Shri V.D. Bhobe, Deputy Director ... vs State Of Goa, Through The Chief ...
2003 Latest Caselaw 851 Bom

JUDGMENT

F.I. Rebello, J.

1. Both these petitions are being disposed of by a common order as the facts are similar as also the questions of law which will have to be decided.

2. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 322 of 1998 as now amended are the Deputy Director of Accounts and Assistant Accounts Officer, working in the office of respondent No. 3. In the petition filed, the reliefs are for a writ of certiorari or appropriate writ, or order, or direction to quash order dated 27th October, 1997, which directed that pay scales shall be fixed without reference to the revised scales after 1st January, 1986, thereby fixing their pay scales taking into account the revision of pay scales by order dated 18th June, 1990. Prayer Clause (b) is a consequential relief by way of writ of mandamus to fix revised pay scales of Assistant Accounts Officers and Accounts Officers/Deputy Director of Accounts in the Government administration taking into account the revision of pay scales by an order dated 18th June, 1990 and, consequential directions. The petitioners have formulated the following propositions for determination :-

(i) Whether the order dated 27th October, 1997, issued by the Government of Goa, directing that while extending the benefit of revised pay scale recommended by the Fifth Central Pay Commission, the revision of pay scales subsequent to 1st January, 1986; shall be ignored is arbitrary and illegal;

(ii) Whether the order dated 27th October, 1997 amounts to reduction of a grade and reduction of pay of the petitioners and, therefore, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution; and

(iii) Whether the order dated 27th October, 1997, insofar as it pertains to the petitioners, amounts to hostile discrimination and, as such, is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution in view of the fact that in the case of officers working in the Directorate of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services and the Directorate of Agriculture, the benefits of Fifth Pay Commission have been extended with regard to the pay scales as revised after 1st January, 1986, while denying the said benefits to the petitioners.

3. Writ Petition No. 138 of 1999 is by an Association of Accountants in the Common Cadre of Government of Goa. The reliefs as sought for by them in the petition is by way of a writ of certiorari, or appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the order of the Government dated 5th January, 1999, (Annexure P. 8) and also a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India commanding the respondents to forthwith grant to the Accountants of the Common Accounts Cadre of the Government of Goa, the pay scale of Rs. 5000-150-8000 from 1st January, 1996.

Insofar as this petition is concerned, the principle contentions are that the order dated 27th October, 1997, provided that the cases of revision/ upgradation of pay scales such as those resulting from Court orders as well as rectification for specific anomalies done on or after 1st January, 1986, shall be examined separately. It is submitted that once the petitioners establish that their pay scales were upgraded after 1st January, 1986, by way of rectification of anomaly, the Government would be bound to grant pay scales recommended by the Fifth Pay Commission Report, corresponding to upgraded pay scales. If the Government refuses to do so, this action will be arbitrary, unjust and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It Is then submitted that the Government order dated 17th October, 1997 created a right in all employees of the Goa Government to a pay scale recommended by the Fifth Pay Commission corresponding to pay scales recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission from 1st January, 1996, subject to certain conditions. It is submitted that even considering the order dated 27th October, 1997 and even if the Government has examined the cases of the petitioners separately, the Government cannot be heard to say that they will only grant pay scales, corresponding to pay scale recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission. It is submitted that such contention will go against the purpose of the separate examination provided for such cases. It is then submitted that the petitioners belong to a class of employees different from the class to which all other Government employees belong. It is set out that in case of the petitioners, unlike other employees, the upgradation of pay scales after 1st January, 1986, was not done as an interim measure, as their upgradation was admittedly sanctioned after careful scrutiny of the duties and functions discharged by the Accountants, by reason of additional responsibilities upon attainment of Statehood, while in the case of the other employees, upgradation was admittedly sanctioned without any indepth study of their duties and functions and upgradation was rightly sanctioned as an interim measure. The upgradation was not, by way of rectification and the Government was wholly unjustified in upgrading pay scales of those other employees. It is, therefore, submitted that there is no question of parity between the petitioners and other Government employees. It is lastly submitted that the Government cannot be heard to plead cash crunch to defeat the just claims of the petitioner for whatever reasons. It is further submitted that this Court cannot issue direction to the Government to withdraw the pay scales recommended by the Fifth Pay Commission corresponding to upgraded scales given to other employees. The said employees are not parties to the proceedings and no direction, therefore can be given to their prejudice in their absence.

4. A few facts may now be set out. The recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission were accepted by the Government with effect from 1st January, 1986, and Accountants were fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300. From 1st July, 1987, the Government of Goa revised the pay scales of Accountant to Rs, 1600-2600 by an order dated 18th June, 1990, By an order of 31st July, 1996, the Goa Government temporarily revised the pay scales of other posts as set out in the said order. In Writ Petition No. 138 of 1999, the second petitioner was appointed on 16th May, 1988, in the pay scale of Rs. 1400-2300 and the third petitioner was appointed on 20th May, 1991 in the pay scale of Rs. 1600-2600. The Government of Goa implemented the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission by order dated 27th October, 1997, with effect from 1st January, 1996. Accountants were given the pay scale of Rs. 4500-7000. On 14th November, 1997, the Director of Accounts made representation on behalf of Accountants for restoration of revised pay scales. On 9th December, 1997. there was a representation demanding the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 from 1st January, 1996. A writ petition came to be filed before this Court, being Writ Petition No. 323 of 1998. A Division Bench of this Court opined that it will be sufficient to give directions to the Government to consider the representation of the petitioners within a period of three months from the date of the order and take appropriate decision in the matter. By order dated 5th January, 1999, the Government rejected the revisions.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that on 16th January. 1998, the Goa Government granted the holders of posts in the Department of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services Fifth Pay Commission scales corresponding to pay scales upgraded after 1st January, 1986. By order of 11th June, 1998, the Goa Government gave two posts of Assistant Agriculture Officers in the Agriculture Department, Fifth Pay Commission scales corresponding to the pay scale upgraded after 1st January, 1986. On 29th January, 1999, the Government of Goa gave to Junior Grade Officers of Goa Civil Services, Fifth Pay Commission scales corresponding to pay scales upgraded after 1st January, 1996. On 17th February, 1999, Goa Government gave to posts in Printing and Stationary Department, Fifth Pay Commission scales corresponding to the pay scales upgraded after 1st January, 1996. During the pendency of these petitions the Government of Goa made a reference to a One Man Committee on 24th September, 2001 for deciding the questions referred to the Committee, On 31st December, 2001, the Committee has submitted its report, recommending that the petitioners be given the revised pay scales.

6. In Writ Petition No. 322 of 1998 the first affidavit on behalf of the respondents was filed by A. S. Aras. In paragraph 5 of the said affidavit, it is set out that on 18th June, 1990, the scale of pay of Assistant Accounts Officer was revised to Rs. 2000-2300 and that if the Accounts/Officer/ Deputy Director of Accounts was revised to 2200-4000. This it is set out was a policy decision taken by the Government considering the nature of duties to be performed after attaining Statehood with effect from 30th May, 1987. The rationale for the revision was considering the duties and responsibilities of the accounts staff after Statehood. It was decided that pay scales of accounts staff in the State Government should be broadly on par with pay scales in the office of the Accountant General. This it was stated was the; main anomaly with regard to pay scales of Accountants in the scale of Rs. 1400-2300, which was lower than Subordinate Accounts Services (S.A.S.), as S.A.S. Accountant in the Accountant General's office which was in the time scale of Rs. 1640-2900. The State Government it is set out took the decision in 1990 to remove the disparity partially, but not completely. The revision in the pay scales of accountant necessitated by way of revision in the pay scale of the higher level posts of Assistant Accounts Officer and Accounts Officer in order to avoid fresh anomalies. The pay of Accountant was originally on par with that of Head Clerk in the State Administration. This parity was disturbed due to upgradation in 1990 with serious complications in the future. The revision of pay scales for Accountants however, subsequently resulted in demands for similar revisions by Secretariat and Non-Secretariat staff on similar grounds, with serious consequences for the State finances. It is then set out that the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission were adopted by the State Government by order dated 27th October, 1997, subject to certain modifications. It is also set out that as per the decision, revisions for Secretariat and Non-Secretariat staff, consequent upon implementation of Fourth Pay Commission Report, from 1st January, 1986, were ignored for the purpose of equation of pay as well as fixation of pay under the Fifth Pay Commission. The Government took this decision after careful consideration, keeping in view that revision in pay scales for various categories of employees after 1st January, 1986, had generated resentment and triggered demands for similar revisions from other categories. It is also pointed out that various revisions resulted in demands from the Goa Government Employees" Association representing Non-Secretariat staff for higher pay scales. As a consequence thereof, interim revised pay scales were granted for Non-Secretariat Staff as on 31st. July, 1996. However, it was made clear that those interim revised pay scales had to be ignored while fixing pay scales under the Fifth Pay Commission. The revision of pay scales of accounts staff had led to similar demands from Secretariat staff, which led to similar demands from Non-Secretariat staff. In view of the snowballing effect and serious implications for the State, it was accordingly decided to ignore all revisions made after 1st January, 1986 for the purpose of pay fixation under the Fifth Pay Commission. It is also set out that at the same time revision/upgradation of pay scales such as those resulting from Court orders or from specific anomalies, done on or after 1st January, 1986 would be examined separately. Dealing with the order passed by this Court, it is set out that the matter was again re-considered based upon the grievances and after taking into consideration all aspects and keeping in view the entire background of revision, the decision was taken by the Government that there is no case for revision and, accordingly, order dated 5th January, 1999 was issued.

7. An additional affidavit dated 14th July, 2003, has been filed by Dattaram Sardessai, Under Secretary (Finance) to the Government of Goa. It is set out that after the acceptance of the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission with effect from 1st January, 1986, revisions were given to certain categories of employees from time to time, starting with Accountants, Assistant Accounts Officer and Accounts Officer/Deputy Director of Accounts. It is therefore submitted that after the acceptance of the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission, the pay scales only in relation to certain categories of employees was revised, whereas there were large number of other employees whose scales remained the same as per the report of the Fourth Pay Commission. As there was a time gap between the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission and the implementation of the Fourth Pay Commission, the interim revisions were given with the condition that they would be subject to adjustment to be made in the pay scale as a result of the acceptance of the report of the Fifth Pay Commission. It is then set out that on 1st January, 2003 there were about 45,574 employees in the Government, including daily wages, work charged employees, which included teachers in aided schools and the salary structure which the Government had to meet of all employees is approximately Rs. 546.86 crores per annum. It is also pointed out that presently a sizeable percentage of the State's total budget goes on salary component itself and if any salary increase has to be given, it has to be given to about 40,000 employees and this will have very serious impact on the development of the State. It is then pointed out that on account of various revisions effected, a serious unbalanced and discriminatory situation has arisen, which resulted in demands from other employees. As such, the Government went in depth into the files and it was revealed that the pay scales were given, without taking into consideration the future consequences. The repercussions and future implications that would arise were not considered whilst giving revision in pay scales only to certain categories of employees. It is set out having regard to State finances, the State Government is required to have primary regard for the amounts to be expended for the various purpose outlined in the Constitution, budgetary allocations, development expenditure, social welfare schemes and other schemes. The Government considering the matter, appointed a One Member Committee headed by Shri Alban Couto, a retired bureaucrat, to go into the entire issue of pay scales. The One Member Committee submitted its report and made certain recommendations. The recommendations involved financial implications on the State Government to the extent of Rs. 3940.50 lakhs with an annual liability of 954 lakhs. On indepth examination of the matter and on considering the matter from all relevant angles, the Finance Department came to the conclusion that if at all increase in salary had to be sanctioned by the State Government and if given in the case of the petitioners, it would have to be given to around 40.000/- Government staff and this mould have to be given simply on the ground that 5000 other Government employees obtained that benefit. The Finance Department also pointed out that benefits amounting to Rs. 40 crores per annum would have to be granted to Government employees and in all there are 45,574 employees. If the annual additional outline of Rs. 40 crores is taken, this will have to be taken from 1st January, 1996, which will work out to Rs. 280 crores or so, in addition to the annual expenditure of Rs. 40 crores. It is set out that in view of that, the State Government was required to consider the matter as set out in paragraph 17 of the affidavit. It is then set out that considering all these aspects and in larger public interest and interest of public exchequer, the State has come to the conclusion that it will not be prudent, reasonable and possible to incur expenditure of Rs. 280 crores on salary Head and the Government has now taken a decision to refrain from granting higher pay scales to the petitioners. There is also an averment that the Government has taken decision to withdraw pay scales given which are referred to earlier, in respect of some other staff, but only after examining each and every case which has been given such revised scales, on its merits. The various amounts which the State has to spend are also set out. It is, therefore, set out that the petitions ought to be dismissed.

8. In the submissions filed on behalf of the State Government, it is argued that there is no right in the petitioners to claim revision based on a particular basis. It is pointed out that even if in 1990 the approach for revision was to remove the anomaly, still it was open to the Government to have Fourth Pay Commission as the basis. The notification of September, 1986 by the State Government was based on considering all relevant factors, like method of recruitment, level at which recruitment is made, hierarchy of service in the grade, minimum or essential qualifications, nature of duties and responsibilities, the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs, public dealings, satisfaction level, employers' capacity to pay etc. It is also submitted that merely because Goa became a State, its officers cannot be equated with officers in States which are bigger in size. Illustration is given, for example of the Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra and his counter-part in Goa. It is also pointed out similarly that if the scales of Accountants in Accountant General's office are given to Accountants in Directorate of Accounts office, consequently then there would have to be consequential rise everywhere up the hierarchical level. It is set out that the order of October, 1997 cannot be challenged merely by alleging discrimination. It is pointed out that the mere fact of granting revised pay scales to some employees cannot be relied upon as the basis by the petitioners to have reliefs in their favour. Even if the order in favour of other persons is valid, the petitioners' case would have to be examined independently and not based on that order.

9. From the above, what this Court will have to decide would be as under :-

(i) Was it open to the State Government while passing the order dated 27th October, 1997 to provide that revision of pay scales subsequent to 1st January, 1986, be ignored and whether such action is arbitrary and/or illegal?

(ii) Whether the order dated 27th October, 1997, insofar as it pertains to the petitioners amounts to hostile discrimination in view of the fact that in other departments, including Directorate of Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services and Directorate of Agriculture, the benefit of Fifth Pay Commission had been extended with regard to the pay scales as revised after 1st January, 1986?

(iii) Whether the action of the respondent State, in rejecting the representation made by the petitioners, considering that their pay scales were revised after the Fourth Pay Commission recommendations on the ground of anomaly, is arbitrary and illegal inasmuch as if their cases were revised based on an anomaly they ought to have been fixed in the revised pay scales?

10. Having heard learned Counsel, we may now deal with the contentions as raised. Fixation of conditions of service is a matter within the right of the State, Recommendations of Pay Commissions are not binding on the State Government. It is for the State Government to accept the recommendations as made, vary them or make such modifications which the State Government feels right and proper, considering the totality of the circumstances. Such a decision of the State Government normally is not liable for interference by Courts, in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction unless the fixation done is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and whilst taking such a decision, it Is pointed out that irrelevant factors and/or extraneous material has been considered at the time of issuing notification in implementing pay scales. The Fourth Pay Commission recommendations were made applicable at the time when Goa was a Union Territory. The material on record shows that the Directorate of Accounts had represented to the Fourth Pay Commission, which is the expert body which recommended the pay scales, that the pay scales in the accounts office should be on par with other scales In Central Government offices. This did not find favour with the Fourth Pay Commission. The Fourth Pay Commission, recommended pay scales which were accepted by the Central Government, which were lesser than the pay scales in other accounts departments of the Central Government. The first respondent however chose to revise the pay scales. As has been set oat in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government by Shri A. S. Aras, as Goa had become a State and considering the duties of the corresponding posts of S.A.S. Accountant is the Accountant General's office that was taken into consideration for the revision. On account of the revision of the pay scale of Accountant, the pay scales of the higher posts had to be revised, as otherwise there would be anomaly. A higher post would have to have a higher time scale than the feeder post, considering that they are promotional scales from the next below post. It is in these circumstances that the pay scales in the office of the Directorate of Accounts were revised.

The question, therefore, is whether It was open to the first respondent while issuing the order dated 27th October, 1997, not to consider the revised pay scales as granted.

In the order dated 27th October, 1997, the relevant paragraph reads as under :-

(a) That Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1997 as notified under G.S.R. 569 (E) dated 30.9.1997 of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance be adopted and made applicable to the employees of Government of Goa with effect from 1.1,1996 subject to the following conditions :

(i) Pay fixation in the proposed scales (Fifth Pay Commission) shall be done with reference to pay/pay scales of the Fourth Pay Commission existing as on 1.1.1996 and not with reference to revised/interim revised scales given by Goa Government after 1.1.86. All revisions for Secretariat and Non-Secretariat staff consequent upon implementation of Fourth Pay Commission Report from 1.1.1996 shall be ignored for the purpose of equation of pay scales as well as fixation of pay. Option to retain old pay in the revised/interim revised pay scales given after 1.1.1986 shall not be available.

The cases of revisions/upgradations of pay scales such as those resulting from Court orders as well as rectification of specific anomalies done on or after 1.1.1986 shall be examined separately....

It is, therefore, clear that the Government in its order dated 27th October, 1997, decided to ignore all revisions whether they be revised/ interim revised scales given after 1st January, 1986 and to consider the pay scales as given by the Fourth Pay Commission and implement them as and from 1st January, 1986. Such a decision by the State Government which alone is entitled to fix the pay scales by itself, cannot be said to be arbitrary or illegal. It was within the competence of the State Government to fix the pay scales. Once the Government has fixed the pay scales, ignoring revisions made after 1st January, 1986 by Itself, it cannot, be said to be arbitrary or illegal. The effect of a Court order and/or anomaly will be dealt with while dealing with the subsequent grounds. The action of the Government could be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable, if at the time of fixing the pay scales, the Government had fixed the pay scale of some cadres or posts generally based in the revised scales after 1st January, 1986 and chosen not to give to others similarly situated, the benefit of revision alone after 1.1.1986. That is not the case. In our opinion, the challenge to order dated 27th October, 1990 as formulated will have to be rejected.

11. We then come to the second contention, namely whether on account of the fact that the Government has given some revisions in some posts or departments, subsequent to the order of 27th October, 1997, can that result In holding that hostile discrimination has been practised on the petitioners herein.

In both the petitions the persons holding posts from Accountants onwards save for the post of Director, are the petitioners. In other words, the contention is not that in the same cadre a group of employees have been given a different scale to the exclusion of another. The argument is based on the submission, that in some other department some employees have been granted higher pay scales after 27th October, 1997. This by itself cannot be said to be arbitrary. First and foremost, the petitioners and those others not before us constitute two different classes, considering that they are in different departments and cadres. They cannot be said to be in the same class merely because they are employed by respondent No. 1. In the affidavit dated 9th March, 1999 of Shri A. S. Aras, it is pointed out that the Government had examined individual cases and issued appropriate orders. In cases of Secretariat staff, staff of the legislative wing and accounts staff, Government was of the view that revision for these three categories was not justified in terms of their duties and responsibilities and as the revisions had disturbed the inter se parity between the staff of Common Accounts Cadre and Secretariat and Non-Secretariat staff prevailing on 1st January, 1986. Apart from that, the stand of the respondent State is that even those revisions which were given are being re-considered. It is not for us to go into that issue at this stage as those issues are not before this Court, What emerges is that merely because the Government acted may be even arbitrarily, in some cases, does it mean that this Court can issue to the respondent State, a direction to perpetrate that illegality. Such a mandamus can never flow in a case where no arbitrariness is disclosed by the respondents in the action of the State Government, In Chandigarh Administration and Anr. v. Jagjit Singh and Anr. the Apex Court was considering whether the mere fact that the authority had passed a particular order in the case of another person similarly, situated, can give rise to a cause of action to another similarly situated person to move the Court, for a direction for similar relief. Answering that question, the Court observed as under :

Generally speaking, the mere fact that the respondent authority has passed a particular order in the case of another person similarly situated can never be the ground for issuing a writ in favour of the petitioner on the plea of discrimination. The order in favour of the other person might be legal and valid or it might not be. That has to be investigated first before it can be directed to be followed in the case of the petitioner. If the order in favour of the other person is found to be contrary to law or not warranted in the facts and circumstances of his case, it is obvious that such illegal or unwarranted order cannot be made the basis of issuing a writ compelling the respondent authority to repeat the illegality or to pass another unwarranted order.

In the instant case firstly, there is no material placed on record to show that the petitioners are in the same class as those to whom revised scales were granted. The stand of the State is that those cases were reviewed and appropriate orders were issued. They are only some categories whereas in case of large number of other employees the scales remained the same. The material on record does not show circumstances under which those posts were given the revised pay scales. However, once the petitioners are not able to show that they belonged to the same class or are similarly situated as. those to whom revision was granted, even if the Government has not explained how others were given revisions, it would be impossible to accept the contention on behalf of the petitioners that there has been hostile discrimination practised on them or that the action of the State is arbitrary. The revision granted to Secretariat staff was not considered while fixing the pay scale on 1.1.96. The revision in pay scale after 1.1.86 was after Goa had become a State. The reason for revision was that the Accountant should be given the same pay scales as in the Accountant General's office. In the light of that, the second contention must also be rejected.

12. That leaves us with the last contention, namely whether considering the notification of 27th October, 1997 and the order in Writ Petition No. 322 of 1998, the order of the respondents dated 5th January, 1999, is liable to be quashed and set aside. Insofar as the judgment of this Court is concerned, all that this Court directed the respondents was to consider the revision and pass appropriate orders according to law. The crux of the matter would be in considering the language of the order of 27th October, 1997 which we have earlier reproduced. The language used is that the cases of revision/upgradation of pay scales such as those resulting from Court orders, as well as rectification of specific anomalies after 1st January, 1986, shall be examined separately. All that means is that an exception was carved out by the State Government after applying the general rule as set out In the earlier part of this order, that there would be an independent appraisal insofar as revisions which were pursuant to Court orders or for removal of anomalies. That by itself, would not amount to holding that the State Government, in the event it came to the conclusion that the revisions was granted pursuant to a Court order or on account of anomaly, had necessarily to protect such a revision. That again would depend on the facts of each case. In the instant case our attention has been invited to the definition of the word "anomaly". Suffice it to say that in relation to the said word we may only refer to the definition of "anomaly" as contained in "The Law Lexicon" by P. Ramanatha Aiyar, where "anomaly" has been defined to mean : "Irregularity; deviation from the common or natural order". In other words, that would mean deviation from what others similar situated were given. If, therefore, in a group or a class, a pay scale was granted and some were left out or not granted that pay scale, though similarly situated, then that would be an "anomaly". In the instant case, as can be seen, from the record the representation on behalf of the petitioners, was that they be placed in the same pay scale as in the office of the Accountant General. When Goa was a U. T. the IVth Pay Commission had rejected such a demand. The report of the High Level One Member Committee is based on additional responsibilities on Goa attaining Statehood and fell within the category of additionality of Statehood responsibilities justifying equivalence. Therefore, it was not an "anomaly". What was sought was upgradation to the same pay scales as were given in the office of the Accountant General, i.e. S.A.S. Accountants in Indian Audit and Accounts Department on the ground of additional responsibilities. The respondent State after implementation of the Fourth Pay Commission recommendations, had found favour with that contention. Yet, the very same State Government while issuing order dated 27th October, 1997 did not protect those revisions, but on the contrary only granted pay scales corresponding and pay scales as awarded by the Fourth Pay Commission, leaving to itself limited power to consider and revise only those revisions pursuant to Court orders or specific anomalies. The State Government thereafter has considered the said matter. Not only that, they had also appointed a One Man Commission which has submitted its report. That report has been placed for consideration. The report would show that the recommendations for upgradation are on account of additional duties and responsibilities occurring from Statehood, In other words, another fact-finding Commission recommended revision on the basis that the petitioners subsequent to the Union Territory becoming a State, were discharging additional duties and responsibilities. The revision recommended was therefore not based on any anamoly. The State Government has given reasons as to why it has not accepted the said recommendations. It has also given illustration as to how the Chief Secretary of the State of Goa cannot be equated with the Chief Secretary of the State of Maharashtra and the like, considering the largeness of a State and several others factors involved. The State Government has also set out the financial burden that will be imposed on the State Government by revising the pay scales and consequent fall out insofar as other employees are concerned. Before us material has been placed to show that at the highest the beneficiaries of revision are 5,000 and odd employees, whereas the after effects would be another 40,000 employees, whose wages may also have to be revised. It cannot be said that State's capacity to pay and expectancy of fall out on other employees are irrelevant considerations. To our mind these would be relevant considerations which the State Government could take into consideration, considering its constitutional obligations and social welfare commitments, which every State Government as a social welfare State is committed to. An employer is not bound to pay beyond its paying capacity as long as the wages paid are fair and reasonable. The argument that no reasons have been given in the order of 27th October, 1997, itself to our mind is irrelevant. It was not required that the State Government whilst passing an order pertaining to revision of pay scale must disclose all the reasons. This is not a case where the individual rights of a person are affected. The decision of the State Government was as to whether while considering grant of time scale they should give the petitioners the benefit of revision or upgradation or not, the State has decided not after to considering the matter and the financial implications. Every employer, which includes the State, which is the biggest employer in this State, can always take into consideration its financial capacity to pay, while considering the demand for revision of pay scales. It is made clear that this does not mean that it is not bound to revise the pay scales as revision normally is after ten years and normally expert bodies like the pay commissions recommend the same. To our mind, considering the material placed before the Court the decision cannot be said to be arbitrary. We therefore have to reject that contention also.

In the light of that there is no merit in both the petitions. Rule discharged in both the petitions. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.