1. Dispute regarding parity of pay-scales between ministerial employees and the executive force in the police department following enrolment under the Police Act, 1861. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2012 Supreme(SC) 925
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. BOBDE, L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.
S.H Baig & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. - Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.__9888-9899_OF 2018 [Arising out of S.L.P (Civil) Nos. 27288-27299 of 2011] WITH Civil Appeal Nos. 9925-9926 of 2018 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.17498-17499 of 2013) Civil Appeal No._9929 of 2018 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13561 of 2014) Civil Appeal No._9930 of 2018 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.25985 of 2014) Civil Appeal Nos._9900-9905 of 2018 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.27300-27305 of 2011) Civil Appeal Nos.9907-9908 of 2018 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.30992-30993 of 2011) Civil Appeal No._9906 of 2018 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.29387 of 2011) Civil Appeal Nos.9915-9924 of 2018 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.26760-26769 of 2012) Civil Appeal Nos._9912-9914 of 2018 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.15743-15745 of 2012) Civil Appeal Nos. 9909-9911 of 2018 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.1584-1586 of 2012) Civil Appeal No._9927 of 2018 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4983 of 2014) Civil Appeal No._9928 of 2018 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.7915 of 2014) Civil Appeal Nos._9931 of 2018 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.35247 of 2017) Decided On : 25-09-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Even if persons are holding same rank/ designation and having similar powers, duties and responsibilities they can be placed in different scales of pay and cannot claim the benefit of the principle of equal pay for equal work.
Even if persons are holding same rank/ designation and having similar powers, duties and responsibilities they can be placed in different scales of pay and cannot claim the benefit of the principle of equal pay for equal work.
Subject
Employment Law - Pay and Benefits
Act Referred
MADHYA PRADESH REVISION OF PAY RULES: R.7
Headnote
(a) M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1983 – Rule 7 – Memorandum dated 5th November, 1967 – police ranks given to Ministerial staff as also uniform and uniform allowance – Held they cannot claim parity of pay with Executive Force merely on that ground. (Para 9)
(b) Service law – Pay scales – Parity – Even if persons are holding same rank/ designation and having similar powers, duties and responsibilities they can be placed in different scales of pay and cannot claim the benefit of the principle of equal pay for equal work – Instantly method of recruitment, qualifications for appointment, duties and responsibilities of the Ministerial and Executive staff different – Held, Ministerial employees not entitled to claim parity of pay-scales with the Executive Force. (Para 13)
(1982) 1 SCC 618; (2017) 1 SCC 148 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
These Appeals have been filed against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, by which the claim of parity of pay-scales made by the Ministerial employees of the Police Department in the State of Madhya Pradesh was not accepted.
Finding of the Court:
High Court rightly held that Ministerial employees not entitled to claim parity of pay-scales with the Executive Force.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants claim pay parity based on police ranks and enrolment; State contends different recruitment, qualifications, and duties justify separate pay-scales. (Para 9 , 12 )
3. The 1967 Memorandum preserved existing emoluments; the 1983 Rules expressly exclude ministerial staff from certain pay-fixation benefits; duties and qualifications differ between cadres. (Para 9 , 10 , 12 , 13 )
4. Pay parity cannot be claimed under equal pay for equal work if recruitment, qualifications, training, and duties and responsibilities are not similar. (Para 12 )
5. Appeals dismissed; parity of pay-scales denied; recovery of excess payments for the specified period affirmed. (Para 13 , 14 )
6. Does the grant of police ranks to ministerial staff entitle them to pay parity with the executive force?
No. Granting police ranks and certain privileges does not automatically entitle ministerial staff to pay parity, particularly when the governing memorandum explicitly states that such employees will continue to draw their existing emoluments. (Para 9 )
7. Can ministerial staff claim pay parity based on the principle of equal pay for equal work?
No. The principle of equal pay for equal work is inapplicable when the qualifications for appointment, mode of recruitment, training, and the nature of duties and responsibilities are not similar between the two cadres. (Para 12 , 13 )
8. Does holding the same rank or designation necessitate the same pay scale?
No. It is well-settled law that persons holding the same rank, designation, or similar powers can be placed in different pay scales if their underlying recruitment and responsibilities differ. (Para 12 )
9. How does the express exclusion of ad hoc increments in pay-fixation rules affect pay parity claims?
Where pay-revision rules expressly exclude specific categories of employees from the benefit of ad hoc increases for initial pay fixation, such employees are disentitled from claiming the benefit of a higher pay-scale. (Para 10 )
JUDGMENT
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
I.A. Nos.43-54 of 2015 in SLP (C) Nos.27288-27299 of 2011
(Applications for directions)
I.A.Nos. 6-7 of 2011 in SLP (C) Nos.30992-30993 of 2011 (Applications for impleadment.)
I.A. No………… in SLP (C) Nos.15743-15745 of 2012 (Applications for deletion of name of proforma Respondent Nos.6-18)
I.A. No………… in SLP (C) Nos.26760-26769 of 2012 (Application for deletion of name of proforma Respondent)
AND
I.A. No.96266 of 2018 (Application for substitution of deceased Petitioner No.4)
All the above Interlocutory Applications are allowed. Leave granted.
1. These Appeals have been filed against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, by which the claim of parity of pay-scales made by the Ministerial employees of the Police Department in the State of Madhya Pradesh was not accepted.
2. Recruitment to the posts of Ministerial employees i.e. Head Clerk, Assistant Clerk, Accountant, Assistant Accountant, Record Keeper, Daftari, etc. was governed by the M.P. Police Regulations, which were framed under the Police Act, 1861. Inspectors, Sub-Inspectors, Subedars, Assistant Sub-Inspectors, etc. were appointed as per the provisions governed by Part III of M.P. Police 5th Regulations. On November, 1967, the State Government created new Police Ranks (Ministerial) in the State Police Force under Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861. The Ministerial employees who opted to be enrolled under the Police Act, 1861 would continue to draw emoluments in their existing pay-scales or as may be revised from time to time. They were given Uniform Grant and Uniform Maintenance Allowance in accordance with the scale prescribed for the corresponding regular posts (Executive). They would, however, not be entitled to House Rent or Rent Free Accommodation and Conveyance Allowance admissible to Officers of corresponding Ranks in the Executive branch. There was a difference in pay-scales between the Ministerial and Executive branches of the Police from the beginning, which can be seen from the M.P. Pay-Revision Rules, 1961, popularly known as “Tarachand Pay Scales”. The difference between pay-scales was continued even as per the “Faquir Chand Pay-Scales” in 1973. On 14th October, 1982, the Chaudhary Pay Commission submitted its Report in which it recommended as follows :
“We are unable to make recommendation of the pay scales equivalent to Police Executive Force to the ministerial employees of police department. They will have to satisfy with the pay scales received by the colleagues working in other departments.”
3. The M.P. Revision of Pay Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1983 Rules) were brought into force on the basis of the Chaudhary Commission w.e.f ...1st April, 1981. Rule 7 provides for fixation of initial pay of the Revised Scale which reads as under:
“ Rule 7 - Fixation of initial pay in the revised scale- (1) .. .. (b) .. .. (iv)- Ad hoc increase sanctioned to certain categories of Government servants in Police, Home Guard, Jail and Excise Department, except the ad hoc increase allowed to Ministerial Staff of Police Department. (2) An amount equal to 20% of the basic pay (inclusive of stagnation allowance, if any) shall first be calculated. In case this amount exceeds Rs.150 it should be reduced to Rs.150. From such amount of interim relief, or in the case of certain categories of Government servants in the Engineering Department, the amount of the ad hoc increase sanctioned to them, shall be deducted and the balance be added to the emoluments arrived at as in sub-rule (1). If in any case, the balance is less than Rs.10/- then Rs.10/- shall be added to the emoluments. ”
4. Mr. P.N. Tripathi who was initially appointed to a Ministerial post and was working as a Deputy Superintendant of Police (DSP) in the office of the Director General of Police (DGP), Madhya Pradesh filed O.A. No. 165 of 1994 in the Administrative Tribunal, Bhopal Bench seeking revised pay-fixation and the quashing of an order passed fo
