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

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 83

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A.K. MATHUR, MARKANDEY KATJU

Case summary

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. HIRANMOY SEN AND ORS.pdf

Judgment text

+ UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. V. HIRANMOY SEN AND ORS. OCTOBER 12, 2007 [A. K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ. ] Service Law: Pay Scale-Claim ofparity-By Senior Auditors in office of Accountant General with Assistants in Central Secretariat-Grant ot 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 selfrestraint and not encroach into executive or legislative domain-Judicial restraint. ). Respondents-Senior Auditors in the office ofthe 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 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 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] S. C. Chandra and Ors. v State ofJharkhand & Ors. , JT (2007) 10 SC 272, relied on. I )- CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7232 of \ t 2003. From the Judgment and Order dated 16. 9. 2002 ofthe High Court ofGauhati 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, 'r 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 ofthe Court was delivered by MARKANDEY KATJU, . J. -( CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7232 OF 2003 I. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment ofthe _I. , 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 ofthe 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 ofthe Tribunal was upheld -'( by the Gauhati High Court. Hence this appeal. 4. This Court in S. C. Chandra and Ors. v. State ofJharkhand 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 ofthis Cornt, and it U. 0. 1. v. HIRANMOYSEN[MARKANDEY KATJU,J. ] 85 is not applied unless there is a complete and wholesale identity between 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 itselfgranting 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 be said that there is a complete and wholesale identity between the Senior Auditors in the office ofAccountant 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 ofpay scales. Although this fact has been denied by the appellant, we are ofthe 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 has been increased that by itselfcannot result in increase in the pay scale of Post B to the same level. It is entirely on the Government and the ). uuthornies to fix the pay scales and to decide whether the pay scale of 1 · post B sho~1ld be . increased or not. Thejudiciary must exercise selfrestraint ) and not enc1:oach into the executive or legislative domain. 6.

In view ofthe above, and following decision ofthis Court in SC Chandra's case, the impugnedjudgment ofthe Gauhati High Comi dated 16. 9. 2002 and ofthe Tribunal dated 19. 1. 2001 are set aside. The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. CTft1L APPEAL NO ......... 12007 [arising out of SLP(C) No. 622912006} & CIVIL APPEAL NO. 723412003 -, 7. Leave granted in S. L. P(C) No. 6229/2006. "' 8. In view ofthe decision in Civil Appeal No. 7232of2003, these appeals are allowed. No order as to costs. N. J. Appeals allowed.