Union of India vs M. Nagarajan and Khadi and Village Industries Commission

Shaffique, J.—The second respondent in the writ petition is the appellant. The writ petition was filed by respondents 1 to 3 challenging Ext.P10, an order passed by the appellant rejecting the request of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC) to upgrade the pay scale of the post of Auditor-Gr.I from Rs.4500- 7000 and Rs.5000-8000. The facts involved in the above case discloses that petitioners 1 and 2 were holding the post of Auditor Gr.I/Assistant Accountant and the 3rd petitioner was holding the post of Auditor Gr.II. According to them, the pay scales were being fixed over a period of time as per the recommendation of the successive Pay Revision Commission and when the pay scales in respect of the posts which were carrying the same scale of pay as of the petitioner had been increased they were not given any corresponding increase in their pay scales. This disparity was pointed out to the 1st respondent which appointed a Committee to consider the same and though it was found that the grievance of the petitioners were genuine and the 1st respondent had recommended the matter to the Central Government to give such persons upward revision of scale of pay, the same was rejected by Ext.P10 order. The 1st respondent supported the cause of the petitioners. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant to pass fresh orders implementing the recommendations made by the 1st respondent in the matter of revision of scale of pay of the petitioners.

The appellant challenges the above judgment inter alia contending that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to decide the correctness or otherwise of complex facts which weighed with the Central Pay Commission. The pay structure had been fixed by the Central Pay Commission after carefully taking into consideration the vertical and horizontal relativities and any change in the pay structure would adversely affect the said exercise. It is further contended that the petitioners have failed to discharge the burden to bring out sufficient materials to upset the expert views with respect to fixation of pay scales. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and another v. West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors Association and Others [(2010) 5 SCC 225], S.C. Chandra and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, and State of Haryana and Another Vs. Ram Chander and Another, in support of his contentions.

On a perusal of the averments in the writ petition, it could be seen that Auditors Grade-I and Gr.II in the KVIC during the 4th Pay Commission recommendation, were placed in the same pay scale of Legal Assistants, Economic Investigators and Stenographers. During the 5th Pay Commission, they were kept in par with Economic Investigators and Legal Assistants; but in respect of such persons, the pay scale had been subsequently revised to Rs.5000-150-8000. The pay scale of Stenographers and the Auditors remained at Rs.4500-125-7000. When it came to the question of 6th Pay Commission, the pay scale of Legal Assistants, Economic Investigators and Stenographers were increased to Rs.9300-34800 whereas the pay scale of Auditor Gr.I/Assistant Accountant was fixed at Rs.5200-20200.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that court cannot interfere with the fixation of pay scale by KVIC on the basis of recommendations made by the 6th Pay Commission. According to the counsel, going by the judgment in State of West Bengal (Supra), persons claiming parity would have to establish that they are entitled to such parity and merely because earlier they were in the same pay scale they cannot claim continuance for pay parity even after the pay revision of the wages of Pay Commission recommendation. In the judgment it is held that :

Therefore the mere fact that at an earlier point of time, two posts were carrying the same pay scale, does not mean that after the implementation of revision in pay scales, they should necessarily have the same revised pay scales. The benefit of higher pay scale can only be claimed by establishing that holders of the subject post and holders of reference category posts, discharge duties and functions identical with, or similar to, each other and that the continuation of disparity is irrational and unjust.

In the judgment in S.C.Chandra (Supra), the learned Judge in a separate judgment held that:

Fixation of pay scale is a delicate mechanism which requires various considerations including financial capacity, responsibility, educational qualification, mode of appointment etc. and it has a cascading effect. Two groups of employees may be doing the same work, yet they may be given different pay scales if the educational qualifications are different. Also, pay scale can be different if the nature of jobs, responsibilities, experience, method of recruitment etc. are different.

Thus in Ram Chander & Another (Supra), it is held that :

Having given our naxious consideration to these rival contentions we find that before a set of employees can claim parity of pay scales on the principles of ''"Equal Pay for Equal Work'', it has to be shown by such claimants that qualitatively and quantitatively the work which they do is of the same type and nature as that of their counterparts whose pay scales are pressed in service for getting the parity. Not only that but even educational qualifications must be identical. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that different pay scales can be prescribed for employees having different educational qualifications.

It is further held that it is well settled by the Supreme Court that only because nature of work is same, irrespective of educational qualification, mode of payment, experience and other relevant factors, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot apply.

On the basis of the above judgments, the learned counsel for the Appellant urged that the Court should not have interfered in the matter and once the appellant had decided fixation of pay scales at a particular amount, it cannot be disturbed at all.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents points out that pay scales approved by KVIC for various posts have been narrated in Ext.P5, which would indicate that when the Legal Assistants, Economic Investigators-II, Stenographers and Drivers Gr.I are included in a pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 as per recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission with grade pay of Rs.4,200/-, Auditor Gr.I/Assistant Accountant post is only having a pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs.2800/-. According to the learned counsel it is contended that 1st respondent had revised pay scale of petitioners and similarly placed persons with recommendation of the Committee constituted to rectify the anomalies in the pay scales in terms of Ext.P7 report of the Committee and the said decision has been forwarded for approval to the appellant. It is his case that as per KVIC Regulation, no such approval is required but by Ext.P10 such approval has been rejected. According to the learned counsel, it is for the 1st respondent to exercise the power as per Rule 3(3) of KVIC Regulation 1958 and having not exercised such power, the decision to sent it for approval to the appellant is bad in law. When the Commission finds that there is disparity in the pay scales of employees with reference to the pay scale projected by the petitioners, the principle of equal pay for equal work has to be taken into consideration and a reference to the appellant was not at all required in the matter. He refers to Sub Rules 1 to 3 of Rule 3 of the KVIC Regulations which reads as under:

Employees of Commission: General Provisions.- (1) The Commission may, with the prior approval of the Central Government, adopt for its officers and employees scales of pay and allowances taking into account the rates fixed by the Government of India for employees of similar categories.

(2) The Commission shall have four main classes of employees - Group-A, B, C and D - who may be further, classified into grades and shall issue orders prescribing duties and responsibilities of its employees from time to time.

(3) The Commission may employ persons, wherever necessary, on fixed monthly remuneration (including allowances) or on daily wages. Prior sanction of Government in such cases shall be taken if such monthly remuneration exceeds Rs.20,000/- per month.

According to the learned counsel, going by Rule 3(3), prior sanction of Government is required only in cases if the monthly remuneration exceeds Rs.25,000/-. In that view of the matter, according to the learned counsel, approval of the Central Government was not at all required. Having heard arguments on either side, we are of the view that since KVIC itself had considered the disparity in the pay scales with reference to various categories of employees and had recommended increase of the pay scale with reference to the petitioners, there is no reason for the appellant to refuse such fixation of pay scale. It is for the KVIC to decide on the pay scale of their employees and going by Rule 3(3) no prior sanction of the Central Government is required in the matter. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant has no bearing especially in view of the fact that the KVIC itself had found out the disparity in the pay scales relating to the petitioners and they had recommended a higher pay scale to be fixed.

In that view of the matter, we do not find any illegality in the judgment of the learned Single Judge and there is no need to interfere with the same. The writ appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed.