TAMIL NADU RURAL DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS AND ASSISTANT ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION versus GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS on 28 November 2019

TAMIL NADU RURAL DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS ANDASSISTANT ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION

v.

GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS

(Civil Appeal No.10029 of 2017)

NOVEMBER 28, 2019

[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]

Service Law:

Pay – Constitution of Pay Grievance Cell – For removal ofanomalies in the pay scale of employees in question – Pursuant torecommendations regarding pay-scale of State Governmentemployees in consonance with recommendations made by Central6th Pay Commission – Initially one man Commission was appointedto remove anomaly in the pay-scale of Public Works Departmentemployees – After accepting the recommendations of One ManCommission, the State later downgraded 52 categories of posts invarious Departments to lower pay-scale – Representation byaggrieved employees – State constituted Pay Grievance RedressalCell (PGRC) for looking into the grievances and considerrepresentation – Writ Petitions – Dismissed by Single Judge of HighCourt directing the State to reconstitute the PGRC – Writ Appeal –During pendency of Writ Appeal, PGRC constituted, it consideredseveral representations and gave its recommendations, which wereimplemented by the State by G.O. No. 242 dated 22.7.2013 – G.O.No. 242 was also challenged in Writ Petition – Disposing of thewrit petitions and writ appeals, Division Bench of High Court heldthat reduction in pay-scale was without following principle ofnatural justice hence directed the State to constitute a ‘PayGrievance Redressal Committee’ to analyse and consider the case– Appeal by the employees as well as the State to Supreme Court –Held: Recommendations of the One Man Commission were foundto be anomalous – If the State government constituted the PGRC toaddress those anomalies, such decision by itself cannot be found tobe illegal or invalid – Prescription of pay-scale and assessment inthat behalf being a complex matter need to be assessed by experts

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

[2019] 14 S.C.R.

A– Therefore, there is no error in the impugned order directingconstitution of PGRC.

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. GO No. 242 dated 22.7.2013 indicates very clearlythat the Assistant Engineers who were in the pre-revised payBscale of Rs.6500-11100 by virtue of acceptance of therecommendations made by the 6[th] Central Pay Commission werekept in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4700/- as a result of GO No. 234 dated 01.06.2009, while the nextpromotional level i.e. of the Assistant Executive Engineers wasCkept at Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.5400/-. Therecommendations of the One Man Commission resulted in upwardrevision to the extent of Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay ofRs.5400/- for the Assistanct Engineers. The recommendationsof the Pay Greivance Redressal Cell resulted in refixation forAssistant Engineers in the scale of Rs.9300-34800 with marginalDincrease of grade pay to Rs.5100/- as against what was availablepursuant to GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009. [Para 13] [1025-B-D]

2. The recommendations of the PGRC dealt with the effectsof the acceptance of the recommendations by the One ManCommission. The recommendations shows that certain aspectsEof the matter were found to be anomalous. The difference betweenthe Assistant Engineers and the post immediately lower than thatwas getting widened, while at the same time, the post of AssistantEngineer and the next level of promotion i.e. the post of AssistantExecutive Engineer were brought almost at the same level. TheseFanomalies found by the State Government, had to be addressed.If the State Government, therefore, constituted the PGRC, suchdecision by itself cannot be found to be illegal or invalid.[Para 14] [1025-E-F]

3. Prescription of pay-scales and the assessment in thatGbehalf is a complex matter which requires expertise. The 6[th]Central Pay Commission comprising of experts in the field hadrecommended certain pay-scales for various posts. The OfficialCommittee which comprised of Principal Secretary to the State,Home Department, as Chairperson with (i) Principal Secretary, H

Finance Department; (ii) Principal Secretary, Personnel andAdministrative Reforms Department; and (iii)Principal Secretary,School Education Department as Members, had examined thematter and made certain recommendations which were acceptedby the Government by GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009. The OneMan Commission appointed to consider the anomalies, however,recommended something which was far in excess of what wasaccepted by GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009 which in turn was intune with the recommendations of the 6[th] Central PayCommission. It is true that the Government had accepted therecommendations of the One Man Commission but if furtheranomalies were found which called for action on part of theGovernment, any exercise to reconsider the matter by the StateGovernment could not be faulted nor could the constitution ofthe PGRC be said to be invalid or illegal. [Paras 15, 16] [1025-G;1026-F-G; 1027-A-B]

4. Further, if there was any infirmity in the exercise of powerby the PGRC in not granting adequate notice and hearing to theconcerned, such infirmity could certainly be sorted out. That isexactly what the Division Bench undertook while passing thedirections. Therefore, there is no error in the approach of andthe directions issued by the Division Bench of the High Court.[Para 17] [1027-C]

5. But, it has been more than five years since the directionswere issued by the Division Bench of the High Court and as aresult of the interim orders passed by this Court, the PGRC couldnot be set up. In the circumstances, certain modifications in thedirections issued by the Division Bench of High Court are calledfor. It is directed that the State Government shall issueappropriate orders constituting the PGRC. [Para 18] [1027-D-E;1028-B]

6. It is clarified that regardless of the decision to be takenby the PGRC, any amount paid by way of financial benefit extendedto and enjoyed by the concerned employees shall not berecovered i.e. to say that in case the decision in pursuance of therecommendations of the PGRC results in reduction in pay-scalesor emoluments as were granted pursuant to GOs dated26.08.2010, such reduction shall be prospective in application A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Afrom the day the recommendations of the PGRC come into effect.[Para 19] [1028-F-G]

7. The affected categories shall not be permitted to migrateto 7[th] Central Pay Commission scales on the basis of the higherscales till such time as the final decision is taken. [Para 20]B[1029-B]

Dy. Director General of Geological Survey of India andAnotherv. R.Yadaiah and Others(2001) 10 SCC563; State of Bihar and Othersv. Bihar VeterinaryAssociation and Others(2008) 11 SCC 60 : [2008] 3CSCR 222 ;Hukumchand Guptav.ICAR (2012) 12 SCC666 : [2012] 8 SCR 831 – relied on.

Case Law Reference

of 2017

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.02.2014 of the High CourtEof Judicature at Madras in Writ Appeal No. 811/2012

With

Civil Appeal Nos. 10030-10189/2017, 10190/2017, 10191/2017 and10192/2017.

F

Mr. Vijay Narayan, Adv. General, Jayanth Muthuraj, AAG (TN),Balaji Srinivasan, AAG for TN, R. Venkataramani, Dushyant Dave, P.S.Patwalia, Gopal Shankar Narayanan, Ms. Aryama Sundaram, A.Thyagarajan, VinayNavare, Sr. Advs., Yashraj Bundela, Praveen Vignesh,S. Ravi Shankar, Prashant Bhushan, N. Subramaniyan, Pranav Sachdeva,GMs. Neha Rathi, Jatin Bhardwaj, Surinder Kr. Gupta, Ms. A. Jaswanthi,C.V. Vigneshwaran, K. V. Vijayakumar, B. Vinodh Kanna, LeninRajasehar, Mrs. S. Yamunah Nachiar, T. R. B. Sivakumar, B. Balaji,N. Subramaniayan, S. Muthu Krishnan, P. Soma Sundaram,K. V. Vijayakumar, Pranav Sachdeva, P. Arun Kr, G. Suvin Kumaran,Ms. Shivani Jena, Sriram P., M.A. Gowthaman, Ms. T. Archana, Gaffar, H

H

TAMIL NADU RURAL DEV. ENGINEERS AND ASSTT ENGINEERSASSN. v. GOVT. OF TAMIL NADU

Uma Prasuna Bachu, Senthil Jagadeesan, Ms. Sonakshi Malhan,Ms. Suriti Chowdhary, Ms. Mrinal Kanwar, R. Rajaramani,S. Mahendran,G. Umapathy, Ms. Vaishnavi, Ms. Pavitra, Rakesh K. Sharma, VijayKumar, Swarnam J. Rajagopal, Ms. S. Lakshmikanth, Anish R. Shah,S. Beno Bencigar, P.R. Kovilan, Prem Narayan, Parijat Kishore,S. Nanda Kumar, Ms. Deepika Nandakumar, M.S. Saran Kumar, NareshKumar, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.

1. These Appeals arise out of the judgment and order dated27.02.2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in WritAppeal No.504 of 2012 and all other connected matters.

2. After the recommendations were given in March 2008 forrevision of pay-scales by the 6[th] Central Pay Commission, an OfficialCommittee was constituted by the Government of Tamil Nadu to examineand make recommendations about the pay-scales of GovernmentEmployees in consonance with the recommendations made by the 6[th]Central Pay Commission. This Official Committee submitted its reporton 27.05.2009 making certain recommendations on “pay-scale topay-scale” basis i.e. to say that for the existing scales of pay, the revisedpay (pay band) and grade pay were recommended. The recommendationswere accepted by the State Government by GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009.For the present purposes the relevant part of GO No.234 may be quotedhere:

“(d) Further, the Government of India has granted two differentrevised scales of pay for the existing scale of Rs.8000-13500, onefor promotees on the revised pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 (PayBand – 2) with a Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/- and the other for directrecruits (Group – A entry) on the revised pay scale of Rs.15600–39100 (Pay Band-3) with the same Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/-. Thescale of pay of Section Officers in Central Secretariat has beenplaced in the Pay Band-3 i.e. Rs.15600-39100 + Grade Pay ofRs.5400/-. As the State Government is extending the same payscale to the Section Officer / Private Secretary in Tamil NaduSecretariat Service on par with their counterparts in CentralSecretariat, the Government direct that the Section Officer /

AB

C

DE

FG

APrivate Secretary in Secretariat / High Court / Tamil Nadu PublicService Commission shall also be placed in Pay Band–3. Further,all middle management posts, such as Administrative Officer,Accounts Officer, Deputy Collector etc. including Group–I entrylevel posts are presently granted a uniform scale of pay both forpromotees and direct recruits. Hence, the Government direct thatBall the posts carrying the present scale of pay of Rs.8000-13500shall be placed uniformly in Pay Band–3 and given the revisedpay scale of Rs.15600-39100 with the Grade Pay of Rs.5,400/-.Further, taking note of the fact that the same Grade Pay is allowedto the employees in Pay Band-2 from Rs.5000-8000 to Rs.6500-C10500 in the Government of India, the Government has modifiedthe Grade Pay as shown below so as to maintain the existing localrelativity: - A

D

E

In terms of GO No.234 notional effect was given from 01.01.2006while monetary benefits were accruable to the employees w.e.f.01.01.2007. Separate Government Orders were issued in respect eachFof the departments based on GO No.234.

3. Thereafter, One Man Commission headed by Mr. Rajiv Ranjan,Principal Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, IndustriesDepartment was constituted to rectify pay anomalies which had arisenas a result of implementation of the revised pay-scales pursuant to GOGNo.234. Said One Man Commission submitted its report on 31.03.2010.The State Government, through GO Nos.254 to 340 (86 GOs) acceptedthe recommendations of The One Man Commission. By way ofillustration, GO No.312 dated 26.08.2010 with respect to certain catego-ries of Public Works Department stated as under:

H

S

N1

“The One Man Commission constituted in the G.O. second readabove to examine anomalies, if any, consequent on theimplementation of the recommendations of the OfficialCommittee 2009 has recommended for revision of scales of payof certain categories in Public Works Department. After carefulexamination, the Government has decided to accept therecommendations made by the One Man Commission in respectof the above department. Accordingly, Government direct thatthe scales of pay of the following posts shall be revised as shownbelow:- A

B

2) The revision of scales of pay ordered in para -1 above shalltake notional effect from 1-1-2006 for the purpose of fixation ofpay in the revised scales of pay and with monetary benefit from01-08-2010.”

4. It is a matter of record that all Assistant Engineers who wereearlier put in the pay-scale of Rs.9300-34800 with Rs.4700 as GradePay were thus placed in the revised scale of pay of Rs.15600-39100with Rs.5400 Grade Pay, as a result of GOs dated 26.08.2010 and thebenefit in terms thereof was extended to the concerned persons andtheir pay-scale stood revised accordingly.

F

G

H

A5. The State Government, however, issued GO No.71 dated26.02.2011 scaling down certain benefits which were granted inpursuance of said GOs dated 26.08.2010. Such exercise was donewithout issuing any notice or affording any hearing to the persons con-cerned. As a result of this exercise, 52 categories of posts in variousdepartments were downgraded to lower pay-scales. It was, however,Bmade clear that whatever payment was made in terms of the earlierdecision, would not be recovered. The State Government alsoconstituted Pay Grievance Redressal Cell (“PGRC”, for short) inFinance Department headed by Thiru R. Thiyagrajan, Special Secretaryto Government, Finance Department to look into the grievances andCconsider the representations of the employees aggrieved as a result ofscaling down of the pay-scales.

6. Various writ petitions were filed by the concerned employeeschallenging the correctness and validity of GO No.71 dated 26.02.2011.These petitions were dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court byDjudgment and order dated 08.03.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.7006 of2011 and all connected matters. Since the services of ThiruR. Thiyagrajan were not available, the Single Judge directed the StateGovernment to re-constitute the PGRC.

7. The decision of the Single Judge was challenged by way ofEWrit Appeals and the Division Bench of the High Court by its orderdated 27.03.2012 granted interim stay except with regard to theconstitution of the PGRC. Consequently, the State Government issuedGO No.123 dated 10.04.2012 and re-constituted the PGRC withMr. Krishnan, Secretary to the Government as the Chairperson. TheFPGRC received around 4376 representations from various associationsof employees/individuals. The PGRC gave hearing to the concernedrepresentationists on 09.07.2012, 10.07.2012, 11.07.2012 and 16.08.2012and thereafter submitted its recommendations to the State Government.The relevant portion of the recommendations was:- G“1) The scales of pay of the employees in every pay revisionfrom Tamil Nadu Fifth Pay Commission is based on the paritywith similar posts in Government of India.

2) In Government of India both the Junior Engineer / AssistantEngineers are placed at the section level and its promotional postsAssistant Executive Engineer is placed at Sub-divisionallevel.

3) In Central Public Works Department the post of AssistantEngineer are placed in the scale of pay of Rs.9300-34800 + G.P.Rs.4600 as against the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.7400-11100based on the Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations.Further, the Junior Engineers are also claiming pay hike given toAssistant Engineer due to the huge variation in emolumentsconsequent on placing the Assistant Engineers erroneously in PayBand-3 (Rs.15600-39100 + G.P. Rs.5400) as both these posts areplaced at section level and discharging the same work. Thecomparison with Medical Doctor is also not appropriate as thereis no equivalent of Diploma holder in that line. In the Engineeringline, there is a separate category of Diploma holders, who areJunior Engineers and holding charge as ‘section in-charge’ likeAssistant Engineers. The recommendation of the One manCommission to place Assistant Engineers in Pay Band-3 openedup a huge differential with Junior Engineers, which appearsunjustified. Therefore, it is appropriate that the scale of pay ofAssistant Engineers in State Government may be brought downto Pay Band-2 at Rs.9300-34800. However, the Grade Pay ofRs.5100 already fixed in G.O.Ms.No.71, Finance (PC)Department, dated: 26-2-2011, which is at a level above theircounterparts in Government of India would be appropriate. It alsomaintains an appropriate difference of Rs.700/- in Grand Pay fromJunior Engineer. The Committee also recommend that the excesspayments made till the issue of revised orders may be waived andnot recovered.

4) It is observed that the Official Committee, 2009 had rightlyplaced the post of Assistant Engineer at Rs.9300-34800 + G.P.Rs.4700 as against the pre-revised scale of pay of Rs.6500-11100.In the light of the above facts, the Committee consider itappropriate to place the post of Assistant Engineers on par withsimilar posts in Central Public Works Department and also A

BCDEF

G

H

1020SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Aconsidering the local pay relatively among other higher posts, theCommittee recommends that it would be appropriate that the payscale of Assistant Engineers may be brought down to PayBand-2 from Pay Band-3 and granted an enhanced Grade Pay inthe scale of pay of Rs.9300-34800 + G.P. Rs.5100 i.e. with thesame Grade pay as ordered in G.O.Ms.No.71, Finance (Pay Cell)BDepartment dated:26-02-2011. This implies that the AssistantEngineer in State Public Works Department would be placed witha difference in Grade pay of Rs.500/- in Grade Pay above theAssistant Engineers in the Central Public Works Department.Likewise, the Committee also recommends to place the post ofCExecutive Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer in theappropriate revised scale of pay of Rs.15600-39100 + GP. Rs.6600and Rs.15600-39100 + G.P. Rs.5400 respectively as originallyrecommended by the Official Committee, 2009 duly endorsingthe orders issued by Government in G.O.Ms.No.71, Finance (PayCell) Department dated:26-02-2011 uniformly on par with theDequivalent posts in other Government Departments.”

8. The recommendations of the PGRC were accepted by the StateGovernment and GO No.242 was issued on 22.07.2013 to implementthe recommendations. After quoting certain portions of theErecommendations given by the PGRC, GO No.242 stated as under:

“After careful examination, the Government has decided toimplement the above recommendations of the Pay GrievanceRedressal Cell considering the level of Assistant Engineer inCentral Public Works Department and the consequential changesFmade thereon by endorsing / modifying the scales of pay ofcertain categories ordered in the G.O.Ms. No. 71, Finance (PayCell) Department, dated: 26.02.2011 read above.”

GO No.242 also gave a tabulated chart aboutvarious departments and insofar as Public Works Department was con-Gcerned, the tabulated chart was as under:

A1234 567S. Name of Pre-Revised Corresponding Scale of pay Scale of Pay Revised Scale of No. the Post/ Scale of Pay revised scale granted based as per pay Department of pay + G.P. on OMC / G.O.Ms subsequent No.71 dated GOS26.02.2011Rs.Rs. Rs.Rs.Rs.B1 to …. … …. … … .. 32. XIIPUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 33. Assistant 6500-11100 9300-34800 15600-39100 15600-39100 9300-34800 Engineer+4700+5400+5100+510034.Assistant 8000-1350015600-3910015600-3910015600-3910015600-39100Executive +5400 +6600 +5400 +5400 EngineerC35.Executive 10000-1520015600-3910015600-3910015600-3910015600-39100Engineer+6600+7600+6600+660036. Head 9100-14050 15600-39100 15600-39100 15600-39100 15600-39100 Draughting +5700 +6600 +5700 +5700 Officer37. … … … … … … to 52.D

It was also stated:

“(3) The revision of scale of pay ordered above shall takenotional effect from 01.01.2006/12.12.2007 as the case may bewith monetary benefit from 01.04.2013. However, the excesspayments, if any made to the employees so far shall be waivedand the pay refixed in the appropriate scales of pay as orderedabove.”

9. Number of writ petitions were filed challenging GO No.242dated 22.07.2013. Those writ petitions as well as the pending writ appealswere taken up together and disposed of by the Division Bench of theHigh Court by its judgment under appeal.

10. The Division Bench found that by fixing higher pay by virtueof GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009 and consequential separate GovernmentOrders issued for various departments, the concerned governmentemployees were paid higher salaries/pay-scales w.e.f. 01.01.2007 andsuch benefits were now reduced by the Orders which were underchallenge and the reduction in benefits was without following principlesof natural justice. Following directions were, therefore, issued by theDivision Bench:

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

“50. As we found illegality in not following the principles ofnatural justice, before reducing the scales of pay, it is necessarythat the matter is to be considered afresh by the Governmentafter giving opportunity to all concerned especially, for reducingthe scale of pay/grade pay. It is not in dispute that if really, thereis any pay anomaly, the government is entitled to remove the sameby following the due procedures. As rightly contended by thelearned Senior Counsels and other learned counsels for thepetitioners, the One-Man Committee and the PGRC appointed bythe Government, all its members are Government Officers andthey have already decided to reduce the pay scale of 52categories of 20 departments, including pensioners and familypensioners in those departments, it may not be appropriate againto permit the Government to reconsider the issue on therecommendations of the Government officials alone. At thisjuncture it is relevant to note that the Central Governmentappointed retired Judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to headthe V Central Pay Commission. Similarly, a retired Judge ofHon’ble Supreme Court was appointed as the Chairman of VICentral Pay Commission. The Hon’ble Supreme Court appointeda retired Judge of this Court to consider the pay anomaly amongthe Judicial Officers/Judicial Pensioners at All India level. It isalso not disputed that while extending the Pay Commissionbenefits, the technicalities as well as the legal issues regardingthe claim of Equal Pay for Equal Work, qualifications, nature ofduties etc. are also to be analysed and considered. Hence, we areof the view that it is just and appropriate to appoint a retired Judgeto head the Pay Grievance Redressal Committee.

51. In such circumstances, the writ appeals and writ petitions aredisposed of with the following directions:

(i) The Government shall constitute a Pay Grievance RedressalCommittee under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.S.Venkatachalmoorthy, formerly Judge of this Court, who waselevated and retired as Chief Justice of the Chattishgarh HighCourt.

(ii) The Government is at liberty to nominate one or two Seniorlevel IAS Officers at the level of Principal Secretary, serving/retired as Member(s) of the Pay Grievance RedressalCommittee.

(iii) The Pay Grievance Redressal Committee shall be givenspecific terms of reference by the Government, with a request tosubmit a report/recommendations for taking fresh decisionregarding the enhancement/reduction of the pay scales/grade payof 52 or more categories of 20 or more departments, etc.

(iv) The Government is directed to constitute the above saidcommittee within a period of three weeks from the date ofreceipt of copy of this order, prescribing time limit, within whichreport/recommendations is to be submitted for taking freshdecision.

(v) In view of the constitution of the above said Committee asordered above, the implementation of G.O.Ms.No.71 dated26.2.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.242 dated 22.7.2013 insofar as itaffects any category of Government Servants/ pensioners/familypensioners, which are not implemented as on today shall not beimplemented till fresh decision is taken.

(vi) If any of the categories of Government servants of anydepartment, who have been offered higher scales of pay as ontoday, it is open to the Government to implement the same insofaras the pay scales, which are beneficial to the employees of suchcategories.

(vii) As we have appointed the Chairman of the PGRC, we directthe Government of Tamil Nadu to make available office premiseswith supporting staff and to provide a Government car with driverfor the use of the Chairman for effective functioning of theCommittee.

(viii) We fix the remuneration for the Chairman of the Committeeas Rs.1.50 lakhs per month and direct the Government tosanction necessary funds towards remuneration and for meetingother expenses for effective functioning of the Committee.

(ix) It is open to the Government to fix remuneration of theMembers/Member of the Committee, to be nominated by theGovernment, if they are retired IAS officer(s).”

11. Two sets of appeals have been filed in this Court challengingthe decision of the Division Bench. The first set is by the GovernmentEmployees and their Associations submitting inter alia that once the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aprocess undertaken by the State Government was found to be in violationof the principles of natural justice, complete benefit of setting aside theimpugned decisions ought to have been extended. It is also submittedthat the exercise undertaken by the One Man Commission was a properexercise and its recommendations were accepted by the StateGovernment after considering the matter carefully and thus there wasBno occasion for the State Government to take any different view in thematter. On the other hand, the second set of appeals, at the instance ofthe State Government submits inter alia that the exercise undertakenby the PGRC was after giving due opportunity to the concernedemployees and their Associations and as such the High Court was notCjustified in setting aside GO No.242 seeking to implement therecommendations given by the PGRC.

By interim order passed in these matters, stay of operation of thejudgment under appeal, to the extent fresh PGRC was directed to be setup, was granted by this Court which status is still continuing.

D

12. We heard Mr. Dushyant Dave, Mr. R. Venkataramani,Mr. C.A. Sundaram, Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Mr. Vinay Navare, learnedSenior Advocates and Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned Advocate for theappellants in the first set of appeals and Mr. Vijay Narayan, learnedAdvocate General for the State. It was submitted by the learned counselEappearing for the Government Employees and their Associations thathaving accepted the recommendations made by the One ManCommission and having given benefits in terms of said recommendations,the State Government could not have lowered the pay scales of theconcerned employees. On the other hand, it is the submission of theState that the acceptance of the recommendations of the One ManFCommission resulted in greater anomalies; that the level of AssistantEngineers, which is the entry level in various Engineering services waswrongly clubbed with other entry level services like Assistant Surgeons;and that as a result of upward revision for Assistant Engineers the gapbetween the level of the Assistant Engineers and the subordinate ranksGgot widened to a considerable level while the Assistant Engineers andthe promotional level for Assistant Engineer were brought almost at thesame levels. According to the learned Advocate General, various suchanomalies were required to be sorted out which in turn made the StateGovernment to constitute the PGRC. According to the State Government, H

normally the pay scales afforded to equivalent ranks in the CentralGovernment are higher than the ranks in the State Government but theentry level of Assistant Engineers in the State Government, as a resultof the recommendations of the One Man Commission was kept at alevel far too higher than their counterparts in the Central Government.

13. The Tabulated Chart which is part of GO No.242 indicatesvery clearly that the Assistant Engineers who were in the pre-revisedpay scale of Rs.6500-11100 (column No.3), by virtue of acceptance ofthe recommendations made by the 6[th] Central Pay Commission werekept in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4700/-(column No.4) as a result of GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009, while thenext promotional level i.e. of the Assistant Executive Engineers waskept at Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.5400/-. Therecommendations of the One Man Commission resulted in upwardrevision to the extent of Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.5400/-(column No.5) for the Assistanct Engineers. The recommendations ofthe PGRC resulted in refixation for Assistant Engineers in the scale ofRs.9300-34800 with marginal increase of grade pay to Rs.5100/- (columnNo.7) as against what was available pursuant to GO No.234 dated01.06.2009.

14. The recommendations of the PGRC dealt with the effects ofthe acceptance of the recommendations by the One Man Commission.Para 3 of the recommendations quoted hereinabove shows that certainaspects of the matter were found to be anomalous. The submissionsadvanced by the learned Advocate General also show how the differencebetween the Assistant Engineers and the post immediately lower thanthat was getting widened, while at the same time, the post of AssistantEngineer and the next level of promotion i.e. the post of AssistantExecutive Engineer were brought almost at the same level. Theseanomalies found by the State Government, had to be addressed. If theState Government, therefore, constituted the PGRC, such decision byitself cannot be found to be illegal or invalid.

15. It has always been accepted by this Court that prescription ofpay-scales and the assessment in that behalf is a complex matter whichrequires expertise. For instance, in Dy. Director General of GeologicalSurvey of India and another v. R. Yadaiah and others[1] it wasobserved:

1(2001) 10 SCC 563

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

“Ordinarily, the courts or tribunal should not go into the questionof fitment of the officers in a particular group or the pay scalesthereof, and leave the matter to the discretion and expertise ofthe special commission like the Pay Commission.”

A

In State of Bihar and others v. Bihar Veterinary Association Band others[2] it was observed :- “13. If the courts start disturbing the recommendations of thepay scale in a particular class of service then it is likely to havecascading effect on all related services which may result intomultifarious litigation. The Fitment Committee has undertaken theCexercise and recommended the wholesale revision of the pay scalein the State of Bihar and if one class of service is to be picked upand granted higher pay scale as is available in the CentralGovernment then the whole balance will be disturbed and otherservices are likely to be affected and it will result in complexsituation in the State and may lead to ruination of the finances ofDthe State. …..”

In Hukumchand Gupta v. ICAR[3]it was stated :- “20. … Prescription of pay scales on particular posts is a verycomplex exercise. It requires assessment of the nature and qualityEof the duties performed and the responsibilities shouldered by theincumbents on different posts. Even though, the two posts maybe referred to by the same name, it would not lead to the necessaryinference that the posts are identical in every manner. These arematters to be assessed by expert bodies like the employer or thePay Commission. … …”F

E

16. It may be stated here that the 6[th] Central Pay Commissioncomprising of experts in the field had recommended certain pay-scalesfor various posts. The Official Committee which comprised of PrincipalSecretary to the State of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, as Chairpersonwith (i) Principal Secretary, Finance Department; (ii) Principal Secretary,GPersonnel and Administrative Reforms Department; and (iii)PrincipalSecretary, School Education Department as Members, had examinedthe matter and made certain recommendations which were accepted 2 (2008) 11 SCC 60H3(2012) 12 SCC 666

by the Government by GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009. The One ManCommission appointed to consider the anomalies, however, recommendedsomething which was far in excess of what was accepted by GO No.234dated 01.06.2009 which in turn was in tune with the recommendationsof the 6[th] Central Pay Commission. It is true that the Government hadaccepted the recommendations of the One Man Commission but if furtheranomalies were found which called for action on part of the Government,any exercise to reconsider the matter by the State Government couldnot be faulted nor could the constitution of the PGRC be said to beinvalid or illegal.

17. Further, if there was any infirmity in the exercise of power bythe PGRC in not granting adequate notice and hearing to the concerned,such infirmity could certainly be sorted out. That is exactly what theDivision Bench undertook while passing the directions quoted hereinabove.We, therefore, see no error in the approach of and the directions issuedby the Division Bench of the High Court.

18. But, it has been more than five years since the directionswere issued by the Division Bench of the High Court and as a result ofthe interim orders passed by this Court, the PGRC could not be set up.In the circumstances, certain modifications in the directions issued bythe Division Bench in para 5 of its order are called for and we proceedto direct:- (A) Direction No.(i) as issued by the Division Bench is reiteratedexcept that Mr. Justice A.S. Venkatachalamoorthy having nowexpressed his unwillingness, Mr. Justice D. Murugesan,formerly Chief Justice, High Court of Delhi is appointed asChairman of the Pay Grievance Redressal Committee.

(B) Direction No.(ii) as issued by the Division Bench is acceptedand it is added that the Chairman of the PGRC will be atliberty to co-opt any two experts as he deems appropriate asmembers of the PGRC, who shall be paid such honorariumby the State Government, as the Chairman deems appropriate.

(C) Direction Nos.(iii) and (v) to (vii) issued by the DivisionBenchare accepted and do not call for any change.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

A(D) Instead of Rs.1.5 lakhs per month, we fix the honorarium ofthe Chairman of the PGRC at Rs.3.5 lakhs per month but theother parts of Direction No.(viii) are maintained.

(E) Direction No.(ix) issued by the Division Bench is acceptedand does not call for any change.

B

(F) It is further directed:-

a) Within a week from today, the State Government shallissue appropriate orders constituting the PGRC as statedabove.

b) Within a week thereafter, the State Government shallmake appropriate and adequate arrangements and provideoffice space befitting the status of the Chairperson andother Members and also provide adequate staff,secretarial assistance and other facilities.

C

c) Within two weeks of the constitution of the PGRC all theconcerned individuals/associations shall file theirrepresentations. No representation filed beyond the periodof two weeks shall ordinarily be accepted by the PGRC.

D

d) Direction No. (iv) issued by the Division Bench shallstand modified to the aforesaid extent.

E

e) These directions are in addition to and in further elaborationof direction No. (vii) issued by the Division Bench.

19. It is clarified that regardless of the decision to be taken by thePGRC, any amount paid by way of financial benefit extended to andFenjoyed by the concerned employees shall not be recovered i.e. to saythat in case the decision in pursuance of the recommendations of thePGRC results in reduction in pay-scales or emoluments as were grantedpursuant to GOs dated 26.08.2010, such reduction shall be prospectivein application from the day the recommendations of the PGRC comeinto effect.G

20. It must be stated that the recommendations of the 7[th] CentralPay Commission have since been made and the issue regardingimplementation of such recommendations is presently under activeconsideration. The present matters which pertain to the recommendationsof the 6[th] Central Pay Commission therefore need to be resolved at theH

earliest. In the circumstances, we request the PGRC to conclude theentire exercise within four months from today.

By way of clarification, it is added that the affected categoriesshall not be permitted to migrate to 7[th] Central Pay Commission scaleson the basis of the higher scales till such time as the final decision istaken.

21. Lastly, it is clarified that the observations in the present orderhave been made purely from the stand point of consideration whetherthe decision of the State Government in constituting the PGRC wascorrect or not and not by way of reflection on merits of the matter. Thematter shall be considered by the PGRC and the State Governmentpurely on merits and uninfluenced by any of the observations made byus.

22. With the aforesaid directions these appeals are disposed ofwithout any order as to costs.

Kalpana K. Tripathy

Appeals disposed of.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H