# UNION OF INDIA AND ORS v. ANIL KUMAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC

- **Citation:** [1999] 3 S.C.R. 835
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1999-07-13
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 7314 of 1997
- **Bench:** K. Venkataswami, R.P. Sethi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/union-of-india-and-ors-v-anil-kumar-and-ors-etc-etc-16888
- **Pages:** 26

## Headnote

B
Service Law :
Pay Scales -Two pay scales within the same grade created-Creation
of pay scales on the basis of award of the Arbitrator-Different pay scales C
created to give incentive-Held, not discriminatory-Constitution of IndiaArticles 14 and 16.
Clubbing of post to reduce number of pay scales-Validity of-Defence
Research and Development Organisation Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, D
1995-Rule 6(3)(a)__:(;onstitution of India-Articles 14 and 16.
Seniori~lubbing of posts-Incumbents of one post having higher
salary placed en bloc junior to incumbents of other posts-Defence Research
and Development Organisation Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 1995Rule 6(3)(b)-Validity of-Constitution of India-Articles 14 and 16.
E
The dispute in the present case relates to the pay scales and inter se
seniority between the Senior Scientific Assistants, Assistant Foremen and
Chief Draughtsmen working in various organisations of the Ministry of
Defence. Initially, the Class-III non-gazetted technical, scientific and non- F
ministerial posts in the Defence Research and Development Organisation
were governed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation
Class III Non-gazetted (Technical, Scientific and Other Non-Ministerial)
Posts Recruitment Rules, 1968. The then existing Organisation was as
under:-
Scientific Cadre
Senior Scientific
Assistant
1640-2900
Technical Cadre
Foreman
2375-3500
835
Non-Ministerial Cadre
Chief Draughtsman
2000-3200
G
H
836
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1999] 3 S.C.R.
A Junior Scientific
Assistant Foreman
Draughtsman-I
Assistant-I
2000-3200
1600-2660
1400-2300
Junior Scientific
Chargeman-I
Draughtsman-II
Assistant-II
1600~2660
1400-2300
B 1320-2040
Chargeman-11
Draughtsman-ill
1400-2300
1200-2040
C
The Senior Scientific Assistants raised a dispute and claimed a higher
pay scale than· 1640-2900 on the ground that Assistant Foremen were getting
a higher pay. scale. The matter was ultimately referred to Arbitration. The
Board of Arbitration accepted the claim of Senior Scientific Assistants and
Draughtsmen for higher pay scale and it created two grades in the level of
Senior scientific Assistant and Draughtsman. The proportion of posts to be
D allocated to the enhanced pay scale was to be proportionate to that obtaining
in the Foreman category vis a vis the highest grade of Assistant Foreman.
On the basis of the Award of the Board of Arbitration, 822 posts out
of the total posts of 1677 of Senior Scientific Assistants were given benefit
of the higher pay scale of 2375-3500 by the Government. The rest of the
E posts continued to be in the pay scale of 1640-2900.
F
In 1995, the service rules were amended and the Defence Research and
Development Organisation Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 1995 came
into force. By Rule 6(3)(a) the posts of Senior Scientific Assistant in the pay
scale of 1640-2900, Chief Draughtsman in the pay scale of 2000-3200,
Assistant Foreman, Draughtsman Grade I and Chargeman Grade I were
clubbed together. The new grade was designated as Senior Technical Assistant
and was to act as a feeding cadre for promotion to Technical Officer 'A'. The
pay scale of the newly created grade was to be 1640-2900. By Rule 6(3)(b),
the incumbents of posts of Assistant Foreman were made en bloc junior to
G the incumbents of posts of Senior Scientific Assistants and Chief
Draughtsman. Under FR 23, the employees were given an option to opt for
their old pay scales.
Some Senio.r Scientific.Assistants challenged the bifurcation of their
grade and creation of two pay scales as arbitrary and discriminatory. On the
H other hand, the Assistant Foreman challenged the validity of Rule 6(3)(b) of
-
U.O.l. v. ANIL KUMR
837
the Defence Research and Development Organisation Technical Cadre A
Recruitment Rules, 1995 on the ground that their en bloc placement below
the incum~ents of Senior Scientific Assistant and Chief Draughtsman was
illegal and arbitrary. They further claimed that their placement in the newly
created grade of Se

## Text

_Characters 0–39,999 of 63,636. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39999 for what follows._

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
A
v.
ANIL KUMAR AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
JULY 13, 1999
[K. VENKATASWAMI AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.]
B
Service Law :
Pay Scales -Two pay scales within the same grade created-Creation
of pay scales on the basis of award of the Arbitrator-Different pay scales C
created to give incentive-Held, not discriminatory-Constitution of IndiaArticles 14 and 16.
Clubbing of post to reduce number of pay scales-Validity of-Defence
Research and Development Organisation Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, D
1995-Rule 6(3)(a)__:(;onstitution of India-Articles 14 and 16.
Seniori~lubbing of posts-Incumbents of one post having higher
salary placed en bloc junior to incumbents of other posts-Defence Research
and Development Organisation Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 1995Rule 6(3)(b)-Validity of-Constitution of India-Articles 14 and 16.
E
The dispute in the present case relates to the pay scales and inter se
seniority between the Senior Scientific Assistants, Assistant Foremen and
Chief Draughtsmen working in various organisations of the Ministry of
Defence. Initially, the Class-III non-gazetted technical, scientific and non- F
ministerial posts in the Defence Research and Development Organisation
were governed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation
Class III Non-gazetted (Technical, Scientific and Other Non-Ministerial)
Posts Recruitment Rules, 1968. The then existing Organisation was as
under:-
Scientific Cadre
Senior Scientific
Assistant
1640-2900
Technical Cadre
Foreman
2375-3500
835
Non-Ministerial Cadre
Chief Draughtsman
2000-3200
G
H
836
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1999] 3 S.C.R.
A Junior Scientific
Assistant Foreman
Draughtsman-I
Assistant-I
2000-3200
1600-2660
1400-2300
Junior Scientific
Chargeman-I
Draughtsman-II
Assistant-II
1600~2660
1400-2300
B 1320-2040
Chargeman-11
Draughtsman-ill
1400-2300
1200-2040
C
The Senior Scientific Assistants raised a dispute and claimed a higher
pay scale than· 1640-2900 on the ground that Assistant Foremen were getting
a higher pay. scale. The matter was ultimately referred to Arbitration. The
Board of Arbitration accepted the claim of Senior Scientific Assistants and
Draughtsmen for higher pay scale and it created two grades in the level of
Senior scientific Assistant and Draughtsman. The proportion of posts to be
D allocated to the enhanced pay scale was to be proportionate to that obtaining
in the Foreman category vis a vis the highest grade of Assistant Foreman.
On the basis of the Award of the Board of Arbitration, 822 posts out
of the total posts of 1677 of Senior Scientific Assistants were given benefit
of the higher pay scale of 2375-3500 by the Government. The rest of the
E posts continued to be in the pay scale of 1640-2900.
F
In 1995, the service rules were amended and the Defence Research and
Development Organisation Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 1995 came
into force. By Rule 6(3)(a) the posts of Senior Scientific Assistant in the pay
scale of 1640-2900, Chief Draughtsman in the pay scale of 2000-3200,
Assistant Foreman, Draughtsman Grade I and Chargeman Grade I were
clubbed together. The new grade was designated as Senior Technical Assistant
and was to act as a feeding cadre for promotion to Technical Officer 'A'. The
pay scale of the newly created grade was to be 1640-2900. By Rule 6(3)(b),
the incumbents of posts of Assistant Foreman were made en bloc junior to
G the incumbents of posts of Senior Scientific Assistants and Chief
Draughtsman. Under FR 23, the employees were given an option to opt for
their old pay scales.
Some Senio.r Scientific.Assistants challenged the bifurcation of their
grade and creation of two pay scales as arbitrary and discriminatory. On the
H other hand, the Assistant Foreman challenged the validity of Rule 6(3)(b) of
-
U.O.l. v. ANIL KUMR
837
the Defence Research and Development Organisation Technical Cadre A
Recruitment Rules, 1995 on the ground that their en bloc placement below
the incum~ents of Senior Scientific Assistant and Chief Draughtsman was
illegal and arbitrary. They further claimed that their placement in the newly
created grade of Senior Technical Assistant in the pay scale of 1640-2900
by virtue of Rule 6(3)(a) of the Defence Research and Development
Organisation Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 1995 amounted to their B
demotion as their pay scale was higher than that of Senior Scientific
Assistant, Chargeman Grade-I and Draughtsman Grade-I.
The Government defended the validity of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Defence
Research and Development Organisation Technical Cadre R,ecruitment Rules, C
1995 on the ground that while Senior Scientific Assistant and Chief
Draughtsman could be directly promoted to the next higher post of Junior
Scientific Officer, Assistant Foreman had to be promoted as Foreman before
receiving further promotion to the post of Junior Scientific Officer. However,
it was not claimed by the Government that the qualification of Senior Scientific
Assistant or Chief Draughtsman was higher than that of Assistant Foreman. D
The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the application of the
Senior Scientific Assistant holding that the Award of the Board of Arbitration
was made at the instance of the Senior Scientific Assistant themselves and
thus, was binding in nature. The Tribunal further observed that ifthere is E
still any dispute, the aggrieved parties may make appropriate representations
before the 5th Pay Commission.
In respect of the applications filed by the Assistant Foreman, the
Central Administrative Tribunal upholding the validity of Rule 6(3)(a) and
striking down Rule 6(3)(b) of the Defence Research and Development F
Organisation Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 1995 held :-
(a)
that the clubbing of posts did not amount to reduction in rank
of the incumbents of Assistant Foreman and Rule 6(3)(a) of the
Defence Research and Development Organisation Technical
Cadre Recruitment Rules, 1995 is not arbitrary and G
unconstitutional.
(b)
that Rule 6(3)(b) of the Defence Research and Development
Organisation Technical cadre Recruitment Rules, 1995 insofar
as it places all Assistant Foreman en bloc junior to Chief
Draughtsman and Senior Scientific Assistant is arbitrary.
H
838
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1999] 3 S.C.R.
A
The Senior Scientific Assistants filed appeals before this Court
B
challenging the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting their
application. Union oflndia also filed an appeal before this Court against the ·
order of the Central Administrative Tribunal quashing Rule 6(3)(b) of the
Defence Research and Development Organisation Technical Cadre
Recruitment Rules, 1995.
Dismissing the appeals, this Court
HELD : 1.1. The Centntl Administrative Tribunal had rightly rejected
the applications of the Senior Scientific Assistants as it did not find any
illegality or unconstitutionally in the classification of two grades of the
C Senior Scientific Assistants particularly when the classification was shown
to have been made on the basis of an. award in which the Senior Scientific
Assistants themselves were shown to have demanded two pay-scales. The
Central Administrative Tribunal permitted them to make appropriate
representation to the 5th Pay Commission which at that time was going into
D the question of revision of pay-scales of the Government staff for resolving
the anomaly, if any, by giving them the appropriate relief being a body
comprising of experts aware of the difficulties faced by different sections of
the services. (850-G-H; 851-A]
t.2. Where everything was found to be equal a!ld relevant consideration
E being the same, persons holding identical posts should not normally be
treated differently in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to
different departments. However, if officers of the same rank perform
dissimilar functions and the powers and duties and responsibilities of the
posts held by them vary, such officers cannot be heard to complain of dissimilar
F pay merely because the posts were of the same rank and the nomenclature.
The Admini~tration can provide two pay scales in the·same category of posts.
Making such provision is normally done ltith the object of providing incentives
to the employees who have no outlets or very limited outlets for promotion
to higher posts. (848-D-E-H]
G
Kishori Mohan/al Bakshi v. Union of India, AIR (1962) SC 1139;
Randhir Singh v. Unir.Jn of India & Ors., [1982) 3 SCR 298; La/it Mohan
Deb & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1973] 3 SCC 862 and Union of India
& Ors. v. S.S. Ranade, (1995] 4 SCC 462, relied on.
P. Savita & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1985] Supp. SCC 94;
H Jagdish Prasad Sinha & Ors. v. Bhagwat Prasad & Ors., (1989] 3 SCC 610;
--.
-- \
..
U.0.1. v. ANIL KUMR
839
Jaghnath v. Union of India & Anr., [1992] Suppl. 2 SCC 105 and U.P. Rajya A
Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd. v. Workman, [1989] Supp. 2 SCC 424,
distinguished.
State of U.P. & Ors., v. J.P. Chauasia & Ors., [1989] 1 SCC 121,
referred to.
1.3. Different pay scales were granted to a number of Senior Scientific
Assistant on the basis of the award at the instance of the Association of the
Senior Scientific Assistants with the objective of giving them incentives.
There was no intention of creating any discrimination. (849-G]
B
2.1. Placement of Assistant Foreman along with Chargeman-I and C
Draughtsman-I in the new level of Senior Technical Assistant does not
amount to demotion of the Assistant Foreman to the lower level. In the
restructured set up the Assistant Foremen have been placed en bloc senior
to incumbents of Chargeman-I and Draughtsman-I. [855-C]
2.2. The department has attempted to streamline and simplify the D
service rules and in this endeavour, they have decided to reduce the number
of levels and the number of pay scales. In such a situation when levels and
pay-scales are reduced, it becomes inevitable to group together some of the
categories which were earlier kept separate and place them at the appropriate
levels. In this process, some employees have received substantial benefits as E
in the case of Chargeman-1, whereas for other cadres, their existing
entitlements have in any case been safeguarded. No service rule can satisfy
each employee and reasonableness should be considered from the stand point
of justice of the majority. [855-D-G; 856-A-D]
2.3. The Assistant Foremen in the Defence Research and Development F
Organisation were earlier categorised as Group 'C' and in the new set up
as Senior Technical Assistant they have been conferred with Group 'B' nongazetted status which showed that there was no reduction in their status in
the restructured set up. [857-B]
3.1. The action of putting the Assistant Foremen en bloc junior to the
Senior Scientific Assistants was without any rationale or valid basis which
has rightly been held to be arbitrary being violative of the fundamental rights
guaranteeing equality in service matters. [859-A]
G
3.2. For a Welfare State, healthy and energetic civil services is a H
840
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1999] 3 S.C.R.
A guarantee for good administrative system entrusted with the governance for
the establishment of a rule of law. Security of tenure and the service conditions
of the employee is of paramount consideration to achieve the goals for having
an effective and vibrant civil service in the society. No Government can resort
to actions depriving the benefits to a section of the service en bloc which
B
admittedly is to their disadvantage. Such en bloc deprivation of the promotional
avenues and service benefits cannot be sustained when no cogent reasons are
assigned by the administrative set up. Resort to differential treatment in the
service can be had· only for achieving the efficiency in the service or any
other specified objective declared to be attained. No discrimination can be
permitted only at the whims of the administration or to satisfy another
C section of the civil service. The Union oflndia in this case has not been in
a position to justify the differential treatment made to the Assistant Foremen
by putting them en bloc junior to the Scientific Assistants particularly when
they have all along been found to be enjoying better position and higher
grade as compared to the Senior Scientific Assistants in the junior payscale. [859-C-E]
D
R.K. Sethi and Anr. v. Oil & Natural Gas Commission & Ors., [1997]
10 sec 616, relied on.
State of Mahrashtra & Anr. v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni & Ors.,
E [1981] 4 SCC 130 and S.P. Shivprasad Pipal v. Union of India & Ors., [1998]
4 sec 598, referred to.
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7314 of 1997
Etc. Etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.8.96 of the Central Administrative
Tribunal Bangalore in O.A. No. 2311 of 1995.
C.S. Vaidyanathan, Additional Solicitor General, V.C. Mahajan, Raju
Ramachandran, V.C. Mahajan, Shiv Ram, K.P. G. Kutty, T.A. Khan, Ms. Anubha
Jain, A.K. Sharma, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, Makarand D. Adkar, S.D. Singh, Vishwajit
G Singh and S. Ravindra Bhat for the Appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SETHI, J. Claims, rival claims and counter claims of the Senior Scientific
Assistants (Junior Grade) in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 the Assistant
H Foremen in the grade of Rs. 2000-3200 and Chief Draughtsman in the junior
r
U.0.1. v. ANIL KUMR [SETHI, J.]
~
841
grade of Rs. 200<>-3200 in the Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE), A
Electronics and Radar Development Establishment (EARDE) and Gas Turbine
Research Institute (GTRI) in the Defence Research and Development
Organisation (DRDO) before implementation ofDRTC are sought to be settled
in these appeals which arise out of the orders passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunals of Bangalore and Bombay Benches.
Appellants in Civil Appeal Nos. 7316-7317 /97 had filed OAs 2001 &
2041/95 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench , praying for
B
the issuance of direction to declare that their inclusion as Senior Scientific
Assistants in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 appointed upto 25-8-1995 in the
grade IV of the DRDO Technical Cadre Research Recruitment Rules was C
arbitrary and discriminatory. They prayed for a further direction to the
respondents to include all such SSAs also in grade II of category III alongwith
Foremen and SSAs (senior grade) in pay-scale of Rs. 2375-3500 and for
granting them all the consequential benefits. The applications are shown to
have been filed on behalf of the Scientific Workers Association which was
claimed to be the recognised association by the Government of India.
D
Civil Appeal No. 7315/97 has also been filed by and on behalf of the
Scientific and Technical Workers Association through Shri P.N. Choudhary
against the judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore
Bench, passed in O.A. 2311/95 dated 19-8-1996. The aforesaid Original E
Application was filed by the Assistant Foremen in the pay-scale of Rs. 20003200 serving in the Defence Research and Development Organisation. They
had been brought over to the newly designated level of Senior Technical
Assistant (STA) as per the Defence Research and Development Organisation
Technical Cadre Recruitment Rules, 1995 (DRTC Rules 1995). Their plea was
that their placement at the level of ST A in the scale of pay of Rs. 1640-2900 F
alongwith Senior Scientific Assistants (SSAs), Chief Draughtsman (CDM),
Chargeman, Grade-I, (CM-I) and Draughtsman Grade-I (DM-1) was arbitrary
and unconstitutional. They specifically challenged Rule 6(3)(b) of the DRTC
Rules, 1995 which had placed them en bloc junior to the incumbents of the
erst;vhile cadre of Chief Draughtsman and Senior Scientific Assistants while G
determining their seniority in the new grade of ST A. They prayed for their
placement at a level higher than that of the SSA, Chargeman Grade-I,
Draughtsman Grade-I by assigning a pay--scale either equivalent to or higher
than the scale in which they were drawing pay as Assistant Foremen. Their
application was disposed of by the Tribunal holding that the rule 6(3)(b) of
the J?TRC Rules, 1~95 in so far as it sought to place the Assistant Foremen H
842
•
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1999] 3 S.C.R.
A en bloc junior to CDMs in the scale of pay of Rs. 2000-3200 and SSAs in the
scale of pay of Rs. 1640-2900 was discriminatory and liable to be struck down.
The Tribunal further directed the Department to amend rule 6(3 )(b) of the
DRTC Rules, 1995 to provide that the inter se seniority of the incumbents of
the posts of CDMs, SSAs and also Assistant Foremen shall be drawn on the
B basis of the length of their regular service in their original relative seniority
in such grades. It was further directed that the applicants therein be ranked
en bloc senior to the incumbents of the posts' of Draughtsman (Grade-I) and
Chargeman Grade-I. Directions for promotion from the level of the STA to the
Technical Officer (A) was also ordered to be carried out.
C
Civil Appeal No. 7314/97 is an appeal filed by the Union of India against
the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench,
in Original Application No. 2311/95 quashing Rule 6(3)(b) of the DRTC Rules,
1995.
Civil Appeal Nos. 3338/96 and 3339/96 have been filed against the
D orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bombay Bench, by which
various applications filed by the Scientific Staff Association and its Members
were dismissed with the observation that "the question of relativities in the
pay-scale of different cadres, in the present case between technical and
scientific cadres of the ORD and DGI is essentially a matter for expert bodies
E and even after implementation of the award, if there are any disputes still to
be resolved, they are required to be resolved by making appropriate
representations to the Vth Pay Commission which is at present going into the
question of revision of pay-scale of Central Government staff." The petitioners
had made similar prayers projecting the grievances of the SSAs (Junior Grade)
as were considered and noticed by the Bangalore Bench of the Central
F Administrative Tribunal. The Bombay Bench of the Central Administrative
Tribunal noticed that the total number of posts of SSAs in DRDO was 1677
of which 822 posts had been given the benefit of higher pay-scale on the
basis of an award passed keeping in view the length of service of the SSAs
on the basis of the Arbitration Award.
G
Before amendment of the Rules in 1995 the promotion to the post 't>f
H
JSO( Junior Scientific Officer) was made out of the SSA, Foremen and Chief
Draughtsman. The then existing organisation was as under :-
Scientist 'B'
JSO
"'""'-
U.0.l. v. ANIL KUMR [SETHI, J.]
843
'
SSA
Foreman
Chief Draughstman
A
2375-3500
2375-3500
2375-3500
1640-2900
2000-3200
JSA-I
Asstt.Foreman
Draughtsman-I
B
1400-2300
2000-3200
1600-2660
JSA-11
Chargeman-I
Draughtsman-II
1320-2040
1600-2660
1400-2300
c
Chargeman-II
Draughtsman-III
1400-2300
1200-2040
After amendment the posts of SSAs in the grade of Rs. 1640-2900,
D
Chief Draugahtsman (CDM) in the grade of Rs. 2000-3200 and Assistant
Foreman were clubbed together and designated as Senior Technical Assistants
in the pay-scale of Rs. 1640-2900 being the feeding cadre for promotion
(TOA). Whereas the grievance of the Senior Scientific Assistant in the payscale of Rs. 1640-2900 was that their placement in the junior grade was
unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the E
Assistant Foremen felt that their en bloc placement as junior to the SSAs
-
in the grade of Rs. 1640-2900 was arbitrary and illegal. As noticed earlier the
applicants specifically challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 6(3)(b) of
the DRTC Rules, 1995. After the amendment of the Rules and creation of the
posts of Senior Technical Assistant being eligible for promotion to TOA, their
grievance in so far as it related to promotion has lost all its significance. F
However, ifthe SSAs in the grade of Rs. 1640-2900 are granted relief as prayed
for by giving them the grade of Rs. 2375-3500 the position would be totally
different as they would be deemed to have automatically been promoted as
TOA being eligible for promotion to TOB. It is, therefore, necessary. to
adjudge their claims first before deciding the other appeals.
G
_..
The erstwhile SSAs, SS grade II have submitted that the bifurcation of
SSAs cadre with effect from 1992 is arbitrary as there does not exist any
rational for the classification . It is further submitted that the creation of two
pay-scales in the grade of SSAs was imaginary and artificial. All SSAs are
alleged to be performing the same nature of work. Referring to the job H
844
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1999] 3 S.C.R.
A description part, it is contended that there is no distinction whatsoeyer
between the differen~ levels or categories of SSAs. Even before the arbitration
it was pointed out that Government had virtually accepted the case of SSAs
for parity of pay~scales. There is no legal basis for putting the .SSAs in
different categories i.e. Technical Officer 'A' and Senior Technical Assistant
respectively in the matter of eligibility for promotion. It is alleged that the
B Government has admitted that the higher scale of SSAs is a non-functional
selection grade which would not justify the split up of the SSAs for the
purpose of further promotion under the amended Rules of I 995. The splitting
up is alleged to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution oflndia.
They have also relied upon the doctrine of ' equal pay for equal work.'
C According to them an anomaly had crept in the pay-scale allowed to the SSAs
with effect from 1-1-1973 consequent upon the implementation of the
recommendation of the 3rd Pay Commission. It was contended that the maximum
of the pay-scale of the SSAs and Foremen used to be essentially equal and
the maximum of the Assistant Foreman scale was less than that of the SSAs
till the 2nd Pay Commission. They relied upon the letter dated 30-8-1973
D issued by the R&E Headquarters indicating that the matter had been taken
up with the higher authorities. Consequently, the matter was referred to the
Expert Classification Committee and ultimately to the Arbitration in terms of
JCM Scheme. After the award was submitted the order impugned before the
Central Administrative Tribunal was issued. The Arbitration Award had
E recommended for its implementation from 22-9-1982 but the Government issued
orders for its implementation only with effect from 1-1-1988.
The appellant~Association in their application before the Central
Administrative Tribunal had assailed the award passed by the Arbitration and
the order dated 11-11-1988 issued by the Government in consequence thereof.
F ., It was submitted that the impugned award and the order were both vitiated
on account of alleged unreasonable classification, discrimination and arbitrary
action of the respondent.
The prayer itself appears to be self-contradictory. If the award of the
G Arbitration was set aside, there was not question of giving any relief to SSAs
(Junior Grade) as admittedly the higher grade for which they had staked claim
was given on the basis of the recommendation made by the Board of
Arbitration who had given the award in consequence of the reference made
at the instance of the SSAs Thus the setting aside of the award in no. case
benefited the appellants. Otherwise, also it is evident that the reference to the
H Arbitration was made at the instance of the scientific staff employees in
-+
U.0.1. v. ANIL KUMR [SETHI, J.]
845
various Directorates of the Ministry of Defence who had claimed their A
entitlement to the pay-scales and grades structments namely, level I-Rs. 380560, level II-Rs. 425-700, level III Rs. 550-900 level IV Rs. 840-1040 and if so
in what promotion.
It was alleged before the Board of Arbitration that the duties and
responsibilities of the Senior Scientific Assistants were not less than those B
of the Foremen. However, while the Senior Scientific Assistants were in the
pay scale of Rs. 840-1040. The educational qualifications of the scientific staff
were stated to be higher than that of the Foremen. They alleged that promotion
avenue for both the categories being the same i.e. Junior Scientific Officer,
there was no justification for not giving them the same pay scale as was being C
given to the Foremen. After considering all pros and cons of the matter, the
Board of Arbitration passed the following award :-
I.
(a) The demand of the staff side for the grant of pay scale of
Rs. 840-1040. to Senior Scientific Assistants and Draughtsman
working in the Research & Development Organisation and the D
Directorate General of Inspection (both in the Ministry of
Defence) is accepted. This pay will be addition to those which
are already admissible to these categories in the said two
organisations.
(b) The proportion of posts to be allocated in the above E
mentioned new pay scale should broadly bear the same
proportion as that obtaining at present in the foremen category
vis a vis the highest grade of Assistant Foreman in the said
organisation.
( c) The demand for introduction of the scale of pay of Rs. 840- F
1040 in respect of the Draughtsman working in other organisations
of the Ministry of Defence is rejected.
2.
The demand of the staff side for the introduction of a new pay
scale of Rs. 700-900 to be made available to storekeeping staff
employed in all the Directorates of the Ministry of Defence G
(wherever not applicable at present) is accepted. The proportion
of posts in this new scale of pay shall be 20% of the post in the
next lower grade.
3.
The demand of the staff side of the introduction of the pay scale
of Rs. 380-560 as Grade I for Civilian Motor Drivers working in H
846
A
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1999] 3 S.C.R.
the various Directorates of the Ministry of Defence is accepted.
This will be treated as a selection grade and 20% of the posts
of Drivers in the scale Rs. 320-400 will be placed in the grade
in Rs. 380-560.
4.
This Award will come into operation with effect from the 22nd
B
September, 1982."
c
D
E
F
Acting upon the award of the Arbitration the Government of India vi de
Order dated 11.11.1988 upgraded the post of Scientific Assistants in RDO
and DGI to the extent as under :-
Existing
Revised
No. of Post of
Scale
Scale
SSAs to be given
the Scale in Col(ii)
(i)
(ii)
(ill)
InDRDO
InDGOA
As per 3rd
Rs.550Rs.840pay
900
1040
Commission's
Report
As per 4th
Rs.1640Rs. 2375822
101
Pay
2900
3500
Commission's
It was specifically mentioned that the upgradation of the post was on
G the basis of the award of the Arbitration and as per annexures attached
therewith. The recruitment rules were to be amended suitably in due course.
It is on record that the total number of post of SSAs in the DRDO were 1677
of which 822 posts were given the benefit of higher pay scales. It is not
denied before us that the upgradation of post and grant of higher pay scales
had been done on the basis of the experience and length of service. The
H Central Administrative Tribunal was, therefore, justified in holding :
U.0.1. v. ANIL KUMR [SETHI, J.]
847
"It is not disputed that the claim of SSAs who belong to scientific A
cadre is for parity with the technical cadre to which Asstt. Foreman
and Forman belong. It was in this background that after protracted
deliberations and negotiations the matter stood referred to Board of
Arbitration for a final decision and the Board of Arbitration decided
to give the higher revised scale to the Sr. SSAs in the same proportion B
on the date of award as that between Foremen and Assistant Foreman
on Technical side in the concerned organisation i.e. DRDO and DBI.
According to us, although Savita's judgment proceeds on the
undiluted doctrine of equal pay for equal work, there has been further
evaluation of the doctrine as revealed by the Supreme Court judgment
in Jaghnath v. Union of India., It is now well settled that several C
factors are required to be gone into before fixing the pay scale and
one of the relevant factors is the historical background in which a
particular decision relating to pay fixation is taken. In our view, keeping
the ratio in Jagannath' s case and dispute in view the background of
the whole dispute and keeping in view the nature of the JCM scheme D
in which the staff association as well as individual members of staff
are required to be held to the binding nature of the arbitration award
with its modified date of implementation as confirmed by Supreme
Court, the Tribunal should be chary before unsettling settled issues,
especially after protractred litigation. There should be a finality to
such disputes. The question relativities in the pay scales of different E
cadres, in the present case between kchnical and scientific cadres of
the DRD and DGI is essentially a matter for expert bodies and even
after the -implementation of the award, if there are any disputes still
to be resolved, they are required to be resolved by making appropriate
representations to the 5th Pay Commission which is at present going F
into the question of revision of pay scale of Central Government Staff.
We are, therefore, not satisfied that this is a fit case in which we
should interfere. We have already given the reasons as to why the
various contentions raised by the applicants in support of their prayers
cannot be accepted on a survey of administrative legal grounds."
G
A Constitution Bench of this Court in Kishori Mohan/al Bakshi v.
Union of India., AIR (1962) SC 1139 while dealing with alleged violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India on account of the grant of two payscales to Income Tax Officers allegedly doing the same kind of work, held that
incremental scales of pay can be validly fixed dependent on the duration of H
848
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1999) 3 S.C.R.
A an officer's service, and in that event the abstract doctrine of 'equal pay for
equal work' cannot be invoked with the aid of argument of the claimants
therein the Court held that :-
"It is fantastic to suppose that Article 16 of the Constitution forbids
the creation of different grades in the government service; that is
B
what the petitioner's argument amounts to. The contention that Article
16 has been violated because Class II Income Tax Officers are not
eligible for promotion to higher posts, like the post of Commissioners
and Assistant Commissioners directly is, therefore, wholly unsound."
While dealing with the Preamble of the Constitution and Articles 14, 16
C and 39(d) of the Constitution, this Court again in Randhir Singh v. Union of
India & Ors., [1982] 3 SCR 298, held that whereas it was true that equation
of posts and equation of pay were the matters for the Executive Government
and expert bodies like the Pay Commission and not for the Courts but where
everything was found to be equal and relevant consideration being the same,
D persons holding identical posts should not normally be treated differently in
the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments.
If officers of the same rank perform dissimilar functions and the powers and
duties and responsibilities of the posts held by them vary, such officers
cannot be heard to complain of dissimilar pay merely because the posts were
E of the same rank and the nomenclature. While dealing with the gradation in
the service the Court declared that "it is well known that there can be and
there are different grades in a service, with varying qualifications for entry
into a particular grade, the higher grade often being a promotional avenue for
officers of the lower grade. The higher qualifications for the higher grade,
which may be either academic qualification or experience based on length of
F service, reasonably sustain the classification of the officers into two grades
with different scales of pay. The principle of equal pay for equal work would
be an abstract doctrine not attracting Article 14 if sought to be applied to
them."
G
Again iry La/it Mohan Deb & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1973] 3
SCC 862 the Court considered the position of Assistants in Civil Secretariat,
Tripura as against the position of Assistants (Selection Grade) and held that
the Administration can provide two pay scales in the same category of posts.
Making such a provision is normally done with the object ·of providing
incentives to the employees who have no outlays or very limited outlets for
H promotion to higher posts. In this context it was observed :
U.O.I. v. ANIL KUMR [SETHI, J.]
849
"It is well recognised that a promotion post is a higher post with a A
higher pay. A selection grade has higher pay but in the same post.
A selection grade is intended to ensure that capable employees who
may not get a chance of promotion on account of limited outlets of
promotion should at least be placed in the selection grade to prevent
stagnation on the maximum of the scale. Selection grades are, therefore,
created in the interest of greater efficiency."
B
To the same effect is the judgment of this Court in Union of India &
Anr. v. S.S. Ranade, [1995] 4 SCC 462 wherein the Court held:-
"In the present case, an element of selection is involved in granting
selection grade because there is no automatic promotion to the C
selection grade pay scale. But this factor is not decisive. In the
present case also, as in the above cases, Selection Grade posts are
created entirely for the purpose of granting some relief to those who
have very limited avenues of getting promotion to a higher post. That
is why a higher pay or pay scale is granted in the same post. Thus, D
by its very nature, a selection grade post cannot be considered as a
higher post for the purposes of Rules 9."
In support of the claim of the appellants Shri Raju Ramachandran, the
learned senior counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in P. Savita &
Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1985] Supp. SCC 94 and submitted that the E
classification of the Senior Scientific Assistants in the same department
merely on the basis of the seniority was unconstitutional. The submission
though attractive on the face of it yet is without substance when examined
in depth. In that case, the Court was considering the classification of Senior
Draughtsman holding identical posts discharging identical duties in the same
department and where the selection to the higher scale was based on seniority- F
cum-fitness instead of merit-cum-seniority. The Court agreed with the
conclusions arrived at in the Randhir Singh 's case (supra) and finding of
facts of the case before it different held, "for the purpose of the case on hand,
it is sufficient to note that classificittion between two groups of Senior
Draughtsman is without any basis." As noticed earlier, in the instant case, G
pay-scales were granted to a number of Senior Scientific Assistants on the
basis of the award at the instance of the appellant-association with the
objective of giving them incentives. There was no intention of creating any
discrimination as has been argued before us. The reliance of the learned
counsel for the appellant on the judgment of this Court in U.P. Rajya Sahakari
Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd v. Workmen, [1989] Supp. 2 SCC 424, is also H
850
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1999] 3 S.C.R.
A misplaced inasmuch as in that case this Court had considered the validity of
the award of the Industrial Tribunal which had found on facts that the
workmen doing similar type of work were entitled to equal pay. The Court
observed thus :-
B
c
"The Tribunal's finding that both the groups were doing .the same
type of work has rightly not been challenged by the employer-Bank
as it is a pure finding of fact. If irrespective of classification of junior
and senior groups, the same work was done by both, the principle of
equal pay for equal work is definitely attracted and on the finding of
fact the Tribunal was justified in applying the principle to give the
same benefit to those who had been left out. We see no justification
in the stand of the employer-Bank and the challenge is without merit.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The parties are directed to bear
their own costs in this Court."
The judgment of this Court in Jagdish Parsad Sinha & Ors. v. Bhagwat
D Prasad & Ors., [1989] 3 SCC 610 does not either help the appellants. In that
case the Court held the bifurcati0n in the validly constituted cadre merely for
providing equal promotional avenues to those beyond eligible zone in the
undivided cadre unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. Such is not the position in the present case.
E
F
G
In Jagannath v. Union of India & Anr., [I 992] Supp. 2 SCC 105 relied
upon by the appellants the Court held contrary to what has been argued
before us. Relying upon its earlier judgment in State of U.P. & Ors. v. J.P.
Chaurasia & Ors. [1989] 1 SCC 121 it was held that the classification can be
based on some qualities or characteristics of persons grouped together and
not in others who are left out. Those qualities or characteristics must, of
course, have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In
. service matters, merit or experience could.be the proper basis for classification
to promote efficiency in the administration. It was further observed that the
quality of work performed by persons of longer experience was superior than
the work of new comers.
We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Central Administrative Tribunal
had rightly rejected the applications of the appellants as it did not find any
illegality or unconstitutionality in the classification of two grades of the SSAs
particularly when the classification was shown to have been made on the
basis of an award in which the SSAs themselves were shown to have demanded
H two pay-scales.
.. ~
-
U.0.1. v. ANIL KUMR [SETHI, J.]
851
However to give a finality to the dispute raised by the appellants, the A
Central Administrative Tribunal permitted them to make appropriate
representation to the 5th Pay Commission which at that time was going into
the question of revision of pay-scales of the government staff for resolving
the anomaly, if any, by giving them the appropriate relief being a body
comprising of experts aware of the difficulties faced by different sections of
the services.
B
In the other set of appeals, the respondents Assistant Foremen in the
Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO) approached the
Central Administrative Tribunal with prayer to declare Rule 3(a) and 3(b) of
the DRTC Rules 1995 as illegal and unconstitutional, with a further direction C
that the rule making authorities were bound to place them in an appropriate
newly designated post either in the pay-scale of Rs. 2000-3200 or of the higher
pay-scale and not in the lower pay-scale was done vide the impugned rules.
They contended that the Defence Research and Development Organisation
under the control of Ministry of Defence, the Class III non-gazetted technical
scientific and non-ministerial posts were earlier governed by the Recuritment D
Rules issued under SR 230 called "Defence Research and Development
Organisation Class III non-gazetted (technical scientific and other nonministerial) post Recruitment Rules 1968'', dated 26.6.1968. The cadre of Chief
Draughtsman, Draughtsman Grade I came under non-ministerial cadre and the
cadre of Chargeman Grade I, and Assistant Foreman under the techr:cal E
cadre. The Cadre of Senior Scientific Assistance came under the sci er 1tific
cadre. The cadres of Senior Scientific Assistants on the scientific cadre and
Chargeman Grade I and Draughtsman Grade I on the non-ministerial cac. re had
the pay-scales lower than that of pay-scales of the Assistant Foremai, ani.
the cadre of Chief Draughtsman on the non-ministerial cadre had the same
pay-scale of Rs. 2000-3200 as that of the cadre of Assistant Foreman on the F
technical cadre. Jn the technical cadre there were four stages and the post of
Foreman was the highest on the technicai cadre.