UNION OF INDIA versus INDIAN NAVY CIVILIAN DESIGN OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ANR.

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 529 · Decided: 22-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY RASTOGI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
529
   [2023] 2 S.C.R. 529
529
UNION OF INDIA
v.
INDIAN NAVY CIVILIAN DESIGN OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
AND ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 8329 of 2011)
FEBRUARY 22, 2023
[AJAY RASTOGI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Service Law : Pay scale – Grant of – Respondent association
seeking pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 to the Junior Design Officers
as allowed to the Civilian Technical Officers (Design), consequent
to the implementation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission – Allowed
by the tribunal and the High Court, by equating the posts of JDOs
with CTOs, and in fixing the pay scales of JDOs equivalent to that
of CTOs – Justification of – Held: Equation and classification of
posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the
Executive and not of the Judiciary – Courts should not enter upon
the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies
like the Pay Commissions – Wisdom and advisability of the Courts
in the matters concerning the finance, are ordinarily not amenable
to judicial review unless a gross case of arbitrariness or unfairness
is established by the aggrieved party –Though the doctrine equal
pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of
being enforced in a Court of Law, the equal pay must be for equal
work of equal value – On facts, the probation period in case of
CTOs is longer than that of JDOs –Duties and responsibilities of
both the posts are different and the promotional avenues also have
different duration and different criteria – Tribunal and the High
Court erred in interfering with the pay scales recommended by the
Fifth Central Pay Commission and accepted by the appellant for
the posts of JDOs and CTOs, and in upgrading the pay scale of
JDOs making it equivalent to the pay scale of CTOs – Thus, the
orders passed by the High Court and the tribunal quashed and set
aside – Doctrine of equal pay for equal work.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The power of judicial review of the High Courts
in the matter of classification of posts and determination of pay
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
530
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
scale is no more res integra. Equation of posts and equation of
salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body
unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm
conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay
scale for a given post and the interference of the Court was
absolutely necessary to undo the injustice. [Para 9][536-G-H; 537-
A]
1.2 Though the doctrine “equal pay for equal work” is not
an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court
of Law, the equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The
equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary
function of the Executive and not of the Judiciary. The Courts
therefore should not enter upon the task of job evaluation which
is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions
which undertake rigorous exercise for job evaluation after taking
into consideration several factors like the nature of work, the
duties, accountability and responsibilities attached to the posts,
the extent of powers conferred on the persons holding a particular
post, the promotional avenues, the Statutory rules governing the
conditions of service, the horizontal and vertical relativities with
similar jobs etc. It may be true that the nature of work involved
in two posts may sometimes appear to be more or less similar,
however, if the classification of posts and determination of pay
scale have reasonable nexus with the objective or purpose sought
to be achieved, namely, the efficiency in the administration, the
Pay Commissions would be justified in recommending and the
State would be justified in prescribing different pay scales for the
seemingly similar posts. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation
or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues or
frustration due to longer duration of promotional avenues is also
an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. There could be more
than one grade in a particular service. The classification of posts
and the determination of pay structure, thus falls within the
exclusive domain of the Executive, and the Courts or Tribunals
cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Executive in
prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service.
[Para 14][541-C-G; 542-A]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
531
1.3 The Recruitment Rules governing the JDOs are as per
the SRO 367 dated 08.12.19

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.