- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Union Of India And Another v. P.V Hariharan And Another
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondents are Tool Room Assistants working in the Integrated Fisheries Project (IFP), a wing of the Fisheries Department. Their original pay scale of Rs 85–128 was revised over time to Rs 210–290 and, after the IV Pay Commission, to Rs 800–1150.
In 1991 they filed OA No. 391/1991 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Ernakulam Bench, contending that a Central Government notification issued under Rule 6 of the CCS (CCA) Rules classified their post as Group C, thereby entitling them to the higher pay scale of Rs 1150–2900. The Tribunal accepted the contention and granted the higher scale. The Union of India (appellants) challenged this order before the Supreme Court in the present civil appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the post of Tool Room Assistant in the Integrated Fisheries Project properly falls in Group C or Group D under the Central Government’s classification notification.
- Whether mere inclusion of a post in a particular group can by itself alter the pay scale fixed for that post from Rs 800–1150 to Rs 1150–2900.
- Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction in directing a change of pay scale without adequate legal basis.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondents (Tool Room Assistants)
- Claimed their post is categorised as “skilled” and listed in Group C under Item 58 of Annexure A-8 to the Integrated Fisheries Department list.
- Contended that placement in Group C automatically entitles them to the pay scale of Rs 1150–2900.
- Invoked the principle of “equal pay for equal work” in comparison with Tool Room Assistants in the Central Institute of Fisheries, Nautical and Engineering Training Department (CIFNET).
Appellants (Union of India)
- Opposed the claim, asserting that the maximum of the respondents’ existing scale (Rs 1150) does not exceed Rs 1150; therefore the post belongs to Group D, not Group C.
- Argued that classification of posts and fixation of pay scales are distinct governmental functions; the latter cannot be altered merely because of the former.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court held that the determining factor for grouping under the notification is the maximum of the pay scale.
- The respondents’ scale is Rs 800–1150; its maximum does not exceed Rs 1150, therefore it fits squarely within Group D (“maximum of which is Rs 1150 or less”).
- The phrase “over Rs 1150” in the definition of Group C plainly means Rs 1151 and above; Rs 1150 itself cannot be characterised as “over Rs 1150”.
- Even assuming a clerical placement of the post in Group C, classification cannot, by itself, modify an existing pay scale. Pay scales are fixed by the Government, generally on Pay Commission recommendations; classification merely organises posts based on already-fixed scales.
- The Tribunal’s decision conflated these two distinct functions, leading to an “wholly unsustainable” order. The Court criticised the Tribunal’s “ambiguous and vague” reasoning.
- Recognising that the Tribunal had not addressed the alternative plea of “equal pay for equal work” vis-à-vis CIFNET Tool Room Assistants, the Court remitted the matter for fresh consideration on that limited ground.
- In obiter, the Court cautioned Administrative Tribunals against routinely revising pay scales, emphasising the cascading fiscal impact and recommending that pay-scale matters be heard by a Bench including at least one Judicial Member.
Holding and Implications
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the CAT’s order granting the higher pay scale, and remitted the case to the Tribunal to consider the “equal pay for equal work” claim.
Immediate Effect: The respondents’ entitlement to the Rs 1150–2900 scale is revoked pending reconsideration; their existing scale of Rs 800–1150 remains operative unless altered on remand.
Broader Implications: While no new legal precedent on pay-scale determination was created, the Court delivered a strong advisory to all Administrative Tribunals to exercise restraint in pay-scale matters, highlighting the need for judicial oversight and the fiscal ramifications of such orders. Copies of the judgment were directed to be circulated to CAT and State Tribunal Chairpersons for guidance.
B.P Jeevan Reddy, J.— This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, allowing OA No. 391 of 1991 filed by the respondents herein.
2. The respondents are Tool Room Assistants in the Integrated Fisheries Project (IFP) which is a wing of the Fisheries Department, the other wing being the Central Institute of Fisheries, Nautical and Engineering Training Department (CIFNET). The pay scale of Tool Room Assistants in IFP was initially Rs 85-128, revised to Rs 210-290. The IVth Pay Commission prescribed a uniform pay scale of Rs 800-1150 for two pre-existing pay scales, viz., Rs 210-270 and Rs 210-290. The respondents thus came into the pay scale Rs 800-1150.
3. The Central Government issued a notification under Rule 6 of CCS (CC&A) Rules classifying various posts into Groups A, B, C and D. Group C comprised central civil posts “carrying a pay or a scale of pay with a maximum of over Rs 1150 but less than Rs 2900”. Group D comprised civil posts “carrying a pay or a scale of pay, the maximum of which is Rs 1150 or less”. It is stated by the respondents that their post comes under “skilled” group and that as per the notification aforesaid, this category is placed in Group C. Reliance is placed upon Annexure A-8 to the writ petition which was a list of names of the posts in the Integrated Fisheries Department. Item 58 of the said list, it was stated, includes the post carrying pay scale of Rs 210-290 (which scale was later revised to Rs 800-1150) in Group C. The appellants, who were respondents in the original application, opposed the respondents' claim. The Tribunal held that inasmuch the post held by the respondents is included in Group C, they are entitled to the pay scale of Rs 1150-2900. The original application filed by the respondents was allowed accordingly.
4. We are unable to appreciate the reasoning or approach of the Tribunal. The pay scale of Tool Room Assistant in IFP is Rs 800-1150. In other words, the maximum of the said pay scale is not “over Rs 1150” so as to fall within Group C. The post properly fell under Group D because it carried a pay, the maximum of which was “Rs 1150 or less”. “Over Rs 1150” means Rs 1151 and above. “Rs 1150” cannot be characterised as “over Rs 1150”. The said post, therefore, properly fell under Group D and not under Group C. Assuming that the said post was mentioned under Group C, it may be — or may not be — an error. What is material is that the classification cannot result in change of pay scale from Rs 800-1150 to Rs 1150-2900. This is simply unimaginable. Pay scales are what are prescribed for each post by the Government which is very often done on the basis of recommendations of a Pay Commission or a similar expert body. Classification of posts has nothing to do with fixation of pay scales; it only classifies posts into several groups based upon the pay scales already fixed. Classification and prescribing pay scales for several posts are two different and distinct functions. The Tribunal's order is, in our opinion, wholly unsustainable in law. The reasons given in support of the impugned order are ambiguous and vague. The impugned order of the Tribunal is accordingly set aside. Shri Nambiar, learned counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that the respondents had also raised the plea of “equal pay for equal work” on the basis of the pay scale granted to Tool Room Assistants in the CIFNET, but that the Tribunal has not dealt with it. We, therefore, remit the matter to deal with the said ground according to law and pass final orders in the original application.
5. Before parting with this appeal, we feel impelled to make a few observations. Over the past few weeks, we have come across several matters decided by Administrative Tribunals on the question of pay scales. We have noticed that quite often the Tribunals are interfering with pay scales without proper reasons and without being conscious of the fact that fixation of pay is not their function. It is the function of the Government which normally acts on the recommendations of a Pay Commission. Change of pay scale of a category has a cascading effect. Several other categories similarly situated, as well as those situated above and below, put forward their claims on the basis of such change. The Tribunal should realise that interfering with the prescribed pay scales is a serious matter. The Pay Commission, which goes into the problem at great depth and happens to have a full picture before it, is the proper authority to decide upon this issue. Very often, the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” is also being misunderstood and misapplied, freely revising and enhancing the pay scales across the board. We hope and trust that the Tribunals will exercise due restraint in the matter. Unless a clear case of hostile discrimination is made out, there would be no justification for interfering with the fixation of pay scales. We have come across orders passed by Single Members and that too quite often Administrative Members, allowing such claims. These orders have a serious impact on the public exchequer too. It would be in the fitness of things if all matters relating to pay scales, i.e, matters asking for a higher pay scale or an enhanced pay scale, as the case may be, on one or the other ground, are heard by a Bench comprising at least one Judicial Member. The Chairman of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Chairmen of the State Administrative Tribunals shall consider issuing appropriate instructions in the matter.
Copies of this Order shall be communicated to the Hon'ble Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal, and to all the Hon'ble Chairmen of the State Administrative Tribunals for bringing this order to the notice of all the learned Vice-Chairmen and Members.
Alert