PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED versus RAJESH KUMAR JINDAL & OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 2 S.C.R. 289 · Decided: 08-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
289
PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED
v.
RAJESH KUMAR JINDAL & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal Nos.195-198 of 2019)
JANUARY 08, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Service Law: Pay scale – Parity of – Posts of Head Clerks
and the Internal Auditors in State Electricity Board – Internal
Auditors seeking parity of pay scale with Head Clerks irrespective
of the nature of recruitment, qualifications and nature of duties
and responsibilities – Entitlement of – Case of internal auditors
that for about two decades there was a parity in pay scales of the
posts of Internal Auditors and Head Clerks and thereafter, on
revision of the pay scale of Head Clerks by the Board, the long
standing parity of pay scales of the two posts was disturbed –
Held: Internal auditors are not entitled to claim parity with head
clerks irrespective of the nature of recruitment, qualifications and
nature of duties and responsibilities – Pay Anomaly Committee gave
elaborate reasons for revising the pay scales of the Head Clerks at
Rs.2000-3500 and Internal Auditors at Rs.1800-3200 with benefit
of promotional increments, considering the differences in the nature
of duties and responsibilities performed by the Head Clerks and
Internal Auditors – Conclusion arrived at by the experts/Pay Anomaly
Committee not susceptible to judicial review – Courts are not to
interfere with the decision of the Government which is based on the
opinion of the experts – Furthermore, there was a conscious exercise
of option to go as internal auditor, in view of the promotional
avenues available to the Internal Auditors and the high pay scales
available in the promotional position in comparison to the
promotional avenues available to the Head Clerks – There are
neither pleadings nor any material produced by the respondents to
prove that the nature of work performed by the Internal Auditors is
similar with that of the Head Clerks – Court has to keep in mind
that a mere difference in service conditions, does not amount to
discrimination – Unless there is complete identity between the two
posts, they should not be treated as equivalent to claim parity of
pay scale.
 [2019] 2 S.C.R. 289
   289
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
290
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 2 S.C.R.
Judicial review: Parity in pay scale sought by employees –
Interference by court – Held: Equation of posts and revision of pay
scale is within the domain of the Government – Matter should be
left to the discretion and expertise of the Pay Committee and the
Government to take the decision by considering the nature of duties
and responsibilities – Ordinarily, the courts will not enter upon the
task of job evaluation – Aggrieved employees claiming parity must
establish that they are unjustly treated by arbitrary action or
discriminated – Granting parity in pay scales depends upon the
comparative evaluation of job and equation of posts.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Equation of posts and revision of pay scale is
within the domain of the Government. The matter should be left
to the discretion and expertise of the Pay Committee and the
Government to take the decision on the scale of pay/revision of
pay scale by considering the nature of duties and responsibilities.
Ordinarily, the courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation
which is generally left to expert bodies like the Pay Commission
etc. The aggrieved employees claiming parity must establish that
they are unjustly treated by arbitrary action or discriminated.
Granting parity in pay scales depends upon the comparative
evaluation of job and equation of posts. [Paras 14, 16] [302-A-B;
303-B]
1.2 Ordinarily, the scale of pay is fixed keeping in view the
several factors i.e. (i) method of recruitment; (ii) level at which
recruitment is made; (iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre;
(iv) minimum educational/technical qualifications required; (v)
avenues of promotion; (vi) the nature of duties and
responsibilities; and (vii) employer’s capacity to pay, etc. The
burden of proof in establishing parity in pay scales and the nature
of duties and responsibilities is on the person claiming such right.
The person claiming parity must produce material before the court
to prove that the nature of duties and functions are similar and
that they are entitled to parity of pay scales. [Para 20, 23] [305-E;
306-D-E]
1.3 The duties and nature of work of Head Clerks and
Internal Auditors are entirely different. Head Clerk works under
XEN, Drawing and Disburseme

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.