# SUPREME COURT EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSOCIATION ETC. ETC v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ETC. ETC

- **Citation:** [1989] 3 S.C.R. 488
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1989-07-24
- **Case number:** Writ Petition No. 80 I of 1986
- **Bench:** M.M. Dutt, T.K. Thommen
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/supreme-court-employees-welfare-association-etc-etc-v-union-of-india-anr-etc-etc-10499
- **Pages:** 61

## Headnote

Constitution of India-Articles I4, 16, 32, I36, 141 and 146Special Leave Petition dismissed simpliciter-No declaration of law-
~. -
When does a decision of Court operate as res judicata-Conditions of.
C Service of Officers· and servants of Supreme Court-Primarily the
responsibility of Parliaments-But if Parliament does not lay down the
""(
conditions of service-Chief Justice or any other person authorised by
him can do so--Service Rules are liable to be struck down, it unjust,
oppressive, outrageous or directed to an unauthorised end.
D
Article 226-Writ-Dismissal of-In limine or on ground of
/aches or availability of alternative remedy-Dismissal-Would not
operate as res-judicata.
Supreme Court Officers' and Servants (Conditions of Service and
l_
Conduct) Rules-1961-Rules amended upto December 1985-Rules
E do not reflect the enhanced pay Scales adopted on the basis of interim
Orders of the Supreme Court or pay scales recommended by Pay Commission Supreme Court employees-Revision of pay scales-Reference
to Pay Commission whether valid or incompetent.
These writ Petitions have been filed by the employees of the J
F
Supreme Court through their Welfare Associations praying, in substance, for enha1.1cement of their present pay scales. Writ Petition No.
80 I of 1986 has been filed by the Welfare Association representing class II
and class III employees whereas Writ Petition No. 1201/86 has been
filed by Welfare Association representing class IV employees and the
third Writ Petition has heen filed hy retired employees.
G
In order to deal with and make recommendations in regard to
various representations highlighting grievances regarding service conditions made by the staff, of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of
India constituted a committee consisting of five Judges of the Supreme
Court. The committee was also asked to make recommendations
H whether the pay scales of different categories of the staff warranted
488
~.
-,~
_....,
i
f
.,.,.
).
-~
SUPREME COURT EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSN. v. U.0.1.
469
upward revision. The Committee after consideration of the issues raised,
made several recommendations but as regards the pay scale revision, it
recommended that the matter be referred to the Third Pay Commission, then sitting. However in the meanwhile, the High Court of Delhi,
allowed various Writ Petitions filed before it by the members of the staff
of Delhi High Court belonging to different categories. The result of the
Orders passed by the Delhi High Court was, that the staff of that Higil
Court started drawing mm:e pay in some categories of class IV, class II
& III employees, than the employees of the Supreme Court similarly
placed.
Taking cue from the orders of the D~lhi High Court, the petitioners have filed these petitions invoking in aid the principle of "Equal
pay for equal work". It is urged by the petitioners that the duties
performed by the staff of the Supreme Court are similar rather more
responsible, arduous and onerous to those performed by the members
of the staff of Delhi High Court, hence they are entitled to pay like
similar if not enhanced pay scales. It is urged that Special Leave Petition filed by the Government before this Court against the orders of the
Delhi High Court having been dismissed by this Court, the order of
Delhi High Court has became final.
In Writ Petition No. 801 of 1986, by an interim order dated
25. 7.86 this Court directed that the officers and members of the staff of
the registry should get the same pay and allowances which were then
being enjoyed by the officers and the members of the staff of the Delhi
High Court belonging to the same category with effect from the date
from which such scales of pay has been allowed to the officers and the
members of the staff of the Delhi High Court. The Court also by the
same order directed Respondent Nos. l and 2 to take necessary steps to
refer the question of revision of pay scales to the Fourth Pay Commission as suggested by the five Judges Committee.
Som

## Text

_Characters 0–39,990 of 156,597. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39990 for what follows._

\
A
B
SUPREME COURT EMPLOYEES WELFARE
ASSOCIATION ETC. ETC.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ETC. ETC.
JULY 24, 1989
[M.M. DUTT AND T.K. THOMMEN, JJ.]
Constitution of India-Articles I4, 16, 32, I36, 141 and 146Special Leave Petition dismissed simpliciter-No declaration of law-
~. -
When does a decision of Court operate as res judicata-Conditions of.
C Service of Officers· and servants of Supreme Court-Primarily the
responsibility of Parliaments-But if Parliament does not lay down the
""(
conditions of service-Chief Justice or any other person authorised by
him can do so--Service Rules are liable to be struck down, it unjust,
oppressive, outrageous or directed to an unauthorised end.
D
Article 226-Writ-Dismissal of-In limine or on ground of
/aches or availability of alternative remedy-Dismissal-Would not
operate as res-judicata.
Supreme Court Officers' and Servants (Conditions of Service and
l_
Conduct) Rules-1961-Rules amended upto December 1985-Rules
E do not reflect the enhanced pay Scales adopted on the basis of interim
Orders of the Supreme Court or pay scales recommended by Pay Commission Supreme Court employees-Revision of pay scales-Reference
to Pay Commission whether valid or incompetent.
These writ Petitions have been filed by the employees of the J
F
Supreme Court through their Welfare Associations praying, in substance, for enha1.1cement of their present pay scales. Writ Petition No.
80 I of 1986 has been filed by the Welfare Association representing class II
and class III employees whereas Writ Petition No. 1201/86 has been
filed by Welfare Association representing class IV employees and the
third Writ Petition has heen filed hy retired employees.
G
In order to deal with and make recommendations in regard to
various representations highlighting grievances regarding service conditions made by the staff, of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice of
India constituted a committee consisting of five Judges of the Supreme
Court. The committee was also asked to make recommendations
H whether the pay scales of different categories of the staff warranted
488
~.
-,~
_....,
i
f
.,.,.
).
-~
SUPREME COURT EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSN. v. U.0.1.
469
upward revision. The Committee after consideration of the issues raised,
made several recommendations but as regards the pay scale revision, it
recommended that the matter be referred to the Third Pay Commission, then sitting. However in the meanwhile, the High Court of Delhi,
allowed various Writ Petitions filed before it by the members of the staff
of Delhi High Court belonging to different categories. The result of the
Orders passed by the Delhi High Court was, that the staff of that Higil
Court started drawing mm:e pay in some categories of class IV, class II
& III employees, than the employees of the Supreme Court similarly
placed.
Taking cue from the orders of the D~lhi High Court, the petitioners have filed these petitions invoking in aid the principle of "Equal
pay for equal work". It is urged by the petitioners that the duties
performed by the staff of the Supreme Court are similar rather more
responsible, arduous and onerous to those performed by the members
of the staff of Delhi High Court, hence they are entitled to pay like
similar if not enhanced pay scales. It is urged that Special Leave Petition filed by the Government before this Court against the orders of the
Delhi High Court having been dismissed by this Court, the order of
Delhi High Court has became final.
In Writ Petition No. 801 of 1986, by an interim order dated
25. 7.86 this Court directed that the officers and members of the staff of
the registry should get the same pay and allowances which were then
being enjoyed by the officers and the members of the staff of the Delhi
High Court belonging to the same category with effect from the date
from which such scales of pay has been allowed to the officers and the
members of the staff of the Delhi High Court. The Court also by the
same order directed Respondent Nos. l and 2 to take necessary steps to
refer the question of revision of pay scales to the Fourth Pay Commission as suggested by the five Judges Committee.
Some other interim orders were also passed giving higher pay to
certain cetegories of employees, as was done by Delhi High Court.
A
B
c
D
E
F
The Fourth Pay Commission to which the question of revision of
G
pay scales of the staff of Supreme Court was referred did not grant any
enhancement. It did not even grant the benefit of higher pay given
under the interim orders of this Court. After the report of Fourth Pay
Commission, the petitions have been listed for final hearing.
Disposing of the Writ Petitions, this Court
H
A
490
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1989] 3 S.C.R.
HELD: Per M.M. Dutt, J.
When no reason is given, but a Special Leave Petition is dismissed
simpliciter, it cannot be said that there has been a declaration of law by
this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution. [SOSB]
B
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. State of Bihar, [1986[ 4 SCC 146;
Union of India v. All India Services Pensioner Association, AIR 1988
SCSOJ.
).-
A decision on an abstract question of law unrelated to facts which
give rise to a right cannot operate as res-judicata. Nor, also can a
C decision on the question of jurisdiction be res-judicata in a subsequent
suit or proceeding but, if the question of law is related to the fact in
issue, an erroneous decision on such a question of law may operate as
res-judicata between the parties in a subsequent. suit or proceeding, if
the cause of action is the same. [506G-H; 507A-B]
D
Mathura, Prasad Rajoo Jaiswal v. Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy,
[!970] 3 SCR 830 and Thakore Sobhag Singh v. Thakur Jai Singh,
[1968[ 2 SCR 848.
The doctrine of res-judicata is a universal doctrine laying down
the finality of litigation between the parties. When a particular decision
E
has become final and binding between the parties, it cannot be set at
naught on the ground that such a decision is violative of Article 14
of the Constitution. So far as the parties are concerned, they will always
be bound by the said decision. In other words, either of the parties will
not be permitted to reopen the issue decided by such decision on the
ground that such decision violates the equality clause under the
F
Constitution. [SOSH; 509A-BJ
From A;ticle 146(2) it is apparent that it is primarily the responsibility of Parliament to lay down the conditions of service of the officers
and servants of the Supreme Court, but so long as Parliament does not
lay down such conditions of service, the Chief Justice of India or some
G
other Judge or officer of the Court authorised by the Chief Justice of
India is empowered to make rules for the purpose. [Sl6B-Cj
The conditions of service that may be prescribed by the rules
framed by the Chief Justice of India under Article 146(2) will also
necessarily include salary. allowances, leave and pensions of the officers
H and servants of the Supreme Court. [Si6D]
\ -
SUPREME COURT EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSN. v. U.0.1.
491
The proviso to Article 146(2) puts a restriction on the power of the
A
Chief Justice of India by providing that the rules made under.Article
146(2) shall, so far as they.relate to salaries, allowances, leave or pensions, require the approval of the President of India. [516EJ
The rules framed by the Chief Justice of India though it is a piece
~-
of subordinate legislation, it is not a full-fledged legislative act requiring
B
assent of the President of India. [517C]
Going strictly by Article 146(2) of the Constitution, the question
of aily reference to the Pay Commission does not arise. The Chief
~
Justice of India has to frame rules with the aid and assistance of his
own officers and other Judges. The Chief Justice of India may appoint
a Committee of Judges or a Committee of experts for the purpose c
y
of assisting him in framing the rules relating to the conditions of
service of the employees of the Supreme Court. Although there is no
such provision in Article 146(2), but that is implied and it may be
said that the reference to the Fourth Pay Commission was made so
that the report or the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission
D
relating to th_e revision of the pay-scales of the Supreme Court
employees will be of some assistance to the Chief Justice of India to
frame rules. [5230-F]
What should go to the President of India for his approval under
the proviso to Article 146(2) is not the report or the recommendation of
E
the Fourth Pay Commission, but the rules framed by the Chief Justice
of India. In considering the rules framed by the Chief Justice of India
relating to salaries, allowances, leave and pension, it will not be the
concern of the President of India how and in what manner the Chief
Justice of India has laid down the rules. [523F-G]
1
F
All this can be done by the Chief Justice of India or by some other
Judge or officer of this Court authorised by the Chief Justice of India.
The Chief Justice of India may appoint a Committee of Judges to
submit a report relating to all relevant matters and, thereafter, the Chief
Justice of India may frame rules after taking into consideration the
report of the Committee. It will be absolutely in the discretion of the
G
Chief Justice of India or his nominee as to how and in what manner the
i
rules will be framed. [5290-E]
Per Thommen, J.
The regulation of the conditions of service of the Supreme Court
H
!
492
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1989] 3 S.C.R.
A employees is the constitutional responsibility and power of the Chief
Justice of India, subject. of course, to the two conditions postulated in
clause (2) of Article 146. [538E]
Rules were made in this regard by the Chief Justice of India with
the approval of the President of India and they are contained in Part II
B of the Supreme Court Officers and Servants' (Conditions of Service
and Conduct) Rules, 1961 as amended upto 16th December, 1985.
No amendment of these Rules has been made subsequent to 1985 and
consequently the Rules do not reflect the enhanced pay scales adopted
on the basis of the interim Orders of this Court or the pay scales recomc
" mended by the Pay Commission. [538C-D]
•
•
Rules are liable to be declared invalid if they are manifestly unjust
or oppressive or outrageous or directed to an unauthorised end/or violative of the general principles of the law of the land or so vague that it
cannot be predicated with certainty as to what is prohibited by them or
so unreasonable that they cannot be attributed to the power delegated
D or otherwise disclose bad faith. [542F]
Union of India & Anr. v. Cynamide India Ltd. & Anr., [!987) 2
SCC 720, 734; S.I. Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR (1975) SC
460; P.C.S. Mills v. Union of India, AIR (1973) SC 537; Shree
Meenakshi Mills v. Union of India, AIR (1974) SC 366; E.P. Royappa
E
v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR (1974) SC 555; Maneka Gandhi v. Union
of India, AIR (1978) SC 597; Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib, AIR (1981)
SC 485; D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR (1983) SC 126; Associated
Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation, [!947) 2
All. E.R. 680; Westminster Corporation v. London and North Western
Railway, [ 1905] AC 426, 430; Barium Chemicals Ltd. v. Company Law
F
Board, AIR (1967) SC 295, referred to.
Until the rules are made by the Chief Justice (or by a Judge or
Officer of the Court authorised by him), the question of approval or
disapproval by the President does not arise. In making the rules, the
Chief Justice would no doubt take into account the recommendations of
G
the Pay Commission or of any other body of experts he may have
consulted. He will also take into account the objections rai<ied by
the Government to the suggestions made by the Registrar General who,
of course, acted as an agent of the Chief Justice. But the refusal of
the GovenmMmt to accede to the proposals of the Registrar General
is not a refusal of the President under Article 146(2), for such refusal
H or approval can arise only upon submission to him t9 duty framed
rules. [546G-H; 547A-B]
)
•
SUPREMECOURTEMPLOYEESWELFAREASSN. v. U.0.1.
493
The approval of the President is not a matter of mere formality. It
would, of course, be wrong to say that in no case can the President.
which means the Government, refuse to accord approval. However,
once the rules are duly framed by so high a constitutional dignitary as
the Chief Justice of India, it will only be in the truly exceptional cases
that the President would withhold assent. [547D-E]
Kirit Kumar Chaman Lal Kundaliya v. State of Gujarat, [1981] 2
SCR 718; State of Orissa v. Durga Charan Das, [1966,] 2 SCR 907:
G. V. Ramanaiah v. The Superintendent of Central Jail, Rajahmundry,
[1974] l SCR 852; Chandra Bansi Singh v. State of Bihar, [1985] I SCR
579; Waman Rao v. Union of India, [1981] 2 SCR I; Minor !'.
Rajendran v. State of Madras, [1968] 2 SCR 786; State of M.P. v. Ram
Raghubir Prasad Agarwal, [1979] 3 SCR 41; Roshanlal Kuthiala v.
R.B. Mohan Singh Oberai, [1975] 2 SCR 491; Tamil Nadu Education
Department Ministerial & General Subordinate Service Association v.
State of Tamil Nadu, [1980] l SCR 1026; Kishori Mohan/al Bakshi v.
Union of India, AIR 1962 SC IJ39; State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh,
[1963] Supp. 2 SCR 169; Randhir Singh v. Union of India, [1982] 1
SCC 618; Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P., [1986] I SCC 687; State
of Andhra Pradesh v. G. Sreenivasa Rao, [1989] 1 .IT 615; V.
Markendeya v. State of Andhra Pradesh, [1989] 2 JT 108; State of lj.P.
v. J.P. Chaurasia, AIR 1989 SC 19; Umesh Chandra Gupta v. Oil &
Natural Gas Commission, AIR 1989 SC 29; -Tarsem Lal Gautam v.
State Bank of Patiala, AIR 1989 SC 30; Narinder Chand Hem Raj v. Lt.
Governor, Administrator, Union Territory, Himachal Pradesh, [1972]
1 SCR 940; State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Gopalakrishnan Murthi, AIR
1976 SC 123; A.K. Roy v. Union of India,. [1982] 2 SCR 272:
Gurumoorthy v. Accountant General Assam & Nagaland,
[1971]
Suppl. SCR 420; K. Nagaraj & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Anr., [1985] 1
SCC 523, 548; R.K. Garg v. Union of India, [1981] 4 SCC 675, 687;
Aeltemesh Rein, Advocate Supreme Court of India v. Union of India &
Ors., [1988] 4 SCC 54; State of U. P. & Ors. v. Renusagar Power Co. &
Ors., [1988] 4 SCC 59, 104; Kruse v. Johnson, [1989] 2 Q.B. 91; Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation,
[1948] I K.B. 223; Mixnam Properties Ltd. v. Chertsey U.D.C., [1965]
AC 735; Commissioners of Customs & Excise v. Cure & Deeley Ltd.,
[1962] I Q.B. 340; Mceldowney v. Forde, [1971] AC 632; Carltona
Ltd., v. Commisoioners of Works & Ors., [1943] 2 All E.R. 560, 564;
Point of Ayr. Collieries Ltd. v. Lloyd GeorJ<e, [1943] 2 All E.R. 546;
Scott v. Glasgow Corporation, [1899] AC 47, 492; Robert Baird L.D. &
Ors. v. City of Glasgow, [1936] AC 32, 42; Manhattan General Equipment Co. v. Commissioner, [1935] 297 US 129, 134; Yates (Arthur) &
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
.
494
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1989] 3 S.C.R.
A Co. Pty Ltd., v. Vegetable Seed• Committee, [1945] 46-72 CLR 37;
/3_/tiley v. Conole, [1931] 34 W.A.L.R. 18; Boyd Builders Ltd. v. City of
-,.--
Otta.wa, [1964] 45 D.L.R. (2nd) 211; Re Burns & Township of
Ht>ldfmand, [1966] 52 DLR (2d) 101 and Lynch v. Tilden Produce Co.,
"JbS U.S. 315, 320-322, referred to.
B
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 801of1986 &
c
Etc. Etc.
'
- (Under Article 32 of the Constitution oflndia)
- -K. Parasaran, Attorney General, B. Dutta, Additional Solicitor
General, D.D. Thakur, G.L. Sanghi (N.P.) M.S. Gujral, Anil Dev
Singh, E.C. Agrawala, V.K. Pandian, Atul Sharma, A.K. Sanghi,
N.D; Garg, Pankaj Kalra, H.K. Puri, S.K. Bisaria, R.P. Gupta, Ms.
A. Subhashini, R. Venkataramani, S.K. Sinha, A.D. Malhotra, P.P.
Rao and Sushi! Kumar Jain for the appearing parties.
',, ..
D
· · The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
I
DUTI, J. These Writ Petitions and Civil Miscellaneous
Petitions have _been filed by the employees of the Supreme Court
praying for their pay hike. Two events, which will be stated presently,
seeni to have inspired the employees of the Supreme Court to
E approach the Court by filing Writ Petitions. The first of the two events
)_ !
is the report_ of a Committee of Five Judges of this Court consistmg of
Mr. Justice P.N. Bhagwati (as he then was) as the Chairman, Mr.
Justice V.D. Tulzapurkar, Mr._ Justice D._A. Desai, Mr. Justice R.S.
Pathak (as he then was) and Mr. Justice S. Murtaza Fazal Ali. The
second event, which is the most important one, is the judgments of the
· F
Delhi High Court passed in writ proceedings instituted by .its
~
l
v
emp oyees.
__
,
The Five-Judge Committee in its report stated, inter alia, that no j
attempt had been made to provide a separate and distinct identity to
the ministerial staff belonging to the Registry of the Supreme Court.
I
G
According to the Committee, the borrowed designations without any
attempt at giving a distinct and independent identity to the ministerial
staff in the Registry of the Supreme Court led to invidious comparison.
The committee observed that the salary scale applicable to various
-'f.
categories to staff in the Registry would show that at least since the
Second Pay Commission appointed by the Central Government for
H Central Government servants, the pay-scales devised by the Pay
..
···I!
• 1i
..
SUPREME COURT EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSN. v. U.0.1. [DUTT,J.]
495
-"".
Commission were practically .bodily adopted by the Chief Justice of
A
India for comparable categories in the Supreme Court. This was
repeated after the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission
were published and accepted by the Central Govern·ment. Further, it is
observed that apparently with a view to avoiding the arduous task of
~
devising a fair pay-structure of various categories of staff in the
Registry, this easy course, both facile and superficial, was adopted
B
which led to the inevitable result of linking the pay-structure for the
various categories of staff in the Registry with the pay-structure in the
Central Services for comparable posts and the comparison was not
- j
functional but according to the designations. No attempt was made to
,
really ascertain the nature of work of an employee in each category of
staff and determine the pay-structure and then after framing proper c
y
rul,es invite the President of India to approve the rules under Article
146 of the Constitution. The Committee pointed out that the slightest
attempt had not been made to compare the workload, skill, educational qualifications, responsibilities and duties of various categories
of posts in the Registry and that since the days of Rajadhyakhsa
Commission the work had become so complex and the work of even a
D
clerk in the Supre'me Court had such a distinct identity that it would be
necessary not only to fix the minimum remuneration keeping in view
the principles for determination of minimum remuneration but also to
J
add to it the functional evaluation of the post. This, according to the
Committee, required a very comprehensive investigation and the
Committee was ill-equippd to do it. The Committee, inter alia, recom·
E
mended that the Chief Justice of India might appoint a Committee of
•
experts to devise a fair pay-structure for the staff of the Supreme Court
keeping in view the principles of pay determination and on the recommendations of the Committee, the Chief Justice of India might frame
)
rules under Article 146 of. the Constitution and submit them for the
approval of the President of India. The Committee also took notice of
F
the fact that the Fourth Central Pay Commission appointed by the
Central Government and presided over by a former Judge of the
Supreme Court, Mr. Justice P.N. Singhal, was then examining the
question of pay-scales and other matters referred to it in respect of the
staff of the Central Government. According to the Committee, it was
an ideal situation that a former Judge of this Court was heading the
G
1
Panel and he was ideally situated for examining the question of independent pay-structure for the staff in the Registry of the Supreme
Court. The Committee recommended that the Chief Justice of India
with the concurrence of the Central Government might refer the case
of the Supreme Court staff to the Fourth Pay Panel presided over by
Mr. Justice P.N. Singhal.
H
"
496
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1989] 3 S.C.R.
A
Several Writ Petitions were filed before the Delhi High Court by
.,._
various categories of its employees, namely, the Private Secretaries
and Readers to the Judges, Superintendents, Senior Stenographers,
Assistants, Junior .Readers, Junior Stenographers, Joint Registrars,
Assistant Registrars, Deputy Registrars and certain categories of Class
IV employees. In all these Writ Petitions, the Delhi High Court
B
revised their respective pay-scales. With regard to certain categories of
Class III and Class IV employees, the Delhi High Court revised their
pay-scales also and granted them Punjab pay-scales and Central Dearness Allowance, the details of which are given below:
~ .
c SI.
Date of
Revised scale
No. Judgment
No. ofW.P.
Post
of pay
'f
Rs.
I.
3.2.86&
W.P.No.1376/84
Restorer
400-600
23.5.86
D 2.
11.11.86
W.P. No. 1865/86
LO.Cs.
400-600
3.
4.12.86
W.P. No. 2236/86
Class IV
Sweepers
Ushers etc.
300-430
4.
8.1.87
W.P. No. 2318/86
Gestetner
E
Operator
400-600
5.
6.2.87
W .P. 2402/87
Staff Car
•
Drivers
400-600
6.
20.8.87
W.P. No. 1656/87
Despatch
Vah Drivers
400-600
F
Several Special Leave Petitions were filed on behalf of the
Government to this Court, but all these Special Leave Petitions were
summarily rejected by this Court.
G
The Supreme Court employees have approached this Court by
filing the instant Writ Petitions and the Civil Miscellaneous Petitions
for upward revision of their pay-scales as were allowed in the case of
~
the employees working in the Delhi High Court. According to the
petitioners, the duties and the job assignments in respect of the staff of
the Supreme Court being more onerous and arduous compared to the
H work done by the staff of the Delhi High Court, the petitioners
SUPREMECOURTEMPLOYEESWELFAREASSN. "· U.O.l. [DUTT,J.l
497
,, ..
~
claimed that they are entitled to equal pay for equal work and, thereA
fore, they are approaching this Court for redressal of their grievances
by means of the present Writ Petitions.
The Writ Petition No. 801 of 1986 has been filed by the Supreme
Court Employees Welfare Association seeking higher pay-scales/
parity in the pay-scales with Delhi High Court employees in the corB
-1
responding categories. On July 25, 1986, this Court passed an interim
order which provides as follows:-
J
"By way of an interim arrangement, pending final disposal
-
. of the Writ Petition, we direct that the Officers and staff of
the Supreme Court Registry may be paid same pay scales
and allowances which are at present being en joyed by the c
y
Officers and the members of the staff of the High Court of
Delhi belonging to the same category with effect from the
date from which such scales of pay have been allowed to
the Officers and the members of the staff of the High Court
of Delhi, if and in so far as they are higher or better than
D
what the Officers and the members of the Registry of the
Supreme Court are getting, as proposed by Respondent
No. 2. The Statement showing the posts in the Registry of
the Supreme Court an<l the corresponding posts in the
J.
Delhi High Court, which is annexed to the proposal made
by Respondent No. 2 will be annexed to this order also.
E
Learned Addi. Solicitor General submits that the Petition
for interim directions may be adjourned for a period of
•
four weeks since the Government is actively considering
the matter and to his information the Government is
inclined to agree with the proposals made by the second
respondent. We do not think, it Is necessary to postpone
F
the interim directions.
The question of interim directions with regard to the
categories of the Officers and the members of the staff not
covered by the Delhi High Court scales of pay will be
considered separately after two weeks. Mr. S.N. Kacker,
G
Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. P.P. Rao for respondent
i
No. 2, Supreme Court of India, and the learned Addi.
Solicitor General are requested to assist us to arrive at a
suitable formula in regard to them.
The Writ Petition is adjourned for four weeks. In the
H
A
B
c
498
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1989] 3 S.C.R.
meanwhile, respondent Nos. 1 & 2 may take steps to refer
the question of revision of pay scales to the Fourth Pay
Commission as suggested by the Committee consisting of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.D. Tulzapurkar, Hon'ble Mr.
Justice D.A. Desai, Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.S. Pathak and
Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Murtaza Fazal Ali."
It appears from the interim order extracted above that this Court
directed that the officers and the members of the staff of the Registry
might get the same pay and allowances which were then being enjoyed
by the officers and the members of the staff of the Delhi High Court
belonging to the same category with effect from the date from which
such scales of pay had been allowed to the officers and the members of
the staff of the Delhi High Court. This Court also by the same interim
order directed the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to take steps to refer the
question of revision of pay-scales to the Fourth Pay Commission as
suggested by the Five-Judge Committee.
D
Another interim order dated August 14, 1986 was passed by this
E
F
Court in Writ Petition No. 80 I of 1986. The said interim order reads as
follows:
"Those employees who are not covered by our earlier
order will be paid by way of an interim arrangement, a sum
equal to 10% of their basic pay, subject to a minimum of
Rs.50. The order will take effect from I. I. 1986.
The matter was left to us by counse I for all the parties
and we have made this interim arrangement.
This interim order will be subject to the result of final
order in the writ petition.
The writ petition is adjourned and will be listed for
further hearing in usual course."
G
The said interim order dated August 14, 1986 was, however,
modified by a subsequent interim order dated November 14, 1986. The
modification was to the effect that the 10 per cent interim relief, sub-
\.. _
ject to a minimum of Rs.50 per month, which was granted with effect
r
from January I, 1986, was directed to be granted with effect from
January I, 1978, in respect of Class IV staff. Some other interim orders
H were also passed by this Court. This Court passed interim orders
•
•
y
SUPREMECOURTEMPLOYEESWELFAREASSN. v. U.0.1. [DUTT,J.]
499
giving higher pay-scales to certain categories of employees holding
Group B, C and D posts. The Court also ordered that certain Groui; C
posts, that is to ~ay, Junior Clerks, Senior Library Attendants, etc.
would be given the same pay-scales of Rs.400-600 from 1.1.1978 as
given to Lower Division Clerks in the Delhi High Court. The Court
also ordered that Class IV employees would be given the same payscale of Rs.300-430 from 1.1.1978 as given to Class IV employees of
the Delhi High Court. The scales of pay of Rs.400-600 and Rs.300-430
were Punjab pay-scales. All these employees, who were given the
Punjab pay-scales, were also granted the Central D.A., which brought
them at par with the Delhi High Court employees .
•
Sub-clause ( 1) of clause 2 of the terms of reference of the Fourth
Central Pay Commission provides as under:
"2(1). To examine the present structure of emoluments
and conditions of service, taking into account the total
packet of benefits,
including
death-cum-retirement
benefits, available to the following categories of Government employees and to suggest changes which may be
desirable and feasible:
(i) Central Government employees-industrial and nonindustrial.
(ii) Personnel belonging to the All India Services.
(iii) Employees of the Union Territories."
Pursuant to the interim order of the Supreme Court d.ated July
A
B
c
D
E
25, 1986, the Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure,
F
published a Resolution dated December 24, 1986 in the Gazette of
India, Extraordinary, Part I-Section I. By the said Resolution, the
terms of reference were amended by the addition of a new sub-clause
(iv) below paragraph 2(l)(iii) which is as follows:
"(iv) Officers and employees of the Supreme Court of
G
India.".
i
It thus appears that although initially the cases of the employees
of the Supreme Court were not referred to the Fourth Pay Commission, the Government, however, in obedience to the order of this
Court referred their cases by the amendment of the terms of reference.
H
,, ,,
A
B
c
D
500
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1989] 3 S.C.R.
After the reference of the cases of the Supreme Court employees
to the Fourth Pay Commission, the Registry of this Court sent to the
Fourth Pay Commission a copy of the report of the Five-Judge
Committee and also copies of all the interim orders passed by this
Court. A team of officers of the Commission visited various sections of
the Registry of the Supreme Court and spent a number of days for a
proper understanding of the working of the various categories of the
employees. The Fourth Pay Commission also visited the Registry to
familiarise itself with the nature of their work. The Commission
reg uested the Registrar to bring to the notice of the Associations as
also individual employees of the Supreme Court to submit their
Memoranda to the Commission. The Commissmn had also some discussions with Hon'ble Mr. Justice Y.V. Chandrachud and Hon'ble Mr.
Justice P.N. Bhagwati, two former Chief Justices of India, and also
with Hon'ble Mr. Justice D.A. Desai, Chairman Law Commission, on
various aspects of the pay-structure etc. of the employees of the
Supreme Court. The Commission had also met Hon'ble Mr. Justice
'R.S. Pathak (as he then was) in his chamber on May 18, 1987.
The Fourth Pay Commission submitted its recommendations
with 1egard to the Supreme Court employees. The recommendations
are contained in Part III of its report. It is not necessary to state in
detail as to the revision of pay-sea.Jes made by the Fourth Pay Commission with regard to the employees of the Supreme Court. In a
l
E
nut-shell, it may be stated that the Fourth Pay Commission reduced
the existing 153 pay-scales to 36 pay-scales. The Commission, however, did not revise the pay-scales of the employees of the Supreme
Court on the basis of the pay-scales granted to them by the interim
orders passed by this Court in the Writ Petitions following the payscales as revised by the Delhi High Court by its judgments passed in
F
the Writ Petitions filed by its employees.
A copy of the Fourth Pay Commission ·s report relating to the
pay-structure of the officers and employees of the Supreme Court was
first sent to the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. The
Ministry of Finance forwarded the said copy to the Chief Justice of
G India. After the receipt of the said copy of the report of the Fourth l.'ay
Commission with regard to the Supreme Court employees, the
Registrar General of this Court, by his letter dated July 22, 1987
addressed to the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Expenditure, New Delhi, stated inter alia that if the
pay-scales as proposed by the Fourth Pay Commission were accepted,
H and implemented, it would result in a number of anomalies and the
SUPREME COURT EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSN. v. U.0.1. [DUTT, J.]
501
Supreme Court would encounter some difficulties in implementing the
same. The Registrar General was of the opinion that the Pay Commission should not have made any such recommendation which had the
effect of reducing the pay-scales than what had been given by this
Court by its various interim orders dated 25. 7. 1986, 15. 1.1987,
19.2.1987, etc. to different categories of employees. Further, it was
stated by him that the Pay Commission should not also have made
recommendation which had the effect of taking away the benefit
accrued to other categories of employees by the Court's order dated
August 14, 1986. It is not necessary for us to refer to the anomalies as
pointed out by the Registrar General in his said letter. Suffice it to say
that the Registrar General dealt with the case of each category of
employees affected by the report of the Fourth Pay Commission and
stressed that while accepting the pay-scales proposed by the Fourth
Pay Commission for the officers and employees of the Supreme Court,
the Ministry must give full consideration to the anomalies and
difficulties pointed out and the suggestions made in his letter and
representations enclosed therewith and intimate its decision to the
Registry at an early date.
The Joint Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of
Finance, by her letter dated November 23, 1987 addressed to the
Registrar General, communicated to him the sanction of the President
of India to th,e revised pay-scales in respect of posts as shown in
column 4 of the annexure to the said letter. In other words, the scales
of pay as.revised and/or recommended by the Fourth Pay Commission
in respect of the posts mentioned in the annexure to the said letter,
were accepted by the Government. Further, it was stated that such
scales of pay would have effect from January 1, 1986. In the last
paragraph of the said letter, it has been stated that the revision of
pay-scales for the remaining posts in the Supreme Court Registry,
mentioned in Part III of the Report of the Fourth Central Pay Commission, is separately under consideration of the Government. The
pay-scales of Junior Clerks and Class IV employees of the Supreme
Court; which have not been mentioned in the annexure, are therefore
under consideration of the Government. Nothing has been produced
before us to show that the Government has separately considered the
revision of pay-scales of the Junior Clerks and Class TV employees of
the Supreme Court. All the parties including the learned Attorney
General, however, proceeded on the assumption that the Government
has not sanctioned the pay-scales of the Junior Clerks and the Class IV
employees as granted to them by this Court by the interim orders
and/or the Government has accepted the pay-scales as recommended
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
502
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1989) 3 S.C.R.
A by the Fourth Pay Commission. Indeed, the learned Attorney General
vehemently opposed the granting of Punjab pay-scales and also the
Central Government D.A. to the Junior Clerks and the Class IV
employees. In view of the submissions made on behalf of the Government, it is clear that although it is stated in the said letter dated
B
c
November 23, 1987 that the revision of pay-scales of the Junior Clerks
and the Class IV employees of the Supreme Court is under consideration of the Government and although no communication has been
made to this Court as to the result of such consideration, yet the
Government has made up its mind not to allow the pay-scales given to
them by the interim order of this Court. Be that as it may, we may now
proceed to consider the contentions ·of the respective parties in these
proceedings.
Mr. Thakur, learned Counsel appearing in Writ Petition No. 801
of 1986 on behalf of the Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association, has made his submissions in two parts. The first part relates to the
Junior Clerks and the Class IV employees of the Supreme Court and
D the second part relates to the other employees of the Supreme Court,
who are members of the Supreme Court Employees' Welfare Association. It may be stated here that the Class IV employees have filed a
separate Writ Petition, that is, the Writ Petition No. 1201of1986.
We shall first of all deal with the submissions of Mr. Thakur with
E
regard to the Junior Clerks and Class IV employees of the Supreme
Court. The learned Counsel has placed much reliance upon the judgments of the Delhi High Court in revising the pay-scales of certain
categories of Class III and Class IV employees, as stated hereinbefore,
granting the pay-scales of Rs.400-600 and Rs.300-430 respectively to
L.D.Cs. and Class IV employees. It is submitted that the Deihi High
p
Court was fully empowered under Article 226 of the Constitution to
l
issue appropriate writs, if in its opinion the recommendations of the
l.
Third Pay Commission as adopted by the Government of India and as
reflected in the revised pay Rules of 1973, in so far as these Rules
related to the staff of the Delhi High Court, amounted to discrimination and consequently violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
G Counsel submits that the Special Leave Petitions filed by the Government against the judgments of the Delhi High Court having been
dismissed by this Court, the Delhi High Court judgment revising the
\.
pay-scales of its employees including the pay-scales of the L.D.Cs.
r
annd Class IV employees have attained finality and operate as res
judicata between the parties, namely, the employees of the Delhi High
H Court and the Union of India. It is submitted that this Court was fully
SUPREME COURT EMPLOYEES WELFARE ASSN. v. U .O.I. [DUTT, J .]
503
·~
justified in passing the interim orders on the basis of the judgments of
A
the Delhi High Court which had become final and conclusive between
the parties and binding on them, and that the pay-scales granted by
this Court by the interim orders were consonant to justice and equity.
It is urged that it was not open to the Fourth Pay Commission while
revising the pay-scales of the staff of the Supreme Court to take a
pay-scale lower than the one prescribed by this Court by the interim
B
'1
orders, as the basis for revision, as that would amount to negativing
and nutralising the effect of the orders passed by this Court. It is
submitted by the learned Counsel that the recommendations of the
I
Fourth Pay Commission, if allowed to prevail, would result in the
- -I
reduction of the salaries of the Junior Clerks and Class IV employees
to a level lower than what they were receiving on the date of the
revision and it would be highly discriminatory and violative of Article c
y
14 of the Constitution.
On the other hand, the learned Attorney General appearing on
behalf of the Union of India, in the first instance, points out that the
Delhi High Court judgments, particularly the judgment in C.W.P. No.
D
1376 of 1984, Shri Kamalanand v. Union of India and others, are based
on the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' as enshrined in Article
39( d) of the Constitution of India. The learned Attorney General has.
made elaborate submissions as to the applicability of the said doctrine
)
to the cases of the employees of the Delhi High Court and also of the
'
Supreme Court. We shall, of course, consider the submissions of the
E
learned Attorney General in regard to the doctrine of 'equal pay for
equal work', but before we do that we may consider his other
..
submissions .
It is urged by him that the judgments of the Delhi High Court are
-~
absolutely erroneous and that, in any event, they are neither final nor
F
do they operate as res judicata, between the parties as contended on
behalf of the petitioners. It is pointed out by him that the scales of pay ·
of Rs.400-600 and Rs.300-430 are Punjab pay-scales. Punjab payscales were higher than the Central pay-scales because the Punjab
pay-scales were linked to higher Consumer Price Index (for short
'CPI') 320 as on 1.1.1978 instead of CPI 200. On the other hand, the
G°'\.
Central pay-scales were linked to CPI 200 as on 1:1.1973. The Punjab
High Court employees were getting higher pay-scales because the
Dearness Allowance up to 1.1. 1978 had been merged in the pay-scales
which related to CPI 320 as on 1.1.1978 instead of CPI 200. The Delhi
High Court employees were given the higher Punjab scales of pay
linked to CPI 320 and also got the benefit of the difference between
H
A
B
c
D
504
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1989] 3 S.C.R.
CPI 200 and CPI 320 according to the Central Government D.A.
formula which came into effect from 1.1.1973. The Punjab D.A.
formula is correspondingly lower than the Central D.A.