due to irrational consideration without application of mind to facts involved in the case by employer, thereby denying benefits to employees.

JUDGMENT :

(A.S. Bopanna, J.)

1. The appellants-Union of India and others are before this Court assailing the order dated 14.10.2014 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.4606 of 2013. By the said order, the High Court has set aside the order dated 18.10.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (‘CAT’ for short) in O.A. No.39 of 2011 and the order dated 01.04.2013 passed in the Review Application bearing R.A.No.43 of 2013. The CAT had thereby declined the relief sought by the respondents herein for parity in pay scales. The High Court while setting aside the order of CAT has held that the respondents would be entitled to the benefit in terms of paragraph 3.1.9 of the recommendations contained in the VIth Central Pay Commission (VIth CPC for short). The appellants therefore claiming to be aggrieved are in this appeal.

2. The respondent is an Association of Employees in the Head Quarters of Ordnance Factory Board. They sought for upgradation of the pay scales of Assistant and Personal Assistants of Ordnance Factory Board, Headquarters as had been given to similarly placed employees of Central Secretariat Service (‘CSS’ for short) and equivalent posts in Armed Force Headquarters Civil Service (‘AFHCS’ for short) Cadre, New Delhi and similar other cadres. The Ministry of Defence through the order dated 20.04.2010 did not approve the same. This was communicated to the respondents by the letter dated 07.06.2010. The respondents therefore being aggrieved were before the CAT. The CAT also declined the prayer which resulted in the writ proceedings before the High Court.

3. The High Court having analysed the matter was however of the view that the members of the respondent were historically treated as equals to CSS/CSSS employees and had earlier enjoyed equal pay and all benefits. Hence a direction was issued to the appellants herein to fix the members of the Respondent Association and other similarly placed Assistants working in Ordnance Factories and in OFB in the same pay scale as was given to Assistants similarly placed in CSS/CSSS, Army Headquarters, UPSC, CAT, MEA, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs etc. with effect from the same date as was first given to them. The appellant therefore claiming to be aggrieved by the same are in this appeal.

4. Heard Mr. R. Bala Subramanian, learned senior counsel for the appellant, Ms. Kiran Suri, learned senior counsel for the respondents and perused the appeal papers.

5. The thrust of the contention on behalf of the appellants is that the power of judicial review in matters pertaining to pay scale is limited, unless arbitrariness can be demonstrated or there is palpable discrimination. Insofar as the provision contained in the recommendations of the VIth CPC the appellants seek to rely on para 3.1.14 which recommended replacement pay scale. The reliance placed by the respondents instead on para 3.1.9 is disputed to contend that it does not refer to employees of OFB and it is further contended that it does not extend any extra benefits. In that backdrop, it is seen that the High Court having noted the fact that the successive CPC recommendations had resulted in parity in pay scales and in view of such equal treatment historically had also considered the pay scale as provided in the VIth CPC as well as the intention as contained in para 3.1.9 which provided for parity.

6. In order to appreciate the manner in which the High Court has analysed the issue to arrive at its conclusion, it would be apposite to reproduce relevant portion of the consideration made by the High Court. The same reads as hereunder:-

“16. In this background, it would be necessary to extract the relevant recommendations of the Sixth CPC, i.e. paras 3.1.9 and 3.1.14 which reads as follows:

"3.1.9 Accordingly, the Commission recommends upgradation of the entry scale of Section Officers in