HARYANA STATE MINOR IRRIGATION TUBEWELLS CORPORATION & ORS. versus G.S. UPPAL & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 6 S.C.R. 662 · Decided: 16-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 6 S.C.R. 662 
A 
HARYANA STATE MINOR IRRIGATION TUBEWELLS 
CORPORATION & ORS. 
v. 
G.S. UPPAL & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 9244 of 2003) 
B 
APRIL 16, 2008 
• 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Service Law - Pay scale - Revision in - SDOISDEIAEI 
c Law Officer in appellant-Corporation- Getting same pay scales · 
as that of Government servants from time to time - Not granted 
further revision by way of removal of anomaly in pay scales 
given to Government servants - Claim for further revision of 
pay scale - Maintainability of - Held: Maintainable - Since 
D pay revision extended to Government servants already 
extended to Corporation employees, correction of anomaly 
,. 
in revised pay scale given to Government servants be also 
made in case of Corporation employees. 
Administrative Law: 
E 
Administrative decision - Judicial review - Scope of -
Pay fixation and determination of parity in pay scales - Held: 
Is a function of executive and scope of judicial review in this 
regard is limited - However, Courts should interfere if such · 
F 
action found to be unjust and prejudicial to section of 
employees and taken in ignorance of material factors. 
Executive action - Revision in pay scale - Not granted 
on ground that employer-Corporation running under losses 
and not in situation to meet financial burden - Held: On facts, 
G such ground not available. 
The pay scales of ernployees of the Corporation 
including those of Engineers were revised with effect from 
01.04.1979 and 01.01.1986 on the pattern of revision of 
pay scales approved by the Haryana Government for its 
H 
662 
,_ 
+ 
HARYANA STATE MINOR IRR. TUBEWELLS CORPN. 
663 
& ORS. v. G.S. UPPAL & ORS. 
employees. The revision of pay scales with effect from A 
01.01.1986 was also approved by the Pay Revision 
Committee (PRC) constituted by the Haryana Government 
·for revision of pay scales of the employees of various 
public Undertakings/Boards/Corporations in its meeting 
held on 21.09.1988. Revision of pay scales were made s 
applicable to the Engineers in the Corporation w.e.f. 
01.01.1986, but thereafter the Haryana Government, while 
removing certain anomalies in the pay scale of the SEs, 
further revised the pay scales of SEs of PWD (8 & R), 
Public Health and Irrigation Department by Finance c 
Department letter dated 16.05.1989. By another letter of 
the said Department dated 02.06.1989, salaries of other 
Engineers, such as AEEs/AEs/SDOs/SDEs (Class-I and 
Class-II) were also revised with effect from 01.05.1989 by 
way of removal of anomalies. Tlie revision in the pay 0 
scales of the Superintending Engineers, Accounts 
Officers, Circle Head Draftsmen, Divisional Head . 
Draftsmen, etc. were approved, whereas the revision of 
pay scales of the AEs/SDOs/SDEs was postponed and it 
was decided that the matter would be examin.ed separately 
by the Finance Department. 
E 
The respondents were working on the post of AEs/ 
SDOs/SDEs and Law Officer in the appellant-Corporation. 
Since their claim with regard to the revision of pay scales, 
·was not taken up by the Standing Committee, they F 
submitted repeated representations .but did not get any 
relief. They filed the writ petitions before the High Court, 
which was allowed. 
· · , 
In appeal to this Court, appellant-Corporation 
contended that the pay scales .of the respondents could G 
;not be compared· and equated with the Engineers and 
other employees of the three wings ()fttie PWD and other 
employees of the State Government;' thafthere is apparent 
difference between the duties, responsibilities an.d 
reJiability. of the Engineets. working in ~he three wings of H 
664 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 
A PWD as they have to work under difficult conditions and 
constraints because of the developmental activities as 
compared to those Engineers working in the Corporation; 
that mere fact that on two earlier occasions, pay hike to 
the engineers of the Government Departments attracted 
B an equal pay hike for the Engineers employed with the 
Corporation is no guide that may conclusively show that 
t 
nature and duties of the two sets of employees were the 
same; and that financial position of the Corporation was 
weak for granting the relief to the respondents. 
c 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Fixation of pay and determination of parity 
in duties is the function of the Executive and the scope of 
judicial review of administrative decision in this regard is 
D
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.