In one significient observation, the Supreme Court has noted that 'Equal pay for equal work' is not a fundamental right vested in any employee.
However, the division Bench comprising of Justice Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela M. Trivedi remarked that it is a constitutional goal to be achieved by the Governments. It added that the the equation of post and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and therefore ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions.
Brief Facts of the Case
The respondent herein had been retired from the post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF). The Union Govt rejected his representation seeking revision of his pension from Rs.37,750/- (50% of HAG Scale 75000-80000) to Rs. 40,000/- (50% of apex scale 80000) as per the Indian Forests Service (Pay) Second Amendment Rules, 2008.
Aggrieved, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, wherein his Original Application stood dismissed. But later, the High Court allowed his writ petition and held that he was eligible to get the benefit of Rs. 40,000/- as pension at par with the other officers, as per the Rules of 2008.
The same has been assailed in the SLP by the petitioner-State which came to be disposed of by the Apex Court with liberty being given to approach High Court again with Review Petition. The said review petition however came to be dismissed by the High Court vide impugned order dated 17th September, 2019. The aggrieved appellant, therefore, has challenged both the orders by way of present appeals.
Supreme Court Observation
The Court collected that the question before it for consideration was, whether the High Court while exercising its powers of superintendence under Article227 of Constitution of India, had misdirected itself by applying the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'?
At first hand, the Court dealt with contention raised by the Counsel for petitioner regarding the maintainability of the appeals. According to him, the appellant having earlier challenged the order dated 28th April, 2017 passed by the High Court and this court while disposing of the SLP filed shouldn't have granted any liberty to approach this court again after the disposal of Review Petition by the High Court.
The Court opined that it finds absolutely no merits in the preliminary objection as the liberty was granted to the appellant to go back to the High Court and get the records corrected. The court also clarified that it had otherwise not considered the matter on merits and therefore since this court had granted a liberty to the appellant to approach the High Court and had disposed of the SLP without expressing any opinion on merits it was intended to keep all the issues open for being considered by the High Court in the Review Petition, and to permit the appellant to approach this court, in case the appellant was aggrieved by the order passed by the High Court in the Review Petition as well as in the Writ Petition. The Court referred to its Ruling in Sudhakar Baburao Nangnure Vs. Noreshwar Raghunathrao Shende, 2019 Latest Caselaw 218 SC
Counsel for the petitioner-State on the other hand argued that the benefit of upgradation of one existing post cannot be given to the pensioner who had already retired before such upgradation and cited K.S. Krishnaswamy & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Anr.
I was the submission of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that invoking the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, that the work and responsibility of a PCCF, M.P. and the upgraded post of PCCF, Head of Forest Force were the same and therefore the High Court had rightly granted the benefit of the apex scale as per the Amended Rules of 2008. He further submitted that the post of PCCF, Head of Forest Force in IFS was not a newly created post but was upgraded from the existing post of PCCF in the department, by virtue of the Amended Rules, and therefore also though the respondent had retired in 2001, he was required to be treated as eligible for the pension as per the apex scale of Rs. 80,000/-.
To this, the Court noted that since the respondent no. 1 had retired as the PCCF in the year 2001 that is much prior to the coming into force of the Amended Rules, 2008, his claim to get the benefit of the apex scale as per the said rules was thoroughly misconceived.
"The apex scale of Rs. 80,000/- was fixed for the upgraded post designated as the Head of Forest Force w.e.f. 27th September, 2008 and was to be filled up by way of selection and not as a matter of course. It is needless to say that filling up a post by selection would always require a process of screening the eligible employees, and cannot be automatic on the basis of seniority"
The Court observed that the High Court in the impugned orders passed in Writ Petition as well as in the Review Petition had thoroughly misdirected itself by applying the principle of “equal pay for equal work” placing reliance on the decision of this court in case of State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & Ors., 2016 Latest Caselaw 772 SC which had no application to the facts of the present case.
The Court clarified that ordinary courts won't undertake the taks of evaluation of jobs as such job evaluation exercise may include various factors including the relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of different groups of employees, and such evaluation would be both difficult and time consuming, apart from carrying financial implications. Therefore, it has always been held to be more prudent to leave such task of equation of post and determination of pay scales to be best left to an expert body, the Court said.
"Unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post, and that the court’s interference was absolutely necessary to undo the injustice, the courts would not interfere with such complex issues."
It then made referrence to Secretary, Finance Department & Ors Vs. West Bengal Registration Service Association & Ors, 1992 Latest Caselaw 59 SC, Rohtash Kumar Vs. State of Haryana Through The Home Secretary, Government of Haryana, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh & Ors., 2013 Latest Caselaw 136 SC to substantiate that “equal pay for equal work” is not a fundamental right vested in any employee, though it is a constitutional goal to be achieved by the Government.
The Court therefore concluded that the said well considered, just and proper order of the Tribunal was wrongly set aside by the High Court on extraneous grounds applying the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, while exercising the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
"It is well-settled legal position that the power under Article 227 is intended to be used sparingly and only in appropriate cases for the purpose of keeping the subordinate courts and tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not for correcting mere errors. It he instant case, the Tribunal had not committed any jurisdictional error, nor any failure of justice had occasioned, and hence the interference of the High Court in order passed by the Tribunal was absolutely unwarranted."
Accordingly, the appeals were allowed and impugned judgements wrere quahshed.
Read Judgement Here:
Picture Source :
