UNION OF INDIA & ORS versus D.G.O.F. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ANR.

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 856 · Decided: 09-11-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. BOPANNA · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 856 : 2023 INSC 995
856
CASE DETAILS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS
v.
D.G.O.F. EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 1663 of 2016)
NOVEMBER 09, 2023
[A.S. BOPANNA AND 
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the High Court was justiﬁ ed in 
holding that the respondents would be entitled to the beneﬁ t in terms of para 
3.1.9 of the recommendations contained in the VIth Central Pay Commission 
and in that regard whether it rightly rejected the contention of the appellant 
that it ought to have been guided by para 3.1.14.
Service Law – Parity in pay scales – Historical similarity – 
Respondent-Association of Employees in the Head Quarters of 
Ordnance Factory Board (OFB) sought upgradation of the pay scales 
of Assistant and Personal Assistants of OFB, Headquarters as given to 
similarly placed employees of Central Secretariat Service (CSS) and 
equivalent posts in Armed Force Headquarters Civil Service Cadre, 
New Delhi and similar other cadres – Prayer declined by CAT – Order 
set aside by High Court inter alia holding that the members of the 
respondent were historically treated as equals to CSS/CSSS employees 
and had earlier enjoyed equal pay and all beneﬁ ts – Legality:
Held : The reliance placed by the High Court on para 3.1.9 is based 
on the fact that there was similarity inasmuch as the pay scale as sought 
for implementation is the one which was provided to the employees of 
the headquarters as they were similarly placed as the employees of the 
headquarters in CSS/CSSS – Further, what was also taken into consideration 
by the High Court is the historical similarity in pay scales which existed 
prior to the recommendations in the Sixth CPC – Such historical similarity 
857
which had existed was taken note and, in that light, the pay scale which 
was applicable was taken into consideration and accordingly arrived at 
the conclusion that the employees in the headquarters of the Ordnance 
Factories being similarly placed cannot be discriminated – Therefore, such 
consideration would fall within the parameters as permitted by this Court 
– Also, the High Court adverted to the fact situation and rectiﬁ ed the pay 
anomaly – High Court having kept in view the legal, as well as the factual 
aspects, did not proceed in a manner so as to equate two sets of employees 
in diﬀ erent organizations – But, keeping in view the recommendation of the 
Pay Commission and the applicability of the pay scales recommended to 
similarly placed employees employed in the headquarters and on noticing 
discrimination despite historical similarity merely rectiﬁ ed the error, which 
does not call for interference. [Paras 12, 13 15]
Service Law – Determination of pay scale – Power of Court:
Held: Though the Courts would not undertake the exercise of 
determining the pay scale keeping in view the nature of the work by 
comparing employees who are not similarly placed in cases where the 
exercise of determining such complex issues would arise, at the same time, 
relief cannot be denied to the employees when the entitlement is denied due 
to irrational consideration without application of mind to the facts involved 
in the case by the employer, thereby denying the beneﬁ ts to the employees. 
[Para 10]
LISTS OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Union of India and Others vs. Manoj Kumar and Others, Civil Appeal 
Nos.913-914 of 2021 disposed of on 31.08.2021 – distinguished.
All India Naval Clerks Association and Others vs. Union of India and 
Others, Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.29204 
of 2019 dated 27.07.2022 – relied on.
State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others, (2017) 1 SCC 
148: [2016] 7 SCR 350; Union of India vs. Indian Navy Civilian Design 
Oﬃ  cers Association and Another, (2023) SCC Online SC 173; Union of 
India vs. Dineshan K.K., (2008) 1 SCC 586 : [2008] 1 SCR 100 – referred to.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. D.G.O.F. EMPLOYEES 
ASSOCIATION AND ANR.
858 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1663 of 2016.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.10.2014 of the High Court of 
Delhi at New Delhi in WPC No.4606 of 2013.
Appearances:
R. Bala, Sr. Adv., Arvind Kumar Sharma, Rajesh Ranjan, Madhav 
Sinhal, Shantnu Sharma, Navanjay Mahapatra, Dr. N. Visakamurthy, Advs. 
for the Appellants.
Ms. Kiran Suri, Sr. Adv., S. J. Amith, Ms. Vidushi Garg
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.