UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. versus P.V. HARIHARAN AND ANR.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 1050 · Decided: 12-03-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
· UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 
v. 
P.V. HARIHARAN AND ANR. 
MARCH 12, 1997 
B 
. [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
Service law.: 
Pay scale-Categorisation of posts vide Notification-Respondent 
C having pay scale of Group D-Tlibunal holding that his post of skilled-group 
falls in Group C, as such entitled for group C pay scale-Held, Tribunal's 
order for fixing/enhancement of the pay scale is unsustainable in law, as 
classification, of posts does not result in change of pay scale-Plea of equal 
pay and equal work has not been decided by the T1ibunal-Hence remitted 
back for proper order - CCS .(CCA) Rules 1965, R.6. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Pay scale-Scope of judicial review-Unless a clear-cut case of hostile 
disclimination, there should be no judicial inte1ference with the pay scale. 
Administrative T1ibwzal Act, 1985-Proper bench-For the claim to 
higher or enhanced pay scale-Bench Comp1ising of at least one Judicial 
member. 
The respondent was a Tool Room Assistant in the Integrated 
Fisheries Project (IFP), a wing of the Fisheries Department and. was having 
a pay scale of Rs. 800. 1150, as prescribed by the 4th Pay Commission. 
The Central Government vide its Notification under Rule 6 of CCS 
(CC&A) Rules, classified the various posts into Groups A, B, C and D. 
Group C comprised central civil posts" carrying a pay scale with a maxi-
mum of over Rs. 1150 but less than Rs. 2900". Group D comprised civil 
posts "carrying a pay scale, the maximum of which is Rs. 1150 or less". 
The respondent filed an Original Application before the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal that his post came under the "skilled" group and as 
per the Notification this category was placed in Group C, as such he entitled 
for the pay scale of Rs. 1150-2900. The Tribunal allowed the application. · 
Hence, this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
1050 
y 
y 
-
U.0.1. v. P.V. HARIHARAN 
1051 
HELD: 1.1. The pay scale of Tool Room Assistant in IFP was Rs.1150 A 
i.e. the maximum of the said pay scale was not "over Rs. 1150" so as to fall 
within Group-C. The post properly falls under Group D because it carried 
a pay, the maximum of which was "Rs. 1150 or less". "Over Rs. 1150" means 
Rs. 1151 and above. "Rs. 1150" cannot be characterized as "over Rs. 1150". 
The post, therefore, properly fall under Group D and not under Group C. 
[1052-G-H, 1053-A-B] 
1.2 The classification of posts cannot result in change of pay scale. 
B 
Pay scales prescribed for each post by the Government and were done/fL''ied 
on the basis of recommendations of a pay Commission or a similar expert 
body. Classification of posts has nothing to do with fixation of pay scales, 
it only classifies posts into several grounds based upon the pay scales C 
already fixed. Classification and prescribing pay scales for several posts 
are two different and distinct functions. So, the order passed by the 
Tribunal is wholly unsustainable in law and set aside. [1053-A-D] 
2. As regards the plea of "equal pay and equal work" is concerned, D 
Tribunal has not dealt with it. It is, therefore, remitted back to the Tribunal 
for proper disposal according to law. [1053-C-E] 
3. Tribunals are quite often interfering with pay scales without proper 
reason and without being conscious of the fact that fixation of pay is not 
their function. It is a function of the Government, which normally acts on E 
the recommendation of a Pay Commission, which goes in the problem at 
great depth and happens to have a full picture before it and is the proper 
authority to decide upon this issue. The Tribunal should exercise ,due 
restraint in the matter. Change of pay scale of a category has a cascading 
effect and has a serious impact on public excher1uer. Unless a dear case of 
hostile discrimination is made out, there would be no justification for 
interfering with the fixation of pay scales. It would be in the fitness of things 
F 
if all matters relating to pay scales, i.e. matters asking for a higher pay scale 
or an enhanced pay scale, as the case may be, on one or the other ground, 
are heard by the Bench comprising at least one Judicial Member. 
[1053-E-F, 1053-F-H, 1054-A-B] G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7127 of 
1993. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.7.92 of the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.A. No. 391 of 1991. 
H 
1052 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
S.N. Terdol and A.S. Rawat for the Appellants. 
A.S. Nambiar and P.K. Manohar f
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.