Creamy Layer Status cannot be determined solely by Parental Salary, clarifies SC

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that parental salary alone cannot be used to classify a candidate as belonging to the OBC “creamy layer”, granting relief to several Civil Services aspirants who had been denied appointments despite clearing the examination. The Court dismissed a batch of appeals filed by the Union government and held that authorities had wrongly applied an income-based test while ignoring the prescribed status-based criteria of parents’ posts. 

The case arose when several candidates who cleared the Civil Services Examination under the OBC Non-Creamy Layer category were denied appointments after authorities classified them as belonging to the creamy layer. The government relied on a 2004 clarification issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to treat high parental salary, particularly from jobs in public sector undertakings, banks, and similar institutions, as sufficient to exclude candidates from reservation benefits.

The candidates challenged this approach before tribunals and High Courts, arguing that the government had ignored the 1993 Office Memorandum framed after the Indra Sawhney judgment, which prioritised the status of parents’ posts and excluded salary income from the income/wealth test. Multiple High Courts agreed with the candidates, prompting the Union government to approach the Supreme Court.

The Division Bench of Justice PS Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan found that the government’s reliance on income alone distorted the policy framework governing the creamy layer principle. The Court emphasised that the 1993 policy treats the status and service category of parents as the primary indicator of social advancement, while income plays only a limited residual role. The Court observed that “determination of creamy layer status solely on the basis of income brackets, without reference to the categories of posts and status parameters… is clearly unsustainable in law.”

The Bench further clarified that a clarificatory instruction cannot override or modify the parent policy, adding that mechanical aggregation of salary income would defeat the constitutional objective behind OBC reservations.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the Union’s appeals and directed the authorities to reconsider the affected candidates’ claims in accordance with the correct framework within six months.

Source Link