- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Union Of India And Others v. Hiranmoy Sen And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondents were Senior Auditors in the Office of the Accountant General, Assam and Meghalaya. They sought parity in pay scale with Assistants in the Central Secretariat. The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed this claim by order dated 19-1-2001, and the Gauhati High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order in WP No. 7598 of 2001 by judgment dated 16-9-2002. The present civil appeal challenged the High Court’s judgment.
The opinion also records Civil Appeal No. 4858 of 2007 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 6229 of 2006) and Civil Appeal No. 7234 of 2003; leave was granted in SLP (C) No. 6229 of 2006 and those appeals were disposed of in view of the decision in Civil Appeal No. 7232 of 2003.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether courts/tribunals can grant or fix pay-scale parity (equal pay) between Senior Auditors in the Accountant General’s office and Assistants in the Central Secretariat.
- Whether the respondents established a “complete and wholesale identity” between the two posts so as to justify applying the principle of equal pay for equal work.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondents' Arguments
- The respondents contended that auditors and assistants had historically been treated on a par in the matter of pay scales.
Appellant's Position (as recorded)
- The appellant denied the asserted historical parity in pay scales.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| S.C Chandra v. State of Jharkhand (2007) 8 SCC 279, JT (2007) 10 SC 272 | Courts cannot fix pay scales as that is a purely executive function; the “equal pay for equal work” principle has been watered down and is not applied unless there is complete and wholesale identity between the groups, and even then the matter should be examined by an expert committee appointed by the Government rather than the court granting a higher pay scale. | The Court followed this precedent to allow the appeal, holding that it could not be said there was complete and wholesale identity between Senior Auditors (Accountant General, Assam and Meghalaya) and Assistants in the Central Secretariat, and therefore the judicial grant of parity was unsustainable. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court relied on its decision in S.C Chandra v. State of Jharkhand, reiterating that fixation of pay scales is a purely executive function and courts should not undertake it. It noted that the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” is applied only where there is a complete and wholesale identity between the two groups, and even then the appropriate course is examination by an expert committee appointed by the Government rather than direct judicial grant of a higher pay scale.
Applying these principles, the Court held that complete and wholesale identity could not be established between Senior Auditors in the Office of the Accountant General, Assam and Meghalaya and Assistants in the Central Secretariat. It further held that even assuming the respondents’ claim of historical parity were correct, that would not justify automatic parity merely because another post’s pay scale was increased; pay-scale revision remains for the Government/authorities to decide. The Court emphasized judicial self-restraint and non-encroachment into executive or legislative domains.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED: The Supreme Court set aside the Gauhati High Court judgment dated 16-9-2002 and the Central Administrative Tribunal order dated 19-1-2001, and allowed Civil Appeal No. 7232 of 2003. No order as to costs.
Consequentially, Civil Appeal No. 4858 of 2007 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 6229 of 2006) and Civil Appeal No. 7234 of 2003 were also ALLOWED in view of the decision in Civil Appeal No. 7232 of 2003, with no order as to costs.
The direct effect was to deny judicially granted pay-scale parity to the respondents; the opinion indicates that any reconsideration of pay scales lies with the Government/authorities, and it does not purport to create any new precedent beyond applying S.C Chandra.
Markandey Katju, J.—
Civil Appeal No. 7232 of 2003
1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Gauhati High Court dated 16-9-2002 in WP No. 7598 of 2001.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. In brief the claim of the respondents herein who were Senior Auditors in the Office of the Accountant General, Assam and Meghalaya, was to be given parity in pay scale with Assistants in the Central Secretariat. This claim was decreed by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide its order dated 19-1-2001 and the order of the Tribunal was upheld by the Gauhati High Court. Hence this appeal.
4. This Court in S.C Chandra v. State of Jharkhand (2007) 8 SCC 279, JT (2007) 10 SC 272 has held that the Court cannot fix pay scales as that is the purely executive function. In the aforesaid decision one of us (Markandey Katju, J.) has discussed in detail the principle of equal pay for equal work and has observed that the said principle has been considerably watered down in recent decisions of this Court, and it is not applied unless there is a complete and wholesale identity between the two groups, and even there the matter should be sent for examination by an expert committee appointed by the Government instead of the Court itself granting the higher pay scale. The entire case law on the subject has been discussed in the said decision. Following the aforesaid decision in S.C Chandra case (2007) 8 SCC 279, JT (2007) 10 SC 272 this appeal has to be allowed. It cannot be said that there is a complete and wholesale identity between the Senior Auditors in the Office of Accountant General, Assam and Meghalaya and Assistants in the Central Secretariat.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the auditors and assistants have been historically treated on a par in the matter of pay scales. Although this fact has been denied by the appellant, we are of the opinion that even if it is correct, that will not be of any help to the respondents. To give an illustration, if post A and post B have been carrying the same pay scales, merely because the pay scale of post A has been increased that by itself cannot result in increase in the pay scale of post B to the same level. It is entirely on the Government and the authorities to fix the pay scales and to decide whether the pay scale of post B should be increased or not. The judiciary must exercise self-restraint and not encroach into the executive or legislative domain.
6. In view of the above, and following decision of this Court in S.C Chandra case (2007) 8 SCC 279, JT (2007) 10 SC 272, the impugned judgment of the Gauhati High Court dated 16-9-2002 and of the Tribunal dated 19-1-2001 are set aside. The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.
Civil Appeal No. 4858 of 2007 [arising out of SLP (C) No. 6229 of 2006] and Civil Appeal No. 7234 of 2003
7. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 6229 of 2006.
8. In view of the decision in Civil Appeal No. 7232 of 2003, these appeals are allowed. No order as to costs.
Alert