STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. versus HARYANA CIVIL SECRETARIAT PERSONAL STAFF ASSOCIATION

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 118 · Decided: 10-07-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. 
v. 
HARYANA CIVIL SECRETARIAT 
PERSONAL STAFF ASSOCIATION 
JULY l 0, 2002 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Haryana Civil Services-Fourth Central Pay Commission Report-
Jmplementation of-Personal Assistants-Revision in pay scale-Fixation of 
scale of pay lower than scale of pay recommended to Personal Assistants 
working in Cent£_al Secretariat Service-Disparity-Interference by Court-
Held, Fixation ojpay and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities 
D is a ,matter for the executive to discharge taking into consideration financial 
posiiion, policies of State Government in giving priority to different categories 
, of posts etc.-Courtshould interfere only when they are satisfied that decision 
of the Government is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial to a section 
of employees. 
E 
F 
Respondent-Association filed a writ petition praying for grant of 
revised pay scale to Personal Assistants at par with the pay scale given to 
Personal Assistants working in the Central Secretariat Service, consequent 
to ·the acceptance of recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay 
Commission by the State Government. High Court placed reliance on the 
principle of equal pay for equal work and found the fixation of pay of 
Personal Assistants improper and allowed the writ petitions. 
In appeal to this Court, State Government contended that the High 
Court had ignored settled principle of law for determination of the claim 
relating to parity of pay and fixation of revised scale of pay to the Personal 
G Assistants working in the State Secretariat. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. While making copious reference to the principle of equal 
pay for equal work and equality in the matter of pay, the High Court 
overlooked the position that the parity sought by the petitioner in the case 
ll 
118 
ST ATE v. HARV ANA CIVIL SECRETARIAT PERSONAL STAFF ASSOCIATION. 
119 
was with employees having only the same designation under the Central A 
Government. Such comparison by a section of employees of State 
Government with employees of Central Government based merely on 
designation of the posts was misconceived. The High Court also fell into 
error in assuming that the averment regarding similarity of duti.es and 
responsibilities made in the writ petition was unrebutted. The appellants, B 
in their counter affidavit, have taken the specific stand that no comparison 
between the two sections of employees is possible since the qualifications 
prescribed for the Personal Assistant in the Central Secretariat are different 
from the Personal Assistants in the State Civil Secretariat (123-D-F) 
1.2. Even assuming that there was no specific rebuttal of the 
averment in the writ petition, that could not form the basis for grant of C 
parity of scale of pay as claimed by the respondent. The High Court has 
not made any comparison of the nature of duties and responsibilities; the 
qualifications for recruitment to the post of Personal Assistants in the State 
Civil Secretariat with those of Personal Assistants in the Central 
Secretariat. (123-F-G) 
D 
2.1. Claim of equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right 
vested in any employee though it is a constitutional goal to be achieved 
by the Government. Fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties 
and responsibilities is a complex matter which is for the executive to 
discharge. While taking a decision in the matter several relevant factors E 
are to be considered keeping in view the prevailing financial position and 
capacity of the s.tate Government to bear the additional liability of a 
revised scale of pay. It is also to be kept in mind that the priority given to 
different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the State 
Government is also a relevant factor for consideration by the State F 
Government. (125-D-F) 
Secretary, Finance Department and Ors. v. West Bengal Registration 
Service Association and Ors., (1993) Supp. 1 SCC 153, relied on. 
2.2. In the context of complex nature of issues involved, the far 
reaching consequences of a decision in the matter and its impact on the G 
administration of the State Government ordinarily Courts should not try 
to delve deep into administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and 
pay parity. That is not to say that the matter is not justiciable or that the 
Courts cannot entertain any proceeding against such administrative 
decision t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.