# R.D. GUPTA & ORS. ETC v. LT. GOVERNOR. DELHI ADMN. & OR 0S. ETC. AUGUST 7. 1987

- **Citation:** [1987] 3 S.C.R. 808
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1987
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2969 of 1983
- **Bench:** 0. Chinnappa Reddy, S. Natarajan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/r-d-gupta-ors-etc-v-lt-governor-delhi-admn-or-0s-etc-august-7-1987-9639
- **Pages:** 25

## Headnote

Civil Services-Pay Scales-Rates recommended for DESU
employees-Whether can be made applicable to NDMC employees--
Ministerial staff-All sections-To be treated a/ike--Entitlement to
same pay scales-Civil engineers in Electricity wing-Whether can
claim parity with electrical engineers.
In the Union Territory of Delhi there are two main civic bodies
viz. the New Delhi Municipal Committee and the Delhi Municipal
Corporation. The NDMC was constituted under the Punjab Municipal
Act, 1913 to discharge all civic functions including supply of water and
electricity in the area falling within its jnrisdiction. The Delhi Municipal Corporation was constituted in pursuance of the Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act, 1957.
The NDMC forming a compact unit, had divided its civic work
into various departments. Besides technical staff, it also engaged nontechnical staff such as Municipal staff, clerks etc. The non-technical
staff constituted one unified cadre, liable to transfer from one department to another with common seniority.
F
The set up of the MCD was, however, different consisting of three
separate and independent wings viz. the electricity, the general and the
water, sewage and disposal wings. The electricity wing was designated
as the Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking and its employees were
governed by a separate cadre and seniority list. Similarly, the general
wing, performing other general civic duties and functions, and the third
G
wing concerning with distribution of water and disposal of sewage etc.
).
To satisfy the demands of the employees of the MCD, NDMC etc.
the Government accepted the recommendations of the Third Pay
Commission. The New Delhi Municipal Committee as well as the
general wing of the Municipal Corporation, Delhi accepted the pay
H scales recommended by the Third Pay Commission. However, the tech808
R.D. GUPTA v. LT. GOVERNOR
809
nical staff of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking were not satisfied and
claimed higher scales of pay. The Government, therefore, constituted a
Committee known as the Shiv Shankar Committee to go into the question ofrevision of pay scales etc. of the technical staff of the DESU. The
Committee submitted its report in 1973. Subsequently, the DESU
agreed to revise the pay scales of the non-technical staff also to the level
+-
recommended by the S.S. Committee.
The New Delhi Municipal Committee, by its Resolution dated
19.10. 73, decided to give the benefit of the revised scales to the technical
and ministerial staff working in its electricity wing as, in its view, such
staff were performing same or similar functions and duties performed
by the staff of DESU and hence parity should be maintained, and by
Resolution dated 7.1.1974, it decided to give the benefit with effect from
1.4. 72.
A
B
c
Two of the employees of the general wing filed a writ petition
before the High Court for quashing the Resolution dated 7 .1.197 4
which sought to implement the earlier Resolution of 19.10.1973. The
D
Higli' Court held that the Resolution was discriminatory in nature, and
restrained the implementation of the Resolution till the NDMC considered afresh the question of revision of pay scales for all sections of the
ministerial staff after giving an opportunity to them.
In compliance with the above directions, the NDMC passed a
E
revised Resolution dated 25.6.1975 treating all the non-technical staff
as equal and granting uniform pay scales at the rates recommended by
the Third Pay Commission and not at different rates for different
wings. This Resolution was again challenged by some of the affected
members of the electricity wing before the High Court, which disposed
it of on the assurance given by the NDMC that the whole position would
F
be reviewed after giving all the parties including the ministerial staff of
the electricity wing due notice of the matter.
The Letters Patent Appeal, originally filed hy the NDMC, and in
which some of the affected employees of the electricity wing had got
-{ themselves impl

## Text

_Characters 0–39,941 of 64,810. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39941 for what follows._

A
B
c
D
E
R.D. GUPTA & ORS. ETC.
v.
LT. GOVERNOR. DELHI ADMN. & OR
0S. ETC.
AUGUST 7. 1987
(0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.]
Civil Services-Pay Scales-Rates recommended for DESU
employees-Whether can be made applicable to NDMC employees--
Ministerial staff-All sections-To be treated a/ike--Entitlement to
same pay scales-Civil engineers in Electricity wing-Whether can
claim parity with electrical engineers.
In the Union Territory of Delhi there are two main civic bodies
viz. the New Delhi Municipal Committee and the Delhi Municipal
Corporation. The NDMC was constituted under the Punjab Municipal
Act, 1913 to discharge all civic functions including supply of water and
electricity in the area falling within its jnrisdiction. The Delhi Municipal Corporation was constituted in pursuance of the Delhi Municipal
Corporation Act, 1957.
The NDMC forming a compact unit, had divided its civic work
into various departments. Besides technical staff, it also engaged nontechnical staff such as Municipal staff, clerks etc. The non-technical
staff constituted one unified cadre, liable to transfer from one department to another with common seniority.
F
The set up of the MCD was, however, different consisting of three
separate and independent wings viz. the electricity, the general and the
water, sewage and disposal wings. The electricity wing was designated
as the Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking and its employees were
governed by a separate cadre and seniority list. Similarly, the general
wing, performing other general civic duties and functions, and the third
G
wing concerning with distribution of water and disposal of sewage etc.
).
To satisfy the demands of the employees of the MCD, NDMC etc.
the Government accepted the recommendations of the Third Pay
Commission. The New Delhi Municipal Committee as well as the
general wing of the Municipal Corporation, Delhi accepted the pay
H scales recommended by the Third Pay Commission. However, the tech808
R.D. GUPTA v. LT. GOVERNOR
809
nical staff of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking were not satisfied and
claimed higher scales of pay. The Government, therefore, constituted a
Committee known as the Shiv Shankar Committee to go into the question ofrevision of pay scales etc. of the technical staff of the DESU. The
Committee submitted its report in 1973. Subsequently, the DESU
agreed to revise the pay scales of the non-technical staff also to the level
+-
recommended by the S.S. Committee.
The New Delhi Municipal Committee, by its Resolution dated
19.10. 73, decided to give the benefit of the revised scales to the technical
and ministerial staff working in its electricity wing as, in its view, such
staff were performing same or similar functions and duties performed
by the staff of DESU and hence parity should be maintained, and by
Resolution dated 7.1.1974, it decided to give the benefit with effect from
1.4. 72.
A
B
c
Two of the employees of the general wing filed a writ petition
before the High Court for quashing the Resolution dated 7 .1.197 4
which sought to implement the earlier Resolution of 19.10.1973. The
D
Higli' Court held that the Resolution was discriminatory in nature, and
restrained the implementation of the Resolution till the NDMC considered afresh the question of revision of pay scales for all sections of the
ministerial staff after giving an opportunity to them.
In compliance with the above directions, the NDMC passed a
E
revised Resolution dated 25.6.1975 treating all the non-technical staff
as equal and granting uniform pay scales at the rates recommended by
the Third Pay Commission and not at different rates for different
wings. This Resolution was again challenged by some of the affected
members of the electricity wing before the High Court, which disposed
it of on the assurance given by the NDMC that the whole position would
F
be reviewed after giving all the parties including the ministerial staff of
the electricity wing due notice of the matter.
The Letters Patent Appeal, originally filed hy the NDMC, and in
which some of the affected employees of the electricity wing had got
-{ themselves impleaded as appellants, was allowed and the judgment of G
the Single Judge was set aside as it had been rendered without all the
necessary parties being before the Court. The Special Leave Petition
filed in the Supreme Court hy two staff members of the general wing
was dismissed in limine.
The NDMC, after giving opportunity to all sections of the empH
810
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1987] 3 S.C.R.
A loyees to make their representation passed a Resolution on 27.6.78
constituting the electricity wing w.e.f. 1.S.78 composed of pump drivers,
welders, carpenters, mechanics and 496 posts of ministerial stalT, carrying scales of pay as per the S.S. Committee report and benefit of exgratia on DESU pattern, and treated these as ex-cadre posts and to be
filled on deputation basis on rotation, for a period of three years in one -+
a spell.
Three writ petitions were filed in the High Court contending (a)
~
that the ministerial staft' should be treated on par with their counterparts in the electricity wing in the matter of pay and allowances, (b)
that, as there was no dift'erence between the civil and electrical
C engineers, civil engineers should be equated with the electrical
engineers on DESU pattern, and (c) that since the employees of DESU
y
were being paid ex-gratia amount the staft' in the general wing should
also be paid likewise.
The High Court, while upholding the order of the NDMC,
D modified the placement of the ex-cadre posts in the overall set-up. It
\~
evolved a Scheme according lo which the S.S. Committee scales were to
be given only to those who opted to work in the electricity department
and the posts were to be filled on the basis of seniority-cum-option. It
further directed that since higher scales of pay was linked with the
service rendered in the electricity wing, S.S. Committee scales should
E be paid to all those who had worked in the electricity wing during the
period subsequent to June 1975 till 30th May, 1982, that such payment
--'i..-
would not amount to discriminatory payment and that after the 30th
May, 1982 the postings should be done in accordance with seniority·
cum-option formula. It also held that the civil engineers could not seek
'-"
parity with electrical engineers in the electricity wing in the matter of
F
pay scales as the junior engineers (Civil) had no common seniority with
the electrical engineers in the electricity wing, that the posts were not
interchangeable and that they could not draw comparison with the
employment pattern of DESU because it was a separate and indepen·
dent entity unlike the electricity wing of the NDMC and that the nature
of the duties performed by the electrical engineers and civil engineers
G
was dift'erent.
·~ ·
H
Upholding the refusal of the NDMC to grant ex-gratia payment to
the staft' of the general wing, it directed the NDMC to treat the amount
already paid "as one-time special ad hoc payment not serving as a
precedent."
·--.i
•
t
'1- .
'"(
-I
~
t
4
R.D. GUPTA v. LT. GOVERNOR
811
In the appeals before this Court it was contended on behalf of the
mlniaterlal staff in the general wing that the electricity wing was not a
A
distinct and independent unit entitled to have its own scales or pay, that
the ministerial staff of the NDMC belonged to a unified cadre and the
staff members were liable to transfer from one branch to another and,
as such, the NDMC could not create a cadre within a cadre and fix a
different 1eale of pay for thot1e In the carved out cadre, that the nature or B
duties performed by the ministerial staff In all the three units was more
or less similar, if not identical, and hence the well-established rule of
equal pay for equal work should govern the staff members, that Instead
of restrlct1n11 the payment of S.S. Committee pay scale! to the 496
ex·cadre posts In the electricity wlna and directing the NDMC to fill up
those posts on the basis of seniority-cum-option, the High Court should c
have directed the NDMC to give the S.S. Committee pay scales to all the
members of the ministerial staff and also pay ex·gratla payment and
should not have directed the NDJ\1C to treat the ad hoc payment as one
time special ad hoc payment and refrain from recovering the said
amount.
D
The NDMC, in turn, filed two appeals against the High Court
judgment dlrectln11 the payment at S.S. Committee ocales for the period
from June 197$ to May, 1982 and filllng up the ministerial posts In the
electricity wln1 on senlorlty·cum·optlon basis instead of a three years
deputation basis on rotational system and payment of arrears of pay ek.
and for giving up the proceedings for recovery of the ad hoc payment
E
towards ex·gratla payment and contend.in11 that the Government or any
State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution had a right
under law to create new departments or new cadres with different
scales of pay and hence the appellants could not Impugn the action of
the NDMC ltr treatln11 the ministerial staff In the electrical wing di!Te·
rently and 11ivlng them pay 1cales as per S.S. Committee Report.
F
On behalf of some of the staff' members In the general wing, It was
contended that since the NDMC co1111tltuted an Integrated unit with
common fund, common bud11et etc., the Hl1h Court ouaht not to have
sustained the payment of ex·gratla amount to only thoH persons work·
ing In the electricity wing and water works wing and should have made G
the payment applicable to all or to none.
In the writ petition and appeal filed on behalf or the Assistant and
Junior EnR1neers (Civil), It was contended that there could not be any
discrimination between civil engineers and electrical engineers and
since the NDMC followed the pattern of 11eales or pay adopted by DESU
H
812
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1987] 3 S.C.R.
A
which paid the Civil Engineers according to S.S. Committee pay scales
they were as much entitled as the electrical engineers to be paid according to the S.S. Committee pay scales and also for payment of ex-gratia
amount.
B
c
Allowing the appeals of the employees in the general wing and
dismissing the appeals and WP of NDMC and the engineers (civil), -t
this Court,
\
HELD: I. I All sections of the ministerial staff should be treated
alike and all of them should be entitled to the same scales of pay for the
work of ec1ual nature done by them. [825C]
I.2 Merely because a member of the ministerial staff had been
given a posting in the electricity wing either due to force of circumstances or due to voluntary preferment, he cannot stand on a better or
higher footing or in a more advantageous position than his counterparts in the general wing. The ministerial staff in the NDMC constitute
D a unified eadre with a common recruitment policy, a common recruitment agency a common seniority list, and the posts in the three
wings are inter-changeable and postings are made from the
common pool according to administrative convenience and exigencies
of service and not on the basis of any distinct policy or special
qualification. [8258, 8248, 825A]
E
I.3 The only reason which prompted the NDMC to pass the resolution was that since DESU had implemented the S.S. Committee pay
scales for its technical and non-technical staff, the NDMC should also
follow suit in so far as its electricity wing is concerned. In doing so, the
NDMC had failed to bear in mind several distinguishing features between
F its set up and the set up of the DESU and its staff pattern and the
staff pattern ofDESU. [825G]
The NDMC is governed by the Punjab Municipal Act, wbile
the DESU is governed by the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.
The set-up of the NDMC is that of an integrated unit comprising all the
G
three wings while the set-up under the Municipal Corporation Act of
the MCD is that its three wings have to function as distinct and independent units. Such being the case, the DESU is a separate and independent
unit of MCD and constituted an independent body. The DESU has its
own budget and consequently it has freedom without reference to the
other units. In contrast, the NDMC's revenue is the income derived
H from all the three wings of it and the expenses are governed by a common
l
-
R.D. GUPTA v. LT. GOVERNOR
813
-_,
budget. Apart from the diference in the set-up, the ministerial staff in A
the NDMC are comprised in a unified cadre and the posts in the three
wings are transferable and inter-changeable which is not so in the case
+·
of the staff of the DESU. [82SH, 826A]
1.4 There is no room whatsoever for treating the electricity wing
of the NDMC on par with the DESU and adopting the pattern of pay B
scales implemented by DESU and the decision taken by the NDMC
originally to place the non-technical staff in the electricity wing on a
higher footing and give them alone the S.S. Committee pay scales cannot be legally sustained. The action of the NDMC clearly suffered from
the vice of arbitrariness and discrimination. [826B-D J
2.1 The NDMC has no legal ground to project any justification of
its action in making the posts in the electricity wing as ex-cadre posts
and giving the benefit of S.S. Committee pay scales only to persons
serving in those posts. [828A]
c
2.2 The resolution only sought to provide all the members of the D
staff the benefit of the higher scales of pay for a period of three years at
some point of time in their service provided they opted to serve in the
electricity wing but it did not pro~ide an answer for the criticism that
there was no justification to treat ~he ministerial staff in the electricity
wing on a higher footing than the rest of the staff and give them a higher
scale of pay. [826F-G J
E
2.3 The proposal would perpetuate the imbalance in the pay
scales between the different sections of the staff working in the three
wings of the NDMC. The system of deputation would lead to a long
period of wait for large sections of the staff before getting postings in the
electricity wing on deputation basis. The staff members would have to F
forego the higher scales of pay and come back to the lesser scales when
the period of deputation was over. The insistence on the staff members
being entitled to deputation service in the electricity wing only if they
exercised their option to work in that wing introduces an element of
compulsion among the members comprised in a unified cadre. These
factors vitiate the revised propsoal of the NDMC to make 496 posts as G
ex-cadre and to fill them up on deputation basis hy adopting a rotational cnm option system. [826G-H, 827A-B]
3. The scheme formulated by the High Court cannot be sustained
or accepted. The High Court, apart from laying itself open to the criti·
cism that it had gone beyond its power in formulating the scheme, has H
814
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[ 1987) 3 S.C.R.
A failed to provide for equal benefits for all the members of the ministerial
staff. If the electricity wing is to be filled up on the basis of seniority
cum option, those who had served earlier in the electricity wing would
get a distinct advantage over the rest ot the ministerial staff including
the senior members in the matter of higher pay-scales. Besides, the
seniority cum option system would give grater benefit to some and
,
B lesser benefit to some depending upon their age etc. Moreover, the 4
Insertion of the option clause would introduce an element of compulsion
and make it appear that the staff working in the electricity wing
perform more onerous and more skilled duties and hence they stand on
a higher footing. It would also lead to packing all the senior members of
the staff in the electricity wing and denuding the other two wings of the
C services of the senior ministerial staff. [827C-F)
4. Merely because some of the Civil engineers are assigned to do
civil engineers' work in the electricity wing It cannot be said that they
are not different from the electrical engineers and that they should be
paid higher scales of pay. In the matter of promotions etc., they are
D governed by the common seniority Ust maintained for civil engineers
and their posting to the electricity wing cannot make them a separate
class hy themselves. They cannot compare themselves with the civil
engineers working In DESU because that is a separate and distinct unit,
and all the engineers working therein constitute a single unit. There Is
no disparity of scales of pay between civil engineers working in
E the electricity wing and those working in the other wings. It cannot,
therefore, be said that there is discrimination in the matter of pay
scales. [828H, 829A-C]
5. The pattern of payment of ex-gratia payment adopted by the
MCD cannot have any binding force on the NDMC because the three
F units of the MCD are different and diltlnct entities whereas the three
wings otthe NDMC are inter-dependent wings of the lntearated Munici·
pal Committee. [830A]
6.1 In the absence of justiliahle reasons of compulsive nature, the
payments whether as salary or as ex1!ratia amounts have to be on the same
and equal basis and not differently for the different wings. All the
G
ministerial staff working in the NDMC are entitled to get pay scales as
per S.S. Committee report and are also entitled to be given ex-gratia
payment likewise. The grant of S.S. Commitee pay scales to only the
staff working in the electricity wing or the grant of ex-gratia payment to
only the staff working In the electricity wing and the water works wing
cannot be legally sustained as it sufTers from the vice or dlacrlminaH lion. [830B, 831C]
·~·
.,
+--
1'
-
'Y
~
R.D. GUPTA v. LT. GOVERNOR
815
6.2 There should be uniformity not only in payment of S.S. Committee pay scales and the ex-gratia payment to the staff working in all
the wings or departments of the NDMC but the payment should also be
made from a date common to all. [831D]
[In so far as payment of uniform salary to all the ministerial staff
as per S.S. Committee pay scales and payment of ex-gratia payment is
concerned, the NDMC will give effect to this judgment with effect from
1st June, 1982. The amount involved should be distributed equally
amongst all the ministerial staff and not conf'med to the ministerial staff
of the electricity wing alone. In view of the financial committment involved the NDMC is permitted to pay the difference in scales of pay and
ex-gratia amount between June 1, 1982 to July 31, 1987 in three equal
instalments within a period of15 months.] [831F-H]
Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982] 3 SCR 298; Dhirendra
Chamoli v. Staie of U.P., [1986] 1 SCC 637; P. Ramachandra Iver v.
Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 541, Reserve Bank of India v. N.C.
Paliwal, (1977] 1 SCR 377 and Reserve Bank of India v. C.N. Sahasranaman, [1986] (Suppl.) SCC 143, referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2969
of 1983 etc.
A
B
c
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 17 .5. 1982 of the Delhi High
E
Court in Civil Writ No. 1231 of 1979.
-.rG. Ramaswamy, Additional
Solicitor General,
Govinda
Mukhoty, Dr. Y.S. Chitale, V.D. Misra, M.K. Ramamurthi, N.C.
Talukdar, Mrs. C.M. Chopra, B.P. Maheshwari, R.S. Rama, M.A.
Krishnamurthy, N.L. Kakkar, Dr. Meera Aggarwal and R.C. Misra F
for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
NATARAJAN, J. The genesis for these appeals by special leave,
1the special leave petition and the petition under Article 32 of the G
Constitution is the grant of pay scales at the rates recommended by the
Shiv Shanker Committee for the employees of the Delhi Electricity
Supply Undertaking to only a section of the ministerial staff of the
New Delhi Minicipal Committee who happened to be working in the
electricity wing of the said Committee at the relevant time. There is a
good deal of factual material and historical background to be covered H
816
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1987] 3 S.C.R.
A
for a full and proper appreciation of the contentions of the appellants
Y
and the petitioners on the one hand and the respondents on the other
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
in these appeals and petitions. We will, therefore, concern ourselves
with that exercise before taking up the contentions of the parties.
In the Union Territory of Delhi there are two main civic bodies
viz. the New Delhi Municipal Committee (for short of NDMC) and the -..+
Delhi Municipal Corporation (for short the MCD). The NDMC comprises of New Delhi as it existed prior to 1947 and was constituted·
under the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. The NDMC discharges all
civic functions including supply of water and electricity in the areas
falling within its jurisdiction. In 1957 the Delhi Municipal Corporation
Act came to be enacted and in pursuance !hereof, the Delhi Municipal
Corporation was constituted amalgamating within itself a few other
smaller civic bodies which existed independent of the NDMC and the
resultant position was that the rest of the areas fell within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
The NDMC, forming a compact unit, had divided its civic work
I
y
into various departments. Besides engaging technical staff the NDMC
Y-·
engaged non-technical staff such as Municipal staff, clerks e'tc, for
working in the various departments including the electricity and watersupply departments. In so far as the non-technical staff are concerned,
they constitute one unified cadre and are liable to transfer from one
department to another. They are governed by a common channel of
seniority, in respect of each class of employees with common seniority
list.
'"'"""·-
The set up of the MCD is, however, different since the Delhi
Municipal Corporation Act provides for the constitution of three sepa-
',-
rate and independent wings viz. the electricity, the general and the
water, sewage and disposal wings. The electricity wing came to be
designated as the Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking (hereinafter
referred to as DESU) and is governed by an independent budget and
headed by a separate and independent General Manager and its employees are governed by a separate cadre and a separate seniority list.
The general wing of the MCD performs the other general civic duties
~
and functions. The third wing is concerned with the distribution of
water and the disposal of sewage etc. and it is also independent of the
general wing.
To satisfy the demands of the employees of the MCD, NDMC
etc. the Government accepted the report of the Third Pay commission
-
R.D. GUPTA v. LT. GOVERNOR [NATARAJAN ,J.l
817
appointed by it and the pay scales, as recommended by the Pay ComA
mission were accepted by the NDMC as well as the general wing of the
MCD. The technical staff of DESU claimed higher scales of pay as
they were not satisfied with the pay scales recommended by the Pay
Commission. The Government, therefore, constituted a Committee
known as the Shiv Shanker Committee (hereinafter the S.S. Committ tee for short) to go into the question ofrevision of pay scales etc. of the B
technical staff alone of DESU and the Committee submitted its report
in 1973. The non-technical or ministerial staff of DESU who were not
covered by the report of the S.S. Committee demanded and agitated
that they should also be granted pay at the rates recommended by the
S.S. Committee. The DESU conceded the demand of the minisiterial
staff at its meetings held in May 1973 and decided to revise the pay C
scales of the non-technical staff also working in DESU to the level
recommended by the S.S. Committee.
Since the technical and ministerial staff working in DESU were
granted the SS Committee pay scales by the MCD, the NDMC was of
the view that the technical and ministerial staff working in the electri- D
city wing of NDMC should also have the benefit of revised pay scales
recommended by the SS Committee. This view was taken on the
assumption that the staff working in the electricity wing of the NDMC
were performing the same or similar functions and duties as those
performed by the staff of DESU and hence parity of pay and
allowances should be maintained. Accordingly, the NDMC passed a E
-X--· Resolution No. i54 on 19. JO. 1973 that the benefits of pay and
allowances as per SS Committee Report be given to the staff of the
electricity wing of NDMC. By another Resolution dated 7. i. !974 the
NDMC decided to giv() the benefit of the revised pay scales with effect
from i .4. 72 to fall in line with the actions of the DESU.
The grant of SS Committee pay scales to only those members of
the ministerial staff working in the electricity wing brought about discontentment amount the staff working in the general wing of the
NDMC. They claimed they should also be paid at the rates prescribed
by the SS Committee and not as per the scales of pay recommended by
F
--1- the Third Pay Commission. Two of the employees of the general wing G
filed a writ petition W. No. 307 of 1974 against NDMC and the Delhi.
Administration praying for quashing of the Resolution dated 7. I. 1974
for implementing the earlier Resolution passed in favour of the staff ot
the electricity wing. Prakash Narain, J. (as he then was) did not quash
the Resolution but instead issued a writ of prohibition against the
NDMC not to implement the Resolution. The learned Judge held that H
•
•
818
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1987] 3 S.C.R.
A the Resolution was discriminatory in nature but since the staff working
in the electricity wing had not been made parties and furthermore the
petitioners had not filed the petition in a representative capacity, the
proper course would be to forbear the implementation of the Resolution by the NDMC till such time the NDMC considered afresh the
question of the revision of pay scales for all sections of the ministerial
B
staff in accordance with law.
~
c
D
E
F
In compliance with the directions of the learned Judge the
NDMC considered the matter afresh and taking into consideration its
financial constraints, it passed a revised Resolution on 25.6.75 which
resulted in all the non-technical staff being treated equal and being
granted uniform pay scales at the rates recommended by the Third Pay
Commission and not at different rates for different wings. This resolution lead to discontent amount the ministerial staff of the electricity
wing since their pay scales were reduced to the rates recommended by
the Third Pay Commission. Consequently, some of the affected members of the electrical wing filed a writ petition CW No. 1388 of 1975
before the Delhi High Court challenging the Resolution of the NDMC
dated 25.6. 75. The High Court disposed of the writ petition on 18.2. 77
on the assurance given by the NDMC that the whole position would be
reviewed after giving all the parties including the ministerial staff of
the electricity wing due notice of the matter. As against the judgment
of Prakash Narain, J. the NDMC also filed a Letters Patent Appeal.
However, in view of the subsequent Resolutions that had been passed
the NDMC withdrew itself from the appeal. But at the instance of
some of the affected employees of the electricity wing who had got
themselves impleaded as appellants, the appeal was allowed on the
short ground that the judgment of the learned single judge could not
be sustained as it bad been rendered without all the necessary parties
being before the court.
The two staff members of the general wing who had originally
filed CW No. 307 of 1974 filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP No. 3597
of i978) against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High
Court in LPA No. 78 of 1975. This Court dismissed the special leave
y
G
petition in limine with an observation that it was hoped that the +.-
NDMC would comply with the direction of the Delhi High Court that
it should evolve a formula satisfactory to all sections of the ministerial
staff working in the different wings of the NDMC and if the revised
scheme formulated by the NDMC was not satisfactory to any section
of the staff, it would be open to the affected party to seek appropriate
H
reliefs from the High Court once again .
-
R.D. GUPTA v. LT. GOVERNOR [NATARAJAN ,J.I
819
The NDMC after giving opportunity to all sections of the empA
loyees to make their representations, passed a resolution on 27.6. 1978
constituting the electricity wing with effect from 1.5.78 or such subsequent date as may be fixed with 28 posts of pump drivers, two posts
of welders, 3 posts of carpenters and one post of pump mechanic and
\
496 posts of ministerial staff and to give all of them scales of pay as per
·~ SS Committee Report. The NDMC further resolved as follows:-
B
y
"D. 496 posts referred to above will be treated as ex-cadre posts
and will be filled on deputation basis on rotation, the period
of deputation in one spell being three years. These posts will
be in SS Committee's scales and will carry the benefit of
ex·gratia of DESU pattern.
E. An equal number of posts may be created in general wing to
form deputation reserve.
c
F. The employees holding the ex-cadre posts from the date of
constitution of the wing will be entitled to have their pay fixed
D
in the SS Committee scales or would draw deputation allo·
wance as permissible under normal rules. During the period
of deputation they will continue to remain as members of the
unified cadre and will be eligible for promotion to higher
posts on that basis.
G. While the existing vacancies in the ex-cadre categories will be
filled straightaway on seniority-cum-option basis, the existE
ing incumbents will hold the ex-cadre posts for a period of
three years from the date of constitution of the wing on depu·
talion basis. On expiry of the three years, one third of them
with longest stay will be replaced'every year by transfer from F
the general wing on the basis of seniority cum option. Such of
the existing incumbents who become due for promotion to
higher post will have to forego their deputation, if they
accept the promotion and will be transferred to general
wing."
The above resolution was not to the liking of the ministerial staff
working in the electricity wing and hence one Shri R. Chaudhary and
G
190 other staff members in the electricity wing filed a Writ Petition
CW No. 4072 of 78 under Article 32 of the Constitution before this
Court but withdrew the same as the Court was not inclined to grant
admission. Thereafter three petitions under Article 226 of the H
820
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1987] 3 S.C.R.
A Constitution viz. CW Nos. 1231. 557 & 280 of 1978 came to be filed in
the Delhi High Court. In CW No. 1231of1979, some of the petitioners
were Junior Engineers (Civil) some of the petitioners were Assistant
Engineers (Civil) and some of the petitioners were Draftsman (Civil).
While the grievance of the ministerial staff among the petitioners was
B
that they should be treated on par with the ministerial staff of the
I
electricity wing in the matter of pay and allowances the grievance of \
the Junior and Assistant Engineers (Civil) and Draftsman (Civil) was
that none of their posts was borne on the cadre of the electricity wing
albeit on a transferable basis as there is no difference between the Civil
Engineers and the Electrical Engineers as they attend to the civil
engineering works in the electricity wing also and it is for that reason
-
C
the civil engineers in DESU have been equated with the electrical
engmeers.
In so far as CW No. 280 of 1979 is .concerned, the petition
pertained to the grant of ex-gratia payment to only a section of the
NDMC employees. Ever since 1972, the employees and their unions
D were demanding ex-gratia payment on the ground that since the employees of DESU were being paid -ex-gratia amount, they should also
be paid likewise. The Delhi Administration, by its letter dated 1.2. 72
permitted the NDMC to make ex-gratia payment to the employees of
the electricity wing on the same lines as was being followed in DESU.
Similarly, on 7 .2.1973, the Delhi Administration permitted the grant
E
of ex-gratia payment to the employees working in the Water Supply &
Sewage Disposal wing of the NDMC also on the ground their counterparts in the Water Supply & Sewage Disposal undertaking in the MCD
were being paid ex-gratia amount. The ministerial staff in the general
wing who were not granted the ex-gratia payment raised a protest.
F
G
Eventually, the NDMC passed a resolution at its meeting held on
25.7.1977 that ex-gratia payment be made to all employees of common
categories such as clerks, superintendents etc. and that the payment be
made subject to the conditions that the employees will refund the
amount if the proposal was not approved by the Delhi Administration.
Subsequently, it turned out that the Delhi Administration did not
approve the proposal of paying ex-gratia amount to all the employees
as the expenditure would cast a heavy burden on the finances of the +--
NDMC and furthermore it will lead to similar demands being raised by
employees in the other local bodies of Delhi. Consequently, the
ND MC called upon the staff of the general wing to refund the ad hoc
payment of Rs.300 given by way of advance towards ex-gratia payment. To challenge the negation of ex-gratia payment to them CW No.
H
280 of 1978 was filed.
R.D. GUPTA v. LT. GOVERNOR [NATARAJAN ,J.)
821
The High Court rendered a common judgment covering all the
three Writ Petitions. The High Court took the view that the contention.
of the ministerial staff that all of them, irrespective of the department
of their work should be paid as per SS Committee Report failing which
none should be paid at that rate was an extreme stand and cannot
therefore be accepted, The High Court was of the opinion that the
+ impugned resolution of the NDMC was acceptable to the extent it
reflected the desire of the NDMC to grant SS Committee scales of pay
to as a large section of the staff as possible and to that extent the
resolutioJil was a beneficial measure for the ministerial staff. The High
Court al~o held that since the NDMC wanted to equate the electricity
wing with the DESU, it is but proper that only those members of the
ministerial staff who were prepared to work in the electricity wing can
be given the SS Committee pay scales and not the others, who preferred to remain in .. the general wing itself. ·However, in so far as the
decision of the NDMC to introduce a system of deputation on rotational basis to the electricity wing is concerned, the High Court was of
the view that the proposal may work hardship to the ministerial staff
both ways i.e. in seniority being overlooked at the time of the deputation posting and secondly in the emoluments getting reduced after the
period of deputaton was over and as such a more fair and equitable
formula in accordance with service jurisprudence should be evolved.
In accordance with that view, the High Court evolved the following
formula to be adopted by the NDMC:-
y
"We, therefore, feel that in accordance with the equality
principle the proper approach would be that SSC scale will
be given amongst the ministerial staff only to those persons
(a) who would opt to work in the electricity department.
A
B
c
D
E
(b) it would be given strictly in accordance with the seniF
ority, i.e. to say the option will first be asked from the
senior persons and if they are agreeable to work in the
electricity wing they will be posted there and be eligible to
get the higher SSC scale. If and when any vacancy arises
either because of promotion or retirement or any other
eventuality the post will be filled up on the same principle G
of seniority cum option. Thus a unified principle and rule
will apply to all the ministerial staff, namely that the senior
most person working in the electricity cell will be eligible to
get the SSC scale. No question of discrimination will thus
arise, because the electricity cell will be automatically
manned by the senior most of the ministerial staff. Thus no H
822
A
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1987] 3 S.C.R.
ministerial staff is discriminated against because each
would be eligible in his own turn of seniority. This would
really amount to as if a separate department of the electricity wing has been constituted."
8 The High Court, while therefore upholding the order of the NDMC _j
modified the placement of the ex-cadre posts in the over-all set up and
·
also suggested the manner in which the posts should be filled up viz. on
the basis of seniority cum option. Thereby, the High Court has done
.-f'
away with the rotational system every three years and further directed
that since the higher scale of pay was linked up with the service
rendered in the electricity wing, the SSC scales should be paid to all
C those who had worked in the electricity wing during the period subsequent to June 75 till 30.5.82, that such payment will not amount to
y
discriminatory payment and that dter 30.5.82 the postings should be
made in accordance with the seniority cum option formula.
D
In so far as the engineers (Civil) and draftsman (Civil) are concerned, the High Court declined to sustain their grievance. The High
)'>-
Court noticed that the Junior Engineers (Civil) have no common
seniority with the electrical engineers in the electricity wing, that the
posts are not interchangeable and that they cannot draw comparison
from the employment pattern of engineers in DESU because the
E DESU was a separate and independent entity unlike the electricity
wing of the NDMC, that the nature of duties performed by the electriF
cal engineers and civil engineers was different and for all these reasons
--.... -
the High Court held that the.civil engineers cannot seek parity with the
electrical engineers in the elctricity wing in the matter of pay scales.
The last question to be dealt with by the High Court pertained to
the refusal to grant ex-gratia payment to the staff of the general wing.
The High Court saw justification in the payment of ex-gratia payments
to the employees in the electricity wing and the water supply and
sewage disposal wing alone because of the nature oHheir duties and
because of the precedent afforded by the MCD in granting such payG ment to the staff of the DESU and the Water Supply and Sewage
Disposal Department. However, the High Court took into consideration the long delay that had occurred and the hardship that would
result to the employees of the general wing by complying with the
order of refund and therefore directed the NDMC to treat the payment of Rs.300 "as one time special ad hoc payment not serving as a
H precedent" and refrain from recovering the said amount.
-
R.D. GUPTA v. LT. GOVERNOR (NATARAJAN ,J.]
823
It is in this situation the appeals and petitions have come to be
A
filed. CA No. 2969 of 1973 has been filed by the members of minisitcrial staff in the general wing to contend that instead of restricting the
payment of SS Committee pay scales to the 496 ex-cadre posts in the
electricity wing and directing the NDMC to fill up those posts on the
basis of seniority cum option, the High Court should have directed the
t
NDMC to give the SS Committee pay scales to all the members of the
B
ministeriarstaff. Likewise the appellants would contend that the High
Court should have directed the NDMC to pay them also ex-gratia
payment and should not have directed the NDMC to treat the ad hoc
payment "as one time special ad hoc payment" and refrain from recovering the said amount. The NDMC in turn has filed two appeals CA
No. 2971 of 19S3 and CA No. 2970 of 1983. The former appeal has C
been filed against that part of the judgment relating to CW 1231 of
1979 wherein the High Court had directed payment at SS Committee's
scales for the period June 1975 to May 1982 and also directed ministey
rial posts in the electricity wing to be filled up on seniority cum option
basis instead of a three years deputation basis on rotational system.
Likewise the direction of the High Court to give up the proceedings for D
recovery of the ad hoc payment towards ex-gratia payment is also
impugned in the appeal. Civil Appeal No.