UNION OF INDIA versus MAKHAN CHANDRA ROY ETC.

Citation: [1997] 3 S.C.R. 959 · Decided: 22-04-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
UNION OF INDIA 
A 
v. 
MAKHAN CHANDRA ROY ETC. 
APRIL 22, 1997 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.) 
B · 
Service Law-Central Civil Services Revised Pay Rules, 1986-Pay scale 
hike by Tribunal unjustified-Policy decisions to be made by the concemed 
aut~iorities-Decisions relating to pay scales is within the perview of the ap-
pointing authorities-Tribunal not to interfere-Constitution of India, ATt. 
C 
39(d)-Equal pay for equal work. 
Appellants not being satisfied with the recommendation of the Pay 
Commission regarding revised pay scales approached the Central Ad-
ministrative Tribunal for higher pay scales. The Tribunal allowed the 
prayer, which was challenged before this Court. 
D 
Allowing the Appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. The Tribunal compared the earlier pay-scale of the 
respondent and thought it fit to grant the same hike in the pay-scales which 
was made available under the Revised Pay Rules to Auxiliary Nurses and E 
Midwife to the respondent also. That exercise was totally unauthorised as 
it amounted to taking a policy decision which was within the domain of the 
authorities themselves who are the authors of the revised pay-scales. The 
Tribunal had committed patent error of law in passing the impugned 
order. When the Court turns to the Central Civil Services revised Pay F 
Rules, 1986, it is found that the First Schedule to the said Rules framed 
in the light of Rules 3 and 4, item 6 Part 'A' dealing with all posts carrying 
present pay-scales and pay· scales of Rs. 260-400 which was revised to Rs. 
950-1500. The respondent admittedly got the benefit of those revised pay-
scales. But the Tribunal thought it fit to award the respondent still higher 
pay-scale which was made available under the Rules to the Auxiliary G 
Nurses and Midwife. Their pay-scale is mentioned in Part B of the 
Schedule at item No. 4 in paragraph IX dealing with paramedical staff. 
The Auxiliary Nurses and Midwife who were getting the pay-scale of Rs. 
260-350 and Rs. 260-400 were given a uniform higher pay-scale of Rs. 
975-1540. The Tribunal compared the earlier pay-scales of Auxiliary Nor-
H 
959 
t 
960 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997) 3 S.C.R. 
A ses and Midwife with the earlier pay-scales of the respondent and thought 
it lit to grant the same hike in the pay-scale which was made available 
under the Revised Pay Rules to Auxiliary Nurses and Midwife to the 
respondent also. The Tribunal having come to the conclusion that on 
-
merits the respondent had no case on the ground of equal pay for equal 
B work, the O.A. ought to have been dismissed. [962-C; 961-G-H; 962-A·D] 
State of U.P. and Others v. J.P. Chaurasia & Ors., [1989) 1 SCC 121, 
referred to. 
2. The Tribunal considered the fact that Pharmacists, Radiog· 
C raphers and X-Ray Technicians who are earlier getting the pay scale of Rs. 
330-560 were granted a higher pay scale of Rs. 1350-2200. The same pay 
scale should be made available to the respondent also who was earlier 
getting the pay scale of Rs. 380· 560. It is difficult to appreciate this line 
of reasoning which appealed to the Tribunal. In the Central Civil Services 
D Revised Pay Rules, one finds in the First Schedule I, Part B, Item No. 12 
which deals with all posts carrying present pay scales wherein pay scale of 
3811-5611 which was earlier available to the respondent is mentioned and the 
revised pay scale as per Revised Pay Rules is stated to be Rs. 1320-21140. 
This pay scale is admittedly made available to the respondent. But the 
Tribunal found out another pay scale mentioned in Part 8 of the Schedule 
E to the Rules wherein paragraph IX deals with Paramedical staff, radiog· 
raphers, X-ray Technicians and Pharmacists. Their earlier pay scale was 
Rs. 3311-560 which was increased to Rs. 1350-22011. According to the 
Tribunal this pay scale should have been given to the respondent. It is 
difficult to appreciate how the respondent who was a Malaria Technician 
F should be straightaway given pay scale of Radiographers or Pharmacists 
who are admittedly working in a different department and were doing 
entirely different type of work. What enhanced pay scale should be given 
to a particular employee is within the domain of the authorities themselves 
who appoint them and the Tribunal should not have ventured into this 
forbidden field. [963-E-H; 964·A·B] 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10608 of 
1995 Etc. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.11.88 of the Central Ad· 
H

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