Delhi High Court
Sh. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 9 March, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No.5594/2000
% 9th March, 2015
SH. SANJEEV KUMAR & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Through: Mr.Kuldeep Kumar, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.B.K.Sood, Advocate for R- 2 to 4.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, petitioners who are the employees of Bureau of Indian
Standards/respondent no.2, seek the pay scale equivalent to the pay scale of
similarly situated persons/employees in the Government Presses. The
petitioners are working with the respondent no.2 in the posts of Junior
Operator and they claim that for a similar work of a Junior Operator in the
Central Government, there exists a higher pay scale and the petitioners must
be therefore granted that higher pay scale.
2. I have repeatedly asked the counsel for the petitioners to show me
even a single judgment as per which it is held that the employees who work
in the autonomous organizations of the Central Government are entitled to
the same pay scale as given to the employees of the Central Government, but
counsel for the petitioners is not able to point out even a single judgment
which lays down this ratio. Counsel for the petitioners however relies upon
the following judgments:-
I. Yogeshwar Prasad and Ors. Vs. National Inst.,Edu. Planning &
Admn. & Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos.288-289/2005 decided on
21.10.2010;
II. Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS)and Ors. Vs. Bureau of Indian
Standards Employee's Union and Ors. in LPA No.232/1999 decided
on 01.8.2000;
III. Indian Road Constn. Corpn. Ltd. Vs. K.P.Grover & Ors. 78(1999)
DLT 691;
IV. Union of India and Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Gond in SLP (C)
No.17419/2009 decided on 25.7.2013; and
V. State of Mizoram & Anr. Vs. Mizoram Engineering Service
Association & Anr. AIR 2004 SC 3644.
3. Unfortunately, counsel for the petitioners is not able to show to this
Court any paragraph/s or line/s in any of these five judgments which holds
and lays down the ratio that the pay scales and monetary emoluments of the
employees in autonomous organizations of the Central Government have to
be the same as the pay scales of similarly situated employees in the Central
Government.
4. In my opinion, the argument urged on behalf of the petitioners is
misconceived at the very outset because autonomous organizations'
employees automatically do not get the pay scales of the Central
Government employees. It is the Central Government through the parent
ministry under which the autonomous organization falls, along with the
Ministry of Finance, which decides the pay scales of the employees of a
particular autonomous organization. In fact, the pay scales can be different
between different autonomous organizations of the same government
depending upon the type of the organization and work etc being done by the
employees in that particular organization. There is no inherent right or any
legal right of any employee of an autonomous organization of the Central
Government to claim the monetary emoluments equal to an employee of the
Central Government. Article 14 of the Constitution of India applies for
giving equality to equals and no equality/parity can be claimed between
Central Government employees and employees of autonomous
organizations. Unequals cannot be treated as equals.
5. I may note that in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent nos. 2 to 4,
it is stated that even the scope of work of the petitioners is not the same as
the scope of work of the employees of the Government Presses, however, be
that as it may in my opinion, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work
applies to the employees within the same organization and not to employees
of different organizations, much less to those employees who are employees
of the Central Government.
6. In fact, the Supreme Court recently in the judgment in the case of
Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workman, Indian Drugs and
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 2007 (1) SCC 408 has held that the courts should not
take upon itself the functions of the executive and the legislature in the
matter of fixation of pay scales. The relevant observations of the Supreme
Court in this judgment are contained in paras 16, 37 & 40, and which read as
under:-
"16. We are afraid that the Labour Court and the High Court have
passed their orders on the basis of emotions and sympathies, but cases in
court have to be decided on legal principles and not on the basis of
emotions and sympathies.
xxxxx
xxxxx
37. Creation and abolition of posts and regularisation are purely
executive functions vide P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General. Hence, the
court cannot create a post where none exists. Also, we cannot issue any
direction to absorb the respondents or continue them in service, or pay
them salaries of regular employees, as these are purely executive
functions. This Court cannot arrogate to itself the powers of the
executive or legislature. There is broad separation of powers under the
Constitution, and the judiciary, to, must know its limits.
xxxxx
xxxxx
40. The Courts must, therefore, exercise judicial restraint, and not
encroach into the executive or legislative domain. Orders for creation of
posts, appointment or these posts, regularisation, fixing pay scales,
continuation in service, promotions, etc. are all executive or legislative
functions, and it is highly improver for Judges to step into this sphere, except
in a rare and exceptional cases. The relevant case-law and philosophy of
judicial restraint has been laid down by the Madras High Court in great detail
in Rama Muthuramalingam v. Dy. Supdt. Of Police and we fully agree with
the views expressed therein." (emphasis added)
7. There is hence no merit in the writ petition, and the same is therefore
dismissed.
MARCH 09, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
KA
