RAMESH SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 4 S.C.R. 767 · Decided: 11-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2008] 4 S.C.R. 767 
RAMESH SINGH 
A 
II. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Writ Petition (C) No. 648 of 2002) 
MARCH 11, 2008 
8 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, P. SATHASIVAM AND 
AFTAB ALAM, JJ.) 
. 
Service Law: 
Writ petition - Employees of Border Road Organisaiton c 
and Central Government claiming parity in service benefits 
with employees of Army/General Reserve Engineering Force 
- Held: 4th and 5th Central Pay Commissions considered the 
issues in question and did not make any recommendation 
thereof - Jn view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Sukhdev D 
~ 
Singh Gill vs. State of Punjab & Ors., service benefits as 
claimed not accepted. 
Petitioner, an employee, filed a writ petition under 
Article 132 of the Constitution of India for direction to the E 
authorities concerned to consider parity in the matter of 
service benefits for employees working in the Border 
Roads Organisation and the Government of India with the 
army personnel and Officers working in the General 
Reserve Engineering Force. 
T 
F 
Petitioner contended that this Court in the case of R. 
Viswan & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. directed the 
authorities to allow them parity in the matter of service 
benefits. 
Respondent-Union of India submitted that in the case G 
of R. Viswan & Ors. vs. Union of/ndia & Ors., no direction to 
allow parity in service benefits has been given. 
Dismissing the Petition, the Court 
767 
H 
768 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: In view of what has be.en stated in the case of 
Sukhdev Singh Gill and the fact that the 4th and 5th Central 
Pay Commissions had already considered the relevant 
aspects, this Court is of the view that the prayers as made 
cannot be accepted; more particularly, when there is no 
B challenge to the recommendations of the 4th and 5th 
Central Pay Commissions. It needs no emphasis that even 
if such a challenge is made, the scope for interference is 
extremely limited because the Court does not normally 
substitute its views for those of expert bodies like Pay 
C Commission unless some glaring infirmities are 
established. (Para - 6) [771-8, C] 
Sukhdev Singh Gill v. State of Punjab and Ors. (2000) 8 
sec 492 - relied on. 
0 
R. Viswan and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1983) 3 
sec 401 - held inapplicable. 
E 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No. 
648of2002. 
Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India. 
Anagha S. Desai, Satyajit A. Desai and Venkateswara 
Rao Anumolu for the Petitioner 
B. Dutta, A.S.G., T.S. Doabia, Savitri Pandey, Kiran 
F 
Bhardwaj and Anil Katiyar for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Grievance in the writ petition 
under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'the 
Constitution') is that there should be parity in the matter of service 
G benefits so far as the army personnel and officers working in 
the General Reserve Engineering Force (in short 'GREF'). Stand 
of the petitioner that he and other employees are serving in the 
Border Road Organisation and the Govern merit of India is bound 
to treat equally with the members of the Armed Force and there 
H 
• 
RAMESH SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
769 
should not be any distinction pertaining to extending the facilities 
A 
and benefits in the service including allowance pay etc. 
Reference is made to a decision of this Court in R. Viswan and 
Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1983 (3) SCC 401) to contend 
that this Court had, in fact, directed such a course to be adopted. 
It is pointed out under a misconception the 4th and the 5th Central 
B 
Pay Commissions have not considered the connected issue in 
the proper perspective. 
2. Mr. 8. Dutta, learned Additional Solicitor General, on 
the contrary submitted that in R. Viswan's case (supra) there 
was no direction to give parity as is being contended by the C 
petitioner. On the contrary in Sukhdev Singh Gill v. State of 
Punjab and Ors. (2000 (8) SCC 492), this Court had, inter alia, 
held that such a course is not permissible. 
3. In R. Viswan's (supra) it was, inter-alia, observed as 
0 
follows: 
"11 . Before we part with this point, we may point out that 
an anguished complaint was made before us on behalf of 
the petitioners that there is considerable disparity between 
the Army personnel posted in GREF units and the other 
E 
officers and men of GREF insofar as the terms and 
conditions of service, such as, salary, allowances and 
rati
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.