LexUNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. versus DELHI JUDICIAL SERVICE ASSN. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
l '~ -"< UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. v. DELHI JUDICIAL SERVICE ASSN. AND ANR. FEBRUARY 23, 1995 (K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATCHALA, JJ.] Service Law-f'ay Scale-Delhi Higher Judicial Services Rule-Rr-18, 20 and 21-Selection Grade and Time Scale-Distinction between-Principle of equal pay for equal work-Necessity and validity of. Service Law-f'ay scale-Delhi Higher Judicial Service-Counter parts in Executive Branclt-Equation between. A B c The respondents, Delhi Judicial Officers Association had filed a writ petition for a direction to the Union of India for upgrading their pay scales and reraxation of pay in higher scales. The High Court directed rer.xation D of pay scale at Rs. 5600-6700. The Union of India challenged the High Court judgment and con~ tended that all the officers in the Higher Judicial Semce were not entitled to the same scale of pay of Rs. 5900-6700 as directed by the High Court as E Rule 18 of the Rules provided for different pay scales for Time Scale, Selection Grade and Super- time Scale judicial officers and the wiping out of this dichotomy as the High Court had done would be insidious to incuk.-tte efficiency. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. The High Court was not right in giving selection grade scale of pay to all the officers on the principle of equal pay for equal work. If that be so the lowest oO'icer in judicial hierarchy would be entitled to F the pay of the senior most Super-time scale District Judge as all of them were discharging judicial duty. The marginal difference principle also was G inappropriate. Similarity of posts or scale of pay in different services was not relevant. The nature of duty, responsibility and degree of account- ability etc. were relevant and germane considerations. Grant of Selection grade, Super-time scale etc. would be akin to a promotion. The result of the impugned direction would wipe out the distinction between the Time H 295 296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) 2 S.C.R. A Scale and Selection grade officers. In fact this distinction was absolutely necessary to inculcate hard work, maintain character, improve efficiency, encourage honesty and integrity and accountability. Such distinctions would not only be necessary in the Higher Judicial Service but in all services under the State and at every stage. Grade-I, Selection or Super time scale officers in Higher Judicial Service was a feeder source for B elevation as Judges to the High Courts based on excellent qualities of their service. [299-H, 300-A-E] 1.2. It was , therefore, imperative to maintain the distinction between Time Scale officers or Selection or Super-Time Grade officers or Grade-I C and Grade-II officers etc. as enjoined in the service conditions of Higher Judicial Services in the respective States. Application of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work which had the effect of destabilising these vitalities was clearly illegal, illogical and inappropriate to award enmass Selection Grade scale pay to all the officers. [300-F-G] D 2. Selection Grade and the District and Sessions Judge were entitled ·E to the fixation of scale of pay at Rs. 5900-6700 while the officers working in the Time Scale were entitled to a scale of pay .of Rs. 5100-6300. [301-F] 3. The Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules were required to be amended. It is left open to the respondent-Association to make a repre· sentation to the Fifth Pay Commission for fixation of their scale of pay appropriately, independent of scale of pay to be revised for all the officers working in the executive branch of the governemnt in the Union territory. [301-H, 302·A] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 1549 & F 1547 of 1994. From the Judgment and Order dated 13.10.93 of the Delhi High Court in W.P. (C) Nos. 4196 & 4194 of 1993. N.N. Goswami, H.N. Salve P.P. Rao, P. Parmeshwaran, S.K. Bhat- G nagar, A Subba Rao, Wasim Qadri, C.B. Babu, S.N. Terdol, O.P. Saxena, Serva Mitter, R.K. Saini, Rishi Kesh, Rakesh Khanna, T.L. Garg and Ms. A Subhashini for the appearing parties. The following Order of the Court was delivered : H These two appeals are disposed of by a common judgemnt since the i .,, U.0.1 v. DELHinJDL SERVICE ASSN. 297 appeals arise from the judgment of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court A < in C.W.P. No. 4196/83 dated October 13, 1993. The respondent·.Oelhi Judicial Service Association had filed the writ petition seeking for a writ
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.