Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(SC) 12187
A.S. Bopanna, J
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
D.G.O.F. Employees Association – Respondent
Civil Appeal No.1663 of 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R. Bala Subramanian
For the Respondents: Kiran Suri
The court affirmed the necessity of maintaining historical pay parity for employees in Ordnance Factories relative to counterparts in CSS, addressing discrimination based on arbitrary denial of appropriate pay scales.
Headnote:(A) Central Government Services (Pay) Rules, 2008 - Sixth Central Pay Commission (6th CPC) - Employees' pay scales - The High Court set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal’s refusal to upgrade pay scales for employees of Ordnance Factories to match those of Central Secretariat Services (CSS), declaring entitlement for parity under 6th CPC provisions. (Paras 16, 21)
(B) Equal Pay for Equal Work - Judicial review in administrative matters regarding pay scale requires demonstration of arbitrariness or discrimination; courts do not typically undertake job evaluations. Relevant judicial precedents have been referenced in interpretation of equal pay obligations. (Paras 7, 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
Employees from the Ordnance Factory Board sought equal pay scales with employees of CSS upon recommendations by the 6th CPC; the High Court found historical pay parity justified upgrading.
Findings of Court:
Historical pay parity must be maintained across departments as per the 6th CPC recommendations.
Issues: The primary issue considered was whether Ordnance Factory employees are historically and functionally equivalent to their counterparts in central services for pay scale determination.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that the employees of Ordnance Factories, being in the headquarters, are to be treated similarly to employees in CSS, thereby affirming their rights to upgraded pay scales.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of the appeal regarding pay scale discrepancies. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. analysis of the high court's decision to uphold pay parity. (Para 3) |
| 3. arguments surrounding judicial review in pay scale determinations. (Para 10 , 12) |
| 4. conclusion affirming the application of historical parity in pay scales. (Para 11) |
| 5. final disposition of the appeal, underscoring the lack of merit. (Para 16) |
JUDGEMENT
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 C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 1 Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2023.11.09 16:18:00 IST Reason:
- Signature Not Verified 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 VI th Central Pay Commission (VI th 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 C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 2 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.
C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 3 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 VI th 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
