Equation of post, determination of pay scales function of executive; courts should not intervene: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday reiterated that the equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the function of the executive, and the judiciary should refrain from entering upon the task of job evaluation generally left to expert bodies [State of Madhya Pradesh v. RD Sharma and Another]..A Division Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and Bela M Trivedi observed that such functions include various factors which may be difficult for courts to undertake."It may be noted that this court has consistently held that 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," the Court held..“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,” .BackgroundThe Court was hearing an appeal moved by the State of Madhya Pradesh assailing the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had allowed a retired employee (respondent) to get the benefit of ₹40,000 as pension at par with other officers under the Indian Forests Service (Pay) Second Amendment Rules 2008 (with September 27, 2008).Notably, the 2008 Rules provided for the upgradation of one existing post of Principal Chief Conservator of Forest (PCCF), to be designated the Head of Forest Force in each State cadre. The rules further provided for the apex scale at ₹80,000 for the said upgraded post designated as the Head of the Forest Force.As per the facts of the case, the respondent had retired in December 2001 and in April 2011, he made a representation to the Central government requesting it to revise his pension from ₹37,750 to ₹40,000. The said representation was rejected by the Centre. In 2013, the Administrative Tribunal rejected the representation.However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed his plea and held that the respondent who retired in the year 2001, was eligible for the benefit of pension of ₹40,000 at par with other officers..Aggrieved, the State moved the Supreme Court but the same was dismissed on December 1, 2017 with the liberty to move a revision petition before the High Court. However, the revision petition was also dismissed by the High Court on September 17, 2019.Aggrieved, the State moved an appeal before the Supreme Court challenging the orders dated December 1, 2017 and September 17, 2019.The only consideration before the Court was whether the High Court while exercising its powers of superintendence under Article 227 had misdirected itself by applying the principle of “equal pay for equal work” for the purpose of granting the respondent who had already retired in the year 2001..Court rulingAt the outset, the Bench observed that since the respondent had already retired in the year 2001, his claim for benefit of the apex scale under the Indian Forests Service (Pay) Second Amendment Rules, which came into effect in the year 2008, was thoroughly misconceived.While rejecting the argument of the retired respondent that he is eligible for the benefit even though he retired prior to the 2008 rules, the Court noted that:“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 further opined that the High Court thoroughly misdirected itself by applying the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, which had no application to the facts of the present case.“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 emphasised..While allowing the appeal of the State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court also noted that the power under Article 227 has 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.“In the 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,” the order stated.Consequently, the appeal was allowed..Additional Advocate General Saurabh Mishra, Advocate-on-Record Mrinal Gopal Elker and advocate Manish Yadav appeared for the State of Madhya Pradesh.Additional Solicitor-General Vikramjit Banerjee, Advocate-on-Record Arvind Kumar Sharma, advocates Nachiketa Joshi, BK Satija, Indira Bhakar and Udai Khanna appeared for the Union of India, supplementing the arguments made by the appellants.Advocate-on-Record Anish Kumar Gupta and advocate Venugopal Abhay appeared for the respondent..[Read Judgment]