Point of Law: Determination of pay scale and equivalence is a primary function of the executives and expert bodies like Pay Commission and is not a function of writ court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, until and unless it is found that serious error has occurred while doing the same and situation is as such that court needs to intervene.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. UK Nair, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. BS Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners.

1. The grievances raised in this writ petition are under:

(i) The petitioners who were Class-II Officers of the Home Guard Services are aggrieved by the action on the part of the respondent authorities down grading their scale of pay in comparison to their counterparts in APS Juniors Grade Officers under the Government of Assam.

(ii) According to the petitioners, Class-II cadre in the Home Guard Service comprises of post of Assistant Commandant of Industrial Security Force and Assam Special Reserve Force, District Home Guard Commandant and Centre Commandant of District Home Guard Training Centre. According to the petitioners, their counter part and equivalent in Assam Police is the cadre of APS Junior Grade which comprises of post of Assistant Commandant of Battalion, Deputy Superintendent of Police.

(iii) It is the case of the petitioners that since the inception of the two services there has been equality with regard to the status, rank and scale of pay between the aforesaid posts in two cadres. According to the petitioners, both cadres are performing duties and responsibilities similar in nature.

(iv) The petitioners contend that till 2006, since the inception the two cadres were at per so far relating to their scale of pay. However, with the implementation of 6th Assam Pay Commission, 2006 there is disequilibrium between various posts figuring in two cadres. According to them, the post of APS Junior Grade was given higher scale of pay in pay band IV. Being situated thus, the petitioners preferred representation raising such anomalies and claimed rectification of such anomalies.

(v) According to the petitioners, such anomalies were also raised by the Senior Staff Officer, Home Guard (G) in the office of the Director General, Civil Defense and Commandant General of Home Guard, Assam.

(vi) The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 17.12.2013, whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioners were rejected on the ground that as the post of Class-II Officers of Assam Home Guard is not recruited through the Combined Civil Service Examination, therefore, the Government cannot agree to the proposal of giving similar scale of pay as that of APS Grade-II. Such order dated 17.12.2013 is impugned in the present writ proceeding.

2. Submission of the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners:

(i) The ground for rejection has no legs to stand, submits Mr. UK Nair, learned Senior counsel. According to him, the ground of rejection cited by the respondent authorities is totally misconceived. To substantiate such submission, Mr. Nair refers to the Annexure-A of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Department of Finance. Said annexure is a part of one man committee report which according to Mr. Nair, was constituted for taking a decision on the anomalies in determination of scale of pay among different posts under Combined Civil Services. According to Mr. Nair, there was an anomaly in the scale of pay within different Combined Civil Services i.e. between the Superintendent of Taxes, District Transport Officer etc and Labour Officer and Superintendent of Excise, Assistant Registrar of Co-Operative Society inasmuch as the formers were given pay band 4 whereas the later were not given pay band 4. Therefore, such anomaly was recommended to said one man committee and said one man committee came to a conclusion that since those were recruited under the same selection process and they were under the same Grade i.e. APS Junior Grade, therefore, there should not be any disparity in scale of pay between them and accordingly it was recommended that the letter be also placed in pay band 4.

(ii) According to Mr. Nair, such decision in no way reflects anything on the claim of the petitioners inasmuch as the issue before the said committee was not relating to the disparity of scales of pay between the petitioners and their counterpart in As