The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the Delhi High Court, which held that Assistant and Personal Assistants of the Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) Headquarters are entitled to the same pay scale as their counterparts in the Central Secretariat Service (CSS) and equivalent posts in the Armed Force Headquarters Civil Service (AFHCS) Cadre, New Delhi, and other similar cadres.
Brief Facts of the Case:
The case of Civil Appeal No. 1663 of 2016 involved a dispute concerning the upgradation of pay scales for employees in Ordnance Factories (OF) in India. The primary issue revolved around the interpretation and application of the recommendations made by the Sixth Central Pay Commission (CPC) with respect to the pay scales of government employees.
The appellants, representing the Ordnance Factories Board (OFB) employees, contended that the denial of upgraded pay scales was based on an incorrect interpretation of Para 3.1.14 of the Sixth CPC recommendations. They argued that employees in the Central Secretariat Service (CSS)/Central Secretariat Stenographers Service (CSSS) were already enjoying the higher pay scale, and the denial was unjustified.
On the other hand, the respondents, including the Union of India, justified the denial by citing Para 3.1.14 and claimed that OFB employees were not explicitly mentioned in the recommended upgradation. They argued that specific departments mentioned, such as AFHQSS/AFHQSSS/RBSS and ministerial/secretarial posts in various organizations, were the intended beneficiaries.
The appellants further contended that the historical parity in pay scales, which existed prior to the Sixth CPC recommendations, should be maintained. They argued that the denial of upgraded pay scales to OFB employees amounted to discrimination, considering the historical similarity in pay scales.
The dispute also involved the question of whether employees in Ordnance Factories were considered as headquarters-based services, and the interpretation of the term "Headquarters" was a point of contention between the parties.
The Delhi High Court, in its judgment, considered these contentions, analyzed the historical parity in pay scales, and concluded that the denial of upgraded pay scales to OFB employees was unjustified. The court specifically relied on Para 3.1.9 of the Sixth CPC recommendations to support its decision. The Union (Appellant) approached the Supreme Court against this order, contending that judicial review in matters pertaining to pay scale can only be exercised if there is arbitrariness or discrimination. Further, it referred to the case of Union of India vs. Manoj Kumar and Others to support the contention that the fixation of pay scales is primarily within the realm of the employer, and the Court should exercise restraint in interfering with it. The judgment emphasized that courts should not undertake the task of job evaluation, which is generally left to expert bodies like Pay Commissions. It underscored that the carefully evolved pay structure should not be disturbed unless there is an ex facie irrational or arbitrary basis for classification or post.
Observations by the Court:
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court relied on paragraph 3.1.9 because employees in the OFB Headquarters were similarly placed as those in the CSS/CSSS headquarters. Additionally, the High Court considered the historical similarity in pay scales preceding the Sixth CPC. The Supreme Court found that the High Court rectified the pay anomaly by considering the recommendation of the Pay Commission and the historical parity, without equating two sets of employees in different organizations. The bench referred to the case of Union of India vs. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association and Another where the Supreme Court observed that different pay scales for seemingly similar posts could be justified if there is a reasonable classification. The judgment emphasized the importance of a rational basis for any disparity in pay scales and highlighted the need for a reasonable classification to justify such differences. While relevant to the issues raised in the present case, the Supreme Court distinguished it on the grounds that it dealt with the disparity between Secretariat and Field Officers.
The Apex Court's decision underscored that historical similarity in previous pay scales can be a valid consideration for Courts to intervene in cases where pay scale fixation leads to anomalies. Justices AS Bopanna and PS Narasimha, in delivering the judgment, emphasized that while Courts generally refrain from determining pay scales, they should not deny relief when entitlement is denied due to an irrational consideration by the employer.
The decision of the Court:
In essence, the Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's view, refusing to interfere with the decision as it rectified an error based on the historical parity and the Pay Commission's recommendations.
Case Name: Union of India Vs. D.G.O.F. Employees Association
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice AS Bopanna and Hon’ble Mr. Justice PS Narasimha.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No.1663 of 2016
Citation: 2023 Latest Caselaw 855 SC
Advocates of the Appellant: Mr. R. Bala, Sr. Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Sharma, Adv. Mr. Navanjay Mahapatra, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR
Advocates of the Respondent: Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv. Mr. S.j. Amith, Adv. Ms. Vidushi Garg, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Kumar, Adv. Dr. (Mrs. ) Vipin Gupta, AOR
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
