The Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela M. Trivedi while setting aside the order of a High Court held that the interference of the High Court in order passed by the Tribunal was unwarranted. 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 necessary to undo the injustice, the courts would not interfere with such complex issues.
Facts
The respondent no. 2 herein i.e., Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training), in exercise of the powers conferred by section 3(1) of All India Services Act, 1951 and in supersession of the Indian Forests Service (Pay Rules 1968) had made the Rules namely the Indian Forests Service (Pay) Rules 2007). The said Rules of 2007 came to be amended by the respondent no. 2. The said Amended Rules were called the Indian Forests Service (Pay) Second Amendment Rules, 2008 (“Amended Rules of 2008”). SubRule 1 of the Rule 3 of the said Amended Rules of 2008 provided for the upgradation of one existing post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF), to be designated as the Head of Forest Force in each State cadre. The said rule further provided for the apex scale at Rs. 80,000/- (fixed) for the said upgraded post designated as the Head of Forest Force. It also provided that the said upgradation was to be made w.e.f. the date of issue of the notification of the Amended Rules, 2008 and that the said upgraded post was to be filled by “selection” from amongst the officers holding the post of PCCF in the State cadre in the HAG+ scale of Rs. 75,500 - Rs. 80,000.
Procedural History
The respondent no. 1 (the petitioner before the High Court) retired from the post of PCCF on 31st December, 2001. On 2nd April 2011, the respondent no. 1 made a representation to the Government of India requesting it to revise 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. The said representation came to be rejected by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare. The aggrieved respondent filed an appeal before the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’), Jabalpur. The same came to be dismissed by. However, the Writ Petition filed by the respondent challenging the said order passed by the Tribunal, came to be allowed by the High Court. The aggrieved appellant-State of MP challenged the said order before this Court. The said SLP came to be disposed of by this Court. The appellant availed the liberty granted by this Court and approached the High Court by filing a review petition. The same however came to be dismissed by the High Court. The aggrieved appellant, therefore, has challenged both the orders passed by the High Court, by way of these appeals.
Contentions Made
Appellant: The said Rules of 2008 having come into force w.e.f. 27th August 2008, and the respondent no. 1 having already retired as PCCF in 2001, the respondent no. 1 could not have been granted the benefit of the apex scale as erroneously granted by the High Court, applying the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. The said principle had no application to the upgradation of post of PCCF as the Head of Forest force in the apex scale which had to be filled up by “selection” and that too w.e.f. 27th August 2008. The respondent no. 1 was working as PCCF and was not working on the upgraded post of Head of the Forest Force which was designated for the first time in the year 2008, and that the High Court had erroneously observed in the impugned orders that the respondent no. 1 was working as the PCCF, Head of the Forest Force.
Respondent: The appellant having earlier challenged the order dated passed by the High Court by filing the SLP before this court and this court while disposing of the said SLP having not granted any liberty to approach this court again after the disposal of Review Petition by the High Court, the present appeals are not maintainable. The benefit of upgradation of one existing post cannot be given to 7 the pensioner who had already retired before such upgradation. In this regard, he had relied upon K.S. Krishnaswamy & Ors. vs Union of India & Anr. The officers appointed as PCCF, MP were also appointed as the Head of the Forest Department, M.P. before the Amended Rules came into force and that the respondent was also shown as the PCCF, M.P., in the list of members of IFS, which meant that the respondent was also the PCCF, Head of the Forest Department in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Invoking the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, he submitted 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. 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/-.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed 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. Filling up a post by selection would always require a process of screening the eligible employees and cannot be automatic based on seniority. The contention raised by Mr. Gupta for the respondent no. 1 that even prior to the amendment in the rules in the year 2008, the officers working on the post of PCCF were the Head of the Forest Force and the respondent no. 1 was also working as such, cannot be accepted, for the simple reason that if all the officers working on the post of PCCF were also working as the Head of the Forest Force, there was no need to upgrade one existing post of PCCF in the apex scale of Rs. 80,000/- and designate it as the Head of the Forest Force, w.e.f. 27th September 2008, as specifically provided in Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 3 of the Amended Rules of 2008. 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. 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 necessary to undo the injustice, the courts would not interfere with such complex issues.”
Judgment
The impugned orders passed by the High Court being thoroughly misconceived in law and in facts, were quashed and set aside.
Case Name: State of Madhya Pradesh vs R.D. Sharma & Anr.
Citation: CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 474-475 OF 2022
Bench: Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice Bela M. Trivedi
Decided on:27th January 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
