SHIBA KUMAR DUTT A AND ORS.
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
FEBRUARY 24, 1997
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.]
B
Service Law :
Pay scales-Fitters" (T & G}-Drawing higher pay than Fitte1~Later
nomenclatztre of all of them removed and fused i1ito one category of Fit-
C
ter-Erstwhile Fitters (T & G) claiming higher pay-Held, nomenclature and
fitment is one of executive policies of Govenunent-Courts cannot go into
them a11d evaluate the job criteria and scales of pay prescribed for each
category unless the actio11 is arbitrary and there is invidious discrimi11atio11
betwee11 persons similarly sitztated-111 the circumstances Tribunal is justified
in refusing to go illto the question.
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
No. 5081 of 1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 21.6.95 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Calcutta in 0.A. No. 213 of 1992.
E
K.C. Dua for the Petitioners.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned.
This special leave petition arises from the orders of the Administra-
tive Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, made on June 21, 1995 in OA No. 213 of
1992 and the Review Order dated July 26, 1996.
F
The admitted' position is that the petitioners, who are working as G
Fitters (T & G), had sought to be fused in the category of, and to be on
par with, Jig Borers. They sought equal pay on par with them. They
contend that they were drawing higher pay-scales than the Fitter; instead
of elevating their cadre and placing them in the Higher pay-scales, they
have. been brought them down in the category as a Fitter after removing H
467
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1997) 2 S.C.R.
A
the two nomenclatures. Thereby, it is arbitrary on account of invidious
discrimination. The Third Pay Commission had gone into that aspect of
the matter and fixed the scales of pay. Thereafter, admittedly, Expert
Classification Committee and Anomalies Removal Committee had also
gone into the matter and made distinction between them. Subsequently,
B nomenclature of all of them were removed and fused into one category,
namely, Fitter. Nomenclature and fitment is one of executive policy of the
Government. Unless the action is arbitrary or there is invidious discrimina-
tion between persons similarly situated, doing same type of work, as is
pointed out, it would be difficult for the Courts to go into the question of .
equation of posts or fitment into a particular scale of pay. They must be
C left to be decided by the Expert Committees and Government. The Courts
cannot go into them and evaluate the job criteria and scales of pay ·
prescribed for el'.ch category. Under those circumstances, the Tribunal is
justified in refusing to go into the question.
D
~e special leave petition is aceordingly dismissed.
R.P.
Petition dismissed.
Lex