UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus HIRANMOY SEN AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 83 · Decided: 12-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

+ 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
V. 
HIRANMOY SEN AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 12, 2007 
[A.K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Pay Scale-Claim of parity-By Senior Auditors in office of 
Accountant General with Assistants in Central Secretariat-Grant ot c 
by courts below-Held: Not Justified since there is no complete identity 
between the two groups-Moresover, the Government and the 
Authorities fix the pay scales-Judiciary must exercise self restraint 
and not encroach into executive or legislative domain-Judicial D 
restraint. 
). 
Respondents-Senior Auditors in the office of the Accountant 
General, Assam and Meghalaya claimed parity in pay scale with 
). 
Assistants in the Central Secretariat. Both the tribunal and the High 
Court decreed the claim in favour of the respondents. Hence the E 
present appeals. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It cannot be said that there is a complete and 
wholesale identity between Senior Auditors in the office of the F 
Accountant General, Assam and Meghalaya, and Assistants in the 
-, 
Central Secretariat. Furthermore, it is entirely on the Government 
r 
and the Authorities to fix pay scales. The judiciary must exercise 
selfrestraint and not encroach into executive or legislative domain. 
[Paras 4 and 5] [85-B, D] G 
S. C. Chandra and Ors. v State of Jharkhand & Ors., JT (2007) 
I 
10 SC 272, relied on. 
)-
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7232 of 
83 
H 
84 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 
A 2003. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.9.2002 of the High Court 
of Gauhati at Gauhati in W.P. No. 7598 of2001. 
WITH 
C.A. No. 7234/2003 & 4858/2007 
Vikas Singh, A.S.G., T.S. Doabia, P.S. Patwalia, Manpreet Doabia, 
Sunita Sharma, Amreeta Swamp, Ashok Bhan, Alka Sharma, R.C. 
Kathia, D.S. Mahra, Anil Katiyar, V.K. Verma, J.S. Attri, Sunil Roy, 
Amanpreet Singh Rahi, Devesh Kumar Tripathi, R. Anand Padmanabhan, 
Pramod Dayal, Anil Nauriya, Sumita Hazarika, E.J. Varghese, V.K. 
Sidharthan, Ajay Sharma for the appearing parties and Smita Vanna for 
Intervenor. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MARKANDEY KAT JU, .J. 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7232 OF 2003 
I. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the 
Gauhati High Court dated 16.9.2002 in W.P. No.7598 of2001. 
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 
3. In brief the claim of the respondents herein who were Senior 
Auditors in the office of the Accountant General, Assan1 and Meghalaya, 
was to be given parity in pay scale with Assistants in the Central 
Secreta1iat. This claim was decreed by the Central Administrative T1ibunal 
vide its order dated 19.1.2001 and the order of the Tribunal was upheld 
by the Gauhati High Court. Hence this appeal. 
4. This Court in S.C. Chandra and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand 
and Ors., JT (2007) 10 4 SC 272 has held that the Court cannot fix pay 
scales as that is the purely executive function. In the aforesaid decision 
one of us <Markandey Katju, J.) has discussed in detail the principle of 
equal pay for equal work and has observed that the said principle has 
been considerably watered do-wn in recent decisions of this Cornt, and it 
\ t 
'r 
..,. 
-( 
_I., 
,~ 
-'( 
' 
-\ 
U.0.1. v. HIRANMOYSEN[MARKANDEY KATJU,J.] 
85 
is not applied unless there is a complete and wholesale identity between A 
the two groups, and even there the matter should be sent for examination 
by an Expert Committee appointed by the Government instead of the 
Court itself granting the higher pay scale. TI1e entire case law on the subject 
has been discussed in the said decision. Following the aforesaid decision 
in S. C. Chandra 's case (Supra) this appeal has to be allowed. It cannot B 
be said that there is a complete and wholesale identity between the Senior 
Auditors in the office of Accountant General, Assam and Meghalaya and 
Assistants in the Central Secretariat. 
"'( 
S. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the auditors 
and assistants have been historically treated at par in the matter of pay c 
scales. Although this fact has been denied by the appellant, we are of the 
opinion that even if it is correct, that will not be of any help to the 
respondents. To give an illustration, if post A and post B have been 
carrying the same pay scales, merely because the pay scale of post A 
D 
has been increased that by itself cannot result in increase in the pay scale 
of Post B to the same level. It is enti
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.