IMPORTANT POINT
The Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is more concerned with the decision-making process rather than the decision itself, unless the decision shocks the conscience of the Court or appears to be grossly disproportionate. Once a pay-scale is granted, it cannot be subsequently altered to the detriment of the individual or the cadre, and excess payment made may not be recovered unless it was fraudulently obtained or induced by the employees.

JUDGMENT

Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - The challenge here is to the acceptance by the State of the recommendations of the Fifth State Pay Commission pertaining to the scales of pay of personnel in the Meghalaya Treasury Accounts Service.

2. The principal ground of challenge is that it was only in 2014 that the State had recognised that the cadre structure of the Meghalaya Treasury Accounts Service was comparable to that of the Meghalaya Accounts Service as, in both the cases, the minimum educational qualifications at the entry-level, the in-service training and the nature of works were similar. Further, the relevant notification of July 1, 2014 acknowledged that an additional qualification was mandatory for entrants in the Meghalaya Treasury Accounts Service as the candidates had to be adept at the use of computers.

3. Pursuant to the notification of July 1, 2014, the pay-scales of the three posts under the Meghalaya Treasury Accounts Service were upgraded for Accountants, Senior Accounts Assistants and Junior Accounts Assistants such that they were at par with the comparable posts in the Meghalaya Accounts Service. In its report of July 31, 2017 the Fifth Meghalaya Pay Commission noticed several anomalies arising as a result of the upgradation in the pay-scales pertaining to the Meghalaya Treasury Accounts Service. The Commission noted that earlier State Pay Commissions had maintained the pay-scales of the Meghalaya Secretariat Subordinate Service, which is the premier subordinate service in the State, at a higher level than that of the Meghalaya Subordinate Treasury Accounts Service. The difference in the pay-scales was noticed and the Commission observed that 'an anomalous position has arisen out of the State Government decision to sharply increase the pay scales of the Meghalaya Subordinate Treasury Accounts Service, as indicated above'.

4. Upon considering the matter, the Fifth Pay Commission recommended as follows at paragraph 14.1.5 of its report:

'14.1.5 Having considered all aspects of the matter, the Commission recommends-

(a) Status quo in respect of the levels of pay scales of the UDAs and LDAs under the Meghalaya Secretariat Subordinate Services, as fixed by the Meghalaya Revision Pay Rules, 2009;

(b) Re-fixation of the pay levels of the Meghalaya Subordinate Treasury Accounts Service, with effect from the date of implementation of the Commission's recommendations, as follows-

Accountant : Level - 12 (starting at Rs 39400)

Senior Accounts Assistant: Level - 11 (starting at Rs 37800)

Junior Accounts Assistant: Level - 8 (starting at Rs 30300)

(c) The pay of the affected Members of the Meghalaya Subordinate Treasury Accounts Service may be protected in the Pay levels as recommended above with reference to the actual amount drawn as Pay and DA on the effective date, under the relevant provisions of the Meghalaya F.Rs and S.Rs.'

5. The writ petitioner association complains that when the State government perceived as recently as in 2014, that the duties discharged by the personnel in the two branches were the same or comparable and when the State acknowledged that an additional technical qualification was necessary to be recruited into the Meghalaya Treasury Accounts Service, the Fifth Pay Commission could not have undone the same, particularly without specifically disagreeing with the reason for the upgradation indicated in the notification of July 1, 2014. The underlying submission is that the mere resentment of the other group of employees would not be a relevant consideration for, in effect, downgrading another cadre of State employees.

6. The other contention of the writ petitioner association is that as a consequence of the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission and its acceptance and implementation by the State, there is a possibility of the State seeking to recover the additional pay that may have been released to the members of the writ petitioner association and others of their ilk in line with the pay-scales applicable to