STATE OF MIZORAM AND ANR. versus MIZORAM ENGINEERING SERVICE ASSOCIATION AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 496 · Decided: 06-05-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF MIZORAM AND ANR. 
v. 
M!ZORAM ENGINEERING SERVICE ASSOCIATION AND ANR. 
MAY 6, 2004 
B 
[BRIJESH KUMAR AND ARUN KUMAR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Pay scales-Higher pay scale to Engineers recommended by the 
C Fourth Pay Commission-Grant of in respect of one incumbent and denial 
to others-Correctness of--Held, on facts, State Government has accepted 
recommendations of Fourth Pay Commission and granted higher pay scale 
to one incumbent-Similar pay scales should be given to other incumbents 
without discrimination. 
D 
Appellant-State Government issued a notification withdrawing 
benefits of revised pay scales to Executive Engineers and Superintending 
Engineers. The respondent-Association filed a Writ Petition before 
High Court for quashing the notification and for grant of higher pay 
scales to Chief Engineers and Additional Chief Engineers respectively 
E on the basis of the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay 
Commission. A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Writ 
Petition, which was affirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal by 
the State. 
F 
In appeal to the Court, the State Government contended that the 
G 
Engineers of the respondent-Association are not entitled to higher pay 
scales; and that they belong to unorganised service due to absence of 
Recruitment Rules. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The fact that the revised pay scale was being allowed 
to one incumbent in tune with the recommendations of the Fourth 
Central Pay Commission, shows that the State Government has duly 
accepted the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission. 
H Having done so, it cannot be permitted to discriminate between 
496 
STATE v. MIZORAM ENGG. SERVICE ASSON. [ARUN KUMAR, J.] 497 
individuals and not allow the same to the rest. There is no special A 
reason or justification for confining the higher scale to a particular 
individual and deny the same to others. The State Government cannot 
be permitted to discriminate between similarly placed individuals in 
this behalf between those holding the post at the time of revision of pay 
scales and future incumbents of the post. (502-B-F] 
B 
1.2. For failure of the State Government to fraine recruitment 
rules and bring Engineering Service within the framework of organized 
service, the Engineers cannot be made to suffer. There is hardly any 
difference in organized and unorganised service so far as Government C 
service is concerned. In Government service, such a distinction does 
not appear to have any relevance. [503-A-Bl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 793 of 
1998. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.2.97 of the Gauhati High 
Court at Assam in W.A. No. 347 of 1996. 
D 
L. Nageshwar Rao, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. Hemantika 
Wahi, Ms. Sumita Hazarika and Ms. Archana Palkar Khopde for the E 
Appellants. 
Harish N. Salve, Kailash Vasudev, P.C. Prushi, S.K. Shandilya, 
Prateek Kumar and Mrs. V.D. Khanna for the Respondents. 
K.N. Madhusoodhanan and R. Sathish for Intervenors. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
F 
ARUN KUMAR, J. : This appeal is directed against the judgment 
dated 28th February, 1997 passed by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High G 
Court. By the impugned judgment the Division Bench dismissed the appeal 
against the judgment dated 17th May, 1996 passed by the learned Single 
Judge. The learned Single Judge had allowed a writ petition filed by 
respondent herein challenging a notification No. G. 12011/3/87 F.Est dated 
3rd February, 1989 whereby certain categories of engineers in the State H 
498 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A Engineering Service had been excluded for purposes of revision of pay 
scales accepted by the State vide Notification No. G. 1201 l/3/87F.Est 
dated 19th January, 1989. The Mizoram Engineering Service Association 
(respondent) has been demanding higher pay scales for its members. The 
background is that prior to 1971 what is now known as the1 State of 
B Mizoram was a district called the Lushai Hills District within the State of 
Assam. From 1971 to 1986 Mizoram was a Union Territory under the 
North Eastern Areas Reorganisation Act, 1971. It attained full state-hood 
on 20th February, 1987. In 1974 when the State was a Union Territory, 
the Government of India constituted a Departmental Pay Committee to 
suggest scales of pay and allowances for employees of Mizoram on the 
C pattern of Central Government employees vide Ministry of Home Affair
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.