AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The Petitioner is an Association of PWD Technical and Field Employees'' Association represented by its Secretary. They
filed O.A. No. 3679 of 2001 before the TamilNadu Administrative Tribunal, seeking for a direction to the Respondents to consider the claim for
revision of pay scale on the basis of revised pay Rules from Rs. 555-970 to Rs. 610-1075 with all consequential benefits.
The Tribunal ordered notice of motion on 14.06.2001.
In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as W.P. No. 4504 of 2007.
It is seen that a One Man Commission was appointed by the State Government by G.O. Ms. No. 762, Finance Department dated 20.08.1986
to classify various Trade Posts into two broad groups. Under Group I post, S.S.L.C. Pass with I.T.I. Certificate were brought in and under Group
II posts, S.S.L.C failed with ITI certificate were brought in. However, individual employees filed O.A. No. 506 of 1989, seeking for a revision of
scale of pay for the post of Turner, Fitter and Machinist from Rs. 555-970 to Rs. 610-1075 with retrospective effect from 01.10.1984. This was
on the reason that the qualification for admission to I.T.I in respect of the above Trades referred to was S.S.L.C. The Tribunal by an order dated
04.10.1994 directed to include those categories in Group-I. Based on the said judgment, the Government revised the Scale of Pay of Turner,
Fitter and Machinist from Rs. 555-970 to Rs. 610-1075 and a Selection Grade at Rs. 705-1230 was made with effect from 01.10.1984. But the
monetary benefit was to be paid only from 3 01.04.1986. This was on the basis that the academic qualification for those posts were raised from
August 1985. The said order was issued in terms of G.O. Ms. No. 276 Finance Department, dated 06.04.1995.
The Fifth Pay Commission also endorsed the recommendation of the One Man Commission Report, 1986 and for the Group-I Post, it
recommended Rs. 950-1500 and for Group-II posts, it recommended Rs. 825-1200. At that time, representations were made by various
association of employees before the Official Committee requesting a Common Pay Scale for all kinds of Trade Posts requiring I.T.I Certificate and
they wanted not to make a distinction on the basis of SSLC Pass or Fail. Once again, when they moved the Tribunal, the Tribunal directed the
Government to consider prescription of uniform scales of pay for different trade posts requiring I.T.I qualification without insisting on the basic
academic qualification. The Official Committee took into consideration the direction given by the Tribunal and recommended that all Group II
Trade Posts requiring I.T.I qualification to be fitted in the Scale of pay of Rs. 950-1500 equating those posts with the post of ""Skilled"" under
Government of India and Rs. 1100 -1660 for all Grade-I Posts. The Government also accepted the said recommendation and orders were issued
for Grade-II trade posts such as Wireman, Plumber, Carpenter etc.
Even after the implementation of Fifth Pay Commission, the Association of the Employees requested the Government to revise the scale of pay
of Record Clerks, Junior Assistants, Assistants and Superintendents in view of the fact that pre-revised scale of pay of certain categories were
identical and the Fifth Pay Commission provided different scales of pay. The Government examining the said request rejected the said demand and
stated that certain alternative benefit can be given keeping in mind the importance of the job responsibility. Therefore, the Government granted 5%
basic pay as personal pay in the specified pre-revised and revised scale of 4 pay. Therefore, the Government issued G.O. Ms. No. 664 Finance
dated 24.08.1992 granting 5% basic pay as personal pay as on 01.08.1992 to specified categories.
Once again the Tribunal in O.A. No. 474 of 1993 and batch cases vide order dated 17.09.1993 set aside paragraph 4 of the said Government
order dated 24.08.1992 and directed the Government to issue comprehensive instructions. It was thereafter the Government issued G.O. Ms. No.
873 Finance dated 27.12.1993 and clarified the said decision. The main reason for grant of 5% basic pay as personal pay was that certain
categories which are identical prior to the Fifth Pay Commission have moved to a higher scale of pay due to change over to the Central Scales of
May. But in the case of Turner, Fitter and Machinist, they were given a revised scale of pay after taking into account the raising of the academic
qualification and they were also granted 5; personal pay as on 01.08.1992. But the scale of pay given to the persons represented by the Petitioner
Association were fixed at Rs. 950-1500 from the pre-revised scale of Rs. 555-970 and it never came within the ambit of G.O. Ms. No. 664
dated 24.08.1992 and G.O. Ms. No. 873 Finance, dated 27.12.1993. Therefore, the Petitioner''s demand that they should also be given 5% as
personal pay was not considered.
Not satisfied with this explanation, Mr. L. Chandrakumar, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner Association extensively referred to the One
Man Commission''s report, wherein the committee recommended that the pay scale of various trade posts in the PWD can be revised. However
,such a request of the Petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The question of varying the recommendation of the Pay Commission cannot be made as this Court cannot substitute its views to that of the
expert bodies like the Pay Commission. In this Context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Singh Vs. Union
of India (UOI) and Others, . In paragraph 6, it was held as follows:
In view of what has been stated in Sukhdev Singh Gill case2 and the fact that the Fourth and Fifth Central Pay Commissions considered the
relevant aspects, we are of the view that the prayers as made cannot be accepted, more particularly ,when there is no challenge to the
recommendations of the Fourth and Fifth Central Pay Commissions. It needs no emphasis that even if such a challenge is made, the scope for
interference is extremely limited because the Court doesn''t normally substitute its views for those of expert bodies like the Pay Commission unless
some glaring infirmities are established.
The Supreme Court in its judgment in The State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and Another, had held as follows:
It is our considered view that in the absence of factual foundation, the High Court was not justified in recording a conclusion that denial of Pay
Scales 19and 21 had resulted in violation of the Respondents'' fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and
that too by ignoring the fact that the Respondents had not produced any tangible evidence to prima facie prove that they had been subjected to
hostile discrimination or that the decision of the state Government not to extend the benefit of Pay Scales 19 and 21 to members of the Service
was irrational and arbitrary. It is trite to say that in such matters the onus is always on the employee to prima facie substantiate the plea of
discrimination or arbitrary exercise of power and only then the State or its instrumentality/agency or the public body(the employer) can be called
upon to show that its decision is non-discriminatory, non-arbitrary, fair and in public interest.
The Supreme Court in S.C. Chandra and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, held as follows:
In our opinion fixing pay scales by courts by applying the principle of equal pay for equal work upsets the high constitutional principle of
separation of powers between the three organs of testate. Realising this, this Court has in recent years avoided applying the principle of equal pay
for equal work, unless there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups (and there too the matter should be sent for examination
by an Expert Committee appointed by the Government instead of the court itself granting higher pay).
It is well settled by the Supreme Court that only because the nature of work is the same, irrespective of educational qualification, mode of
appointment, experience and other relevant factors, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot apply vide Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy.
Similarly, in State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. the principle of equal pay for equal work was considered in
great detail. In paras 9 and 10 of the said judgment the Supreme Court observed that equation of posts and salary is a complex matter which
should be left to an expert body. The courts must realise that the job is both a difficult and time consuming task which even experts having the
assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found it difficult to undertake. Fixation of pay and determination of parity is a complex matter which
is for the executive to discharge. Granting of pay parity by the court may result in a cascading effect and reaction which can have adverse
consequences vide Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Dey
In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.