Different pay scales for seemingly similar posts justified if there is reasonable classification: Supreme Court

The State would be justified in prescribing different pay scales for the seemingly similar posts if such classification of posts and determination of pay scale have reasonable nexus with the objective or purpose sought to be achieved, the Supreme Court recently held [Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association and Another]..A division bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M Trivedi said that even if nature of work appears to be similar with regard to two different posts, the pay commission can still recommend different pay scales to achieve the objective of efficiency in administration. "It may be true that the nature of work involved in two posts may sometimes appear to be more or less similar, however, if the classification of posts and determination of pay scale have reasonable nexus with the objective or purpose sought to be achieved, namely, the efficiency in the administration, the Pay Commissions would be justified in recommending and the State would be justified in prescribing different pay scales for the seemingly similar posts," the Court said.Even though doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a court of law, however, the same has no mechanical application in every case, the bench added.“'Equal pay for equal work' is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of Law, the equal pay must be for equal work of equal value," the Court said..The Court was hearing an appeal against a decision of the Delhi High Court which had upheld the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) allowing parity in pay scale to Junior Design Officers (JDOs) in Navy with that of Civilian Technical Officers (CTOs) Design..The respondents before the Supreme Court had moved the CAT challenging the decision of the Ministry of Finance (appellant) which had rejected their request for parity in payment for the Junior Design Officers (JDOs) in Navy with that of Civilian Technical Officers (CTOs) Design, as per the recommendation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission.The cadre of Design officers in the Indian Navy was created in the year 1965 in order to meet the functional requirements of Navy, which comprises of drawing staff of varied discipline. The Group ‘B’ gazetted posts were designated as JDOs, and for armament disciplines, the Group ‘B’ gazetted posts were designated as CTOs (Design). All the pay scales of all the disciplines and all grades were the same upto the Fifth Central Pay Commission.However, after the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission, the pay scale of ₹7500-12000 was fixed for the CTOs, whereas the pay scale of ₹7450-11500 was fixed for the JDOs.The CAT initially directed the Finance Ministry to reconsider the request of the respondents with regard to parity in pay scale of JDOs along with CTOs by evaluating their duties. However, the Ministry rejected the same.The respondents then moved CAT for the second time challenging the rejection, which then set aside the order of rejection by the ministry and ruled in favor of the respondents. The High Court upheld the order of the CAT prompting the Central government to move the present appeal before the top court. .The apex court said that the classification of posts and determination of pay structure comes within the exclusive domain of the executive and therefore, the same being a complex matter should be left to an expert body. Court should only interfere when there is cogent material on record to come to a conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post and the interference of the Court was absolutely necessary to undo the injustice.With regard to judicial review in such matters, the Court placed reliance on its decisions in State of Uttar Pradesh and Others v. JP Chaurasia and Others (1989) and State of Haryana and Others v. Charanjit Singh and Others (2006)"The equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the Executive and not of the Judiciary. The Courts therefore should not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions which undertake rigorous exercise for job evaluation after taking into consideration several factors," the judgment said. .Equal pay must be for equal work of equal value.Supreme Court.It was also noted by the Court that there could be more than one grade in a particular service and even a higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues or frustration due to longer duration of promotional avenues."The classification of posts and the determination of pay structure, thus falls within the exclusive domain of the Executive and the Courts or Tribunals cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service."Therefore, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decision of the High Court and CAT..Senior Advocate R Balasubramanian appeared for the appellants.Senior Advocate Salman Khurshid appeared for the respondent..[Read Judgment]