UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus MANOJ KUMAR & ORS. on 31 August 2021

[2021] 8 S.C.R. 1161

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

v.

MANOJ KUMAR & ORS.

(Civil Appeal Nos. 913 – 914 of 2021)

AUGUST 31, 2021

[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]

Service Law – Pay Scales – Parity in – Private Secretaries(Grade-II) (“PS-II”) employed in the Eastern Central Railways(Field Office/Zonal Railways) made claim for parity in pay withtheir counterparts working in the Central Secretariat StenographersService (“CSSS”)/Railway Board Secretariat Stenographers Service(“RBSSS”)/Central Administrative Tribunal (“CAT”) – Held: Thereis no continued history of parity insofar as present case isconcerned, i.e., sometimes parity was given and sometimes not – Itis not as if the 6[th] Pay Commission was unaware of the plea ofdisparity between the Secretariat and field offices, but despite havingtaking note of the same some difference was sought to be madebetween Secretariat and non-Secretariat offices – Yet to some extent,a separate recommendation was made qua Secretariat Organizationsand non-Secretariat Organizations – Once these recommendationsare separately made, to direct absolute parity would be to make theseparate recommendations qua non-Secretariat Organizations otiose– Further, the Courts ought not to interfere if the Commission itselfhad considered all aspects and after due consideration opined thatabsolute equality ought not to be given.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The correct perspective has been taken in V.N.Narayanappa & Ors. insofar as which clause of the 6[th] CPCrecommendations would be applicable. This Court finds that onceit comes to the conclusion that the regional offices of the Railwaysare to be treated as non-Secretariat Organizations, then thespecific recommendations in para 3.1.14 of the report of the6[th] CPC relating to such non-Secretariat Organizations will apply.The observations made in para 3.1.9 which are qua Secretariatoffices giving parity between the Private Secretary/equivalent toa Section Officer cannot be said to be mutatis mutandis applicable

A

B

CDE

F

GH

Aeven to non-Secretariat Organizations. If this Court were to opineotherwise and equate everybody there would have been nopurpose in the 6[th] CPC making separate recommendations fornon-Secretariat Organizations in their wisdom. It is not as if theCommission was unaware of the plea of disparity between theSecretariat and field offices as that was dealt with in paras 3.1.2Band 3.1.3 but despite having taken note of the same somedifference was sought to be made between Secretariat and non-Secretariat offices. [Para 14][1173-E-H]

2. The Pay Commission is a specialized body set up with the objective of resolving anomalies. It is relevant to note thatCthe anomaly in question was referred to the Pay Commission atthe request of candidates similarly situated to the respondentsand thus, the 6[th] CPC was aware of the claim for parity and therequirement of making a recommendation in that regard. In itswisdom while giving better scales it has still sought to maintain a Dseparate recommendation for non-Secretariat Organizations. [Para15][1174-A-B]

3. There is also a plea by the respondents that therecruitment process for the two cadres was common and personsused to be transferred from one to the other. Some illustrationsEhave been given of this. In fact, the plea of the respondents isthat there have been times when a common competitive examwas conducted and sometimes the exams were conductedseparately. In this regard, it has been explained by the AdditionalSolicitor General on behalf of the appellants that the cadres areseparate and the rules governing them are also separate. TheFStenographers under the Railway Board are governed by theRBSS Rules, 1971, the Central Secretariat Stenographers aregoverned by the CSS Rules, 1969 and the CSSS Rules, 2010 andthe Stenographers in the Central Administrative Tribunal aregoverned by the CATSS Rules, 2013. These are the posts withGwhich the respondents sought parity. On the other hand, therespondents working in the Zonal Railways were governed byRule 107 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code. The avenueand channel of promotion of stenographers in the Railway Boardand the Zonal Railways, it has been stated, are entirely different.[Para 16][1174-C-F]H

4. The appellants did accept that there were some cases oftransfer, but those were persons who were brought to the RailwayBoard for exigency of work – it was not as if they were absorbedin the Railway Board. There were also cases where transferstook place from the Railway Board to the Zonal Railway offices,but that was on the specific request of such officers and consideredon a case-to-case basis and they had to take then seniority at thebottom of the list. [Para 17][1174-F-G]

5. Para 3.1.3 which dealt with the disparity between theSecretariat and field offices has canvassed a case for paritybetween similarly placed persons employed in field offices andthe Secretariat; in view of the field offices being at the cuttingedge of administration. However, it came to the conclusion thatparity would need to be absolute till the grade of Assistant. Itwas clearly stipulated that beyond that “it may not be possible oreven justified to grant complete parity because the hierarchy andcareer progression will need to be different taking in view thefunctional considerations and relativities across the board.” If thisprinciple is observed, the benefit cannot accrue to therespondents and we cannot accept the plea that as a result ofparity being given up to the level of Assistant (which would putthem in the grade of Rs.4200 (later Rs.4600)), the respondents,being one post higher, would automatically have to get one highergrade. [Para 18][1174-G-H; 1175-A-B]

19. This Court is fortified in the view we are seeking toadopt in interpreting the paragraphs of the report of the PayCommission by the observations in Union of India v. Tarit RanjanDas, where it was opined that the principle of equal pay for equalwork cannot be applied merely on basis of designation. Whiledealing with the 5[th] Pay Commission recommendations withrespect to functional requirements, it was held that there was noquestion of any equivalence on that basis. The said case dealtwith Stenographers of the Geological Survey of India. Whileobserving that as a general statement it was correct to state thatthe basic nature of work of a Stenographer remained by and largethe same whether they were working for an officer in theSecretariat or for an officer in a subordinate office; it was heldthat Courts ought not to interfere if the Commission itself had AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aconsidered all aspects and after due consideration opined thatabsolute equality ought not to be given. [Para 19][1175-C-E]

20. In the end this Court would like to reiterate that theaspect of disparity between the Secretariat and the field officeswas a matter taken note of by the Commission itself while makingBthe recommendations. Yet to some extent, a separaterecommendation was made qua Secretariat Organizations and non-Secretariat Organizations. Once these recommendations areseparately made, to direct absolute parity would be to make theseparate recommendations qua non-Secretariat OrganizationsCotiose. If one may say, there would have been no requirement tomake these separate recommendations if everyone was to betreated on parity on every aspect. [Para 20][1175-E-G]

V. N. Narayanappa & Ors. v. The Secretary, RailwayBoard Etc. (CAT, Bangalore in Original ApplicationNos.640-649 and 1001-1030 of 2014 decided onD13.04.2016); S. R. Dheer & Ors. v. Union of India &Ors. (CAT at Delhi in case OA No.164/2009 decidedon 19.02.2009); Rabindra Nath Basu & Ors. v. Unionof India & Ors. (Bangalore Bench, CAT in OANo.2102/2010 decided on 16.05.2011); Union of IndiaEv. Tarit Ranjan Das (2003) 11 SCC 658 : [2003] 4 Suppl.SCR 339 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

[2003] 4 Suppl. SCR 339referred toPara 19F

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 913-914 of 2021.

From the Judgment and Order dated 21.03.2017 of the High Courtof Judicature at Patna in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case [CWJC] No.15717Gof 2016 and order dated 23.08.2017 in R.A. No.191 of 2017 in CWJCNo.15717 of 2016.

R.S. Suri, ASG, Ms. V. Mohana, R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Advs.,Nalin Kohli, P.V. Yogeswaran, Amrish Kumar, Advs. for the Appellants.

H

Vikas Singh, Shanker Raju, Sr. Advs., Vivek Singh, Ms. DeepeikaKalia, Kapish Seth, Mritunjay Singh, C.P. Rajwar, Udita Singh, LakshmiRaman Singh, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

1. Indian Railways is the largest civilian employer in the countrycomprising of six production units and eighteen zones, with each zonehaving three to six divisions.[1] The total number of employees as on31.03.2005 was stated to be about 14 lakh with the following distributionof staff strength:

* As per the Indian Railways Annual Report and Accounts2019-20, the current strength is about 12,53,592 as on 31.03.2020.

2. The Sixth Central Pay Commission (“6[th] CPC”) report inchapter 7.36 deals with the Ministry of Railways and shows that it hasfourteen departments, including the Railway Board. The report examinedthe demands of these different departments seeking higher pay-scalesand allowances for various categories in different departments. We areconcerned in the present matter with claims made by Private Secretaries(Grade-II) (“PS-II”) employed in the Eastern Central Railways (FieldOffice/Zonal Railways),for parity in pay with their counterparts workingin the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service (“CSSS”)/RailwayBoard Secretariat Stenographers Service (“RBSSS”)/CentralAdministrative Tribunal (“CAT”). We may note at this stage itself thatthere have been conflicting judicial views on the claim for such paritywhich we will come to later.

3. We may notice that the 6[th] CPC referred to the demands madeby common category posts relating to certain cadres in the Ministry ofRailways in para 7.36.95. One of the common category posts is that of“Typists and Stenographers”. Thereafter, in para 7.36.96, it was observed 1 Indian Railways Annual Report and Accounts 2019-20 pg. 6.

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Athat these common categories have been covered by the Commissionelsewhere in the report. It was stated that the recommendations madetherein shall apply in respect of the common category posts in the Ministryof Railways as well, there being no separate recommendations madefor this category. In the aforesaid conspectus we have to turn to Chapter3.1 of the report of the 6[th] CPC, which deals with “HeadquartersBOrganisations in Government of India & Office Staff in field offices”.The disparity between Secretariat and Field offices is set out in clauses3.1.2 and 3.1.3, which read as under:

“Disparity between Secretariat and field offices C3.1.2 The senior administrative posts in the Secretariat are mainlyfilled by officers of All India Services and Central Group A serviceson deputation under the Central Staffing Scheme. Some of theposts in the middle level are also held by officers of the CentralSecretariat Services, Railway Board Secretariat Service inMinistry of Railways, Defence Forces Headquarters Services inDMinistry of Defence and by Indian Foreign services (B) in Ministryof External Affairs. Historically, various services in the Secretariathave been given an edge over analogous posts in the field offices.This was done on the ground that office staff in the Secretariatperforms complex duties and are involved in analyzing issues withEpolicy implications whereas their counter parts in field officesperform routine work relating to routine matters concerningpersonnel and general administration, etc. Another argument thatis used to justify the edge for various posts in Secretariat is that inSecretariat, level jumping occurs and personnel in the grade ofAssistant etc. submit files directly to decision making levels ofF”Under Secretary, Deputy Secretary, etc.

3.1.3 Higher pay scales in the Secretariat offices may have beenjustified in the past when formulation of proper policies was ofparamount importance. The present position is different. Today,the weakest link in respect of any Government policy is at theGdelivery stage.This phenomenon is not endemic to India.Internationally also, there is an increasing emphasis onstrengthening the delivery lines and decentralization with greaterrole being assigned at delivery points which actually determinesthe benefit that the common citizen is going to derive out of anyHpolicy initiative of the Government. The field offices are at the UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. MANOJ KUMAR & ORS.[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

cutting edge of administration and may, in most cases, determinewhether a particular policy turns out to be a success or a failure interms of actual benefit to the consumer. Accordingly, the time hascome to grant parity between similarly placed personnel employedin field offices and in the Secretariat. This parity will need tobe absolute till the grade of Assistant. Beyond this, it maynot be possible or even justified to grant complete paritybecause the hierarchy and career progression will need tobe different taking in view the functional considerationsand relativities across the board.”

(emphasis supplied)

(emphasis supplied)

4. The recommendations in para 3.1.9 have been made for variousposts from the LDC to the Director including Section Officer, with acaveat that in the case of Sections Officers having pay scale ofRs. 8000-13500, the scale would only be available to such of theseorganizations/services which have had a historical parity with CSS/CSSS.We, however, note that before setting forth in a tabular form the revisedpay-scales of the different posts, it has been observed in para 3.1.9 that:“these recommendations shall apply mutatis-mutandis to post ofPrivate Secretary/equivalent in these services as well.”

5. We may note that the submission of the respondents is that it isthis clause which ought to govern; and that it recommends parity betweenthe post of Private Secretaries/equivalent and the post of a Section Officer.We now turn to clause 3.1.14 which deals with recommendations fornon-Secretariat Organizations. According to the appellants, the aspectssought to be raised before us are specifically dealt with under thisparagraph; and thus, the respondent’s claim that their pay-scale ought tobe governed by para 3.1.9 is misplaced. These paragraphs read as under:

“Recommendations

3.1.9 Accordingly, the Commission recommends upgradation ofthe entry scale of Section Officers in all Secretariat Services(including CSS as well as nonparticipating ministries/departments/organizations) to Rs.7500-12000 corresponding to the revised payband PB 2 of Rs.8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs.4800.Further, on par with the dispensation already available in CSS, theSection Officers in other Secretariat Offices, which have alwayshad an established parity with CSS/CSSS, shall be extended the AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

G

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

scale of Rs.8000-13500 in Group B corresponding to the revisedpay band PB 2 of Rs.8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs.4800on completion of four years service in the lower grade. This willensure full parity between all Secretariat Offices. It is clarifiedthat the pay band PB 2 of Rs.8700-34800 along with grade pay ofRs.4800 is being recommended for the post of Section Officer inthese services solely to maintain the existing relativities whichwere disturbed when the scale was extended only to the SectionOfficers in CSS. The grade carrying grade pay of Rs.4800 in payband PB-2 is, otherwise, not to be treated as a regular grade andshould not be extended to any other category of employees. Theserecommendations shall apply mutatis-mutandis to post of PrivateSecretary/equivalent in these services as well. The structure ofposts in Secretariat Offices would now be as under:-

* This scale shall be available only in such of those organizations/services which have had a historical parity with CSS/CSSS.Services like AFHQSS/AFHQSSS/RBSS and Ministerial/Secretarial posts in Ministries/Departments organizations like UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. MANOJ KUMAR & ORS.[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.]

MEA, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, CVC, UPSC, etc. wouldtherefore be covered.”

A

“Recommendations for non - Secretariat Organizations 3.1.14 In accordance with the principle established in the earlierparagraphs, parity between Field and Secretariat Offices isBrecommended. This will involve merger of few grades. In theStenographers cadre, the posts of Stenographers Grade II andGrade I in the existing scales of Rs.4500-7000/Rs, 5000-8000 andRs.5500-9000 will, therefore, stand merged and be placed in thehigher pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. In the case of ministerial postin non- Secretariat Offices, the posts of Head Clerks, Assistants,COffice Superintendent and Administrative Officers Grade III inthe respective pay scales of Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000 andRs.6500-10500 will stand merged. The existing and revisedstructure in Field Organization will, therefore, be as follows:- H

1170SUPREME COURT REPORTS

H

1170SUPREME COURT REPORTS

AA perusal of paragraph 3.1.14 would show that Steno (Grade-II)has specifically been mentioned under this paragraph and it dealswith the aspect of parity between field and Secretariat offices.

6. We consider it appropriate to settle the aforesaid issue which ison a plain reading of the recommendations of the 6[th] CPC as a lot ofBother arguments and claims of parity will flow from which clause wouldgovern.

7. There is no doubt, in our considered view, that though there isan observation that the recommendations shall apply mutatis mutandisto Private Secretaries and posts equivalent thereto in the service underCpara 3.1.9; the subsequent paragraph 3.1.14 has specifically dealt withthe aspect of parity between the field and Secretariat offices, which isreally the subject matter of the claim before us.

8. The plea of the respondents is that para 3.1.9 of therecommendations of the 6[th] CPC has been issued pursuant to parasD7.36.95 and 7.36.96. No separate recommendations for Stenographersin zonal offices of Railways have been made. Para 3.1.9, which relatesspecifically to Section Officers also provides that it applies mutatismutandis to private secretaries in these services. The premise of thisplea is therefore that para 3.1.14 deals with the recommendations forEnon-Secretariat Organizations other than the Railways, and that theyshould be treated as Secretariat organizations. In our view this becomesa crucial issue. In the spectrum of conflicting views of different CentralAdministrative Tribunals, the view of the CAT, Bangalore in OriginalApplication Nos. 640-649 and 1001-1030 of 2014 seek to favour thecase of the appellants.F

9. If we turn to that judgment (V.N. Narayanappa & Ors. v.The Secretary, Railway Board Etc.) decided on 13.04.2016, the factualmatrix deals with a case of similarly situated Private Secretaries (GradeII) in the Southern Railways. In considering this plea, the Tribunal tooknote of a different view in O.A. No.658/2010 decided on 05.06.2012 byGthe Madras Bench of the Tribunal, which the applicants therein soughtto rely upon. That judgment in turn was based on an earlier view of thePrincipal Bench of the CAT at Delhi in the case of OA No.164/2009decided on 19.02.2009 (S.R. Dheer & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.), H

in respect of Private Secretaries (Grade-II) of the CAT. At this juncture,it may be important to note that the respondents herein in their OA beforethe CAT Patna, also claimed parity with the aforementioned decision ofthe CAT Madras. The Madras Bench of the CAT had noticed that norecruitment rules had been placed on record by the Government whilestating that different standards of academic and professionalqualifications, etc. exist. Thus, the view of the Madras Bench of theTribunal was based on absence of material and on a reason of paritywith the Principal Bench at Delhi, even though the Principal Bench atDelhi dealt with the case of CAT Stenographers (Grade II) officers andhad allowed the OA on the basis of historical parity.

10. We may add here that the views of the Madras CAT have notbeen interfered with by this Court. Both an SLP challenging the decisionand a subsequent Review Petition met with a summary dismissal andresultantly, the question to be decided in this case has not been specificallydealt with by this Court. This has resulted in the implementation of differentorders in different matters, which are really contradictory in nature.

11. The Bangalore Bench of the CAT in seeking to determine theissue on merits sought strength from an earlier decision of the PrincipalBench (Delhi) in OA No.2102/2010 in Rabindra Nath Basu & Ors. v.Union of India & Ors. and other connected matters decided on16.05.2011 dealing with the case of the Assistant Staff Officers of theOrdnance Factory Board. The CAT therein opined that the applicantsbelonged to a non-Secretariat organization and would therefore becovered by the pay-scale prescribed in para 3.1.14 of the 6[th] CPC.

12. If we notice the discussion in V.N. Narayanappa & Ors.[2],historical parity is one of the aspects which has been examined. Thefactual matrix in the present case is that there was such historical parityunder the first and second Pay Commissions’ recommendations.However, the third and fourth Pay Commissions did not give parity andthe fifth Pay Commission gave parity to a limited extent. Thus, there isno continued history of parity insofar the present case is concerned, i.e.,sometimes parity was given and sometimes not. The history as availablefrom the brief note submitted by the respondents and is as under:

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

13. We now turn to the aspect of whether the post in the case inhand can be said to be that of a Secretariat or non-Secretariatorganization. This aspect, once again, has been dealt with in the judgmentin V.N. Narayanappa & Ors.[3], taking note of Swamy’s Compilation ofC6[th] CPC Report Part I (pages 141 to 147) and Swamy’s Manual onOffice Procedure 2006 and 2009. In the definition Chapter at entry 53,Secretariat Offices are said to have been defined as those which areresponsible for formulation of the policies of the Government and alsofor the execution and review of those policies. Relying on this definition,Dit was opined that the organizations where the applicants in V.N.Narayanappa & Ors.[4 ]were working, were not SecretariatOrganizations, but were non-Secretariat Organizations or attached officesor subordinate offices thereto. The meaning of subordinate offices isstated to signify their function as field establishments or as agenciesresponsible for the detailed execution of the policies of Government.EThey function under the direction of an attached office or directly undera department. In that context, it was opined that there exists a distinctionin the works, functions and responsibilities between Secretariat and non-Secretariat organizations. As such, it was noted that if there are functionaldissimilarities between the cadres, there are bound to be financialFdisparities in pay and allowances. It would be useful to reproduce paras38 and 39 of the judgment in V.N. Narayanappa & Ors.[5], which readas under:

“38. As it would be evident from the discussions in the precedingparas, there is a significant difference in the recruitment rules,Gpromotional hierarchy etc. between the applicants who are PrivateSecretaries Grade-II in the Zonal Railways with that of PrivateSecretaries in the Railway Board/Central Secretariat Services/

3 (supra)4 (supra)H5 (supra)

CSSS or CAT. There also no case of any historical parity betweenthe applicants and their counterparts in CSSS or CAT or RBSS.Therefore the applicants cannot claim the benefits of pay scalesallowed to CSSS in the ratio of judgments in OA No.164/2009 inS.R. Dheer & Ors. v. Union of India wherein the PrivateSecretaries in the CAT were granted the benefit on the basis ofestablishment of a historical parity with CSS.

39. In this context, we also note the submission made by therespondents about the consequential implications on various othercategories/groups under the respondents if such benefit is grantedto the applicants even though they do not have any parity withRBSS and CSSS and are not entitled to the same. The Railwaysis a vast organization where there are many cadres/category ofemployees having identical pay scales and equal parity with thatof Private Secretaries Grade-II in the Zonal Railways. A list ofsuch groups has been highlighted in the reply statement. Therefore,grant of benefit which the applicants are otherwise not entitled towill also have an effect on the other cadres of Railways ascontended.”

14. We do believe in the conspectus of the aforesaid discussionthat the correct perspective has been taken in V.N. Narayanappa &Ors.[6] insofar as which clause of the 6[th] CPC recommendations wouldbe applicable. We find that once we come to the conclusion that theregional offices of the Railways are to be treated as non-SecretariatOrganizations, then the specific recommendations in para 3.1.14 relatingto such non-Secretariat Organizations will apply. The observations madein para 3.1.9 which are qua Secretariat offices giving parity between thePrivate Secretary/equivalent to a Section Officer cannot be said to bemutatis mutandis applicable even to non-Secretariat Organizations. Ifwe were to opine otherwise and equate everybody there would havebeen no purpose in the 6[th] CPC making separate recommendations fornon-Secretariat Organizations in their wisdom. It is not as if theCommission was unaware of the plea of disparity between the Secretariatand field offices as that was dealt with in paras 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 butdespite having taken note of the same some difference was sought to bemade between Secretariat and non-Secretariat offices.

6 (supra)

AB

C

D

E

F

G

A15. The Pay Commission is a specialized body set up with theobjective of resolving anomalies. It is relevant to note that the anomalyin question was referred to the Pay Commission at the request ofcandidates similarly situated to the respondents and thus, the 6[th] CPCwas aware of the claim for parity and the requirement of making arecommendation in that regard. In its wisdom while giving better scalesBit has still sought to maintain a separate recommendation for non-Secretariat Organizations.

A

16. We may also notice another aspect. There is a plea by therespondents that the recruitment process for the two cadres was commonand persons used to be transferred from one to the other. SomeCillustrations have been given of this. In fact, the plea of the respondentsis that there have been times when a common competitive exam wasconducted and sometimes the exams were conducted separately. In thisregard, it has been explained by the learned Additional Solicitor Generalon behalf of the appellants that the cadres are separate and the rulesDgoverning them are also separate. The Stenographers under the RailwayBoard are governed by the RBSS Rules, 1971, the Central SecretariatStenographers are governed by the CSS Rules, 1969 and the CSSS Rules,2010 and the Stenographers in the Central Administrative Tribunal aregoverned by the CATSS Rules, 2013. These are the posts with whichthe respondents sought parity. On the other hand, the respondents workingEin the Zonal Railways were governed by Rule 107 of the Indian RailwayEstablishment Code. The avenue and channel of promotion ofstenographers in the Railway Board and the Zonal Railways, it has beenstated, are entirely different.

17. Learned counsel for the appellants did accept that there wereFsome cases of transfer, but those were persons who were brought to theRailway Board for exigency of work – it was not as if they were absorbedin the Railway Board. There were also cases where transfers took placefrom the Railway Board to the Zonal Railway offices, but that was onthe specific request of such officers and considered on a case-to-caseGbasis and they had to take then seniority at the bottom of the list.

18. Para 3.1.3 which dealt with the disparity between theSecretariat and field offices has canvassed a case for parity betweensimilarly placed persons employed in field offices and the Secretariat; inview of the field offices being at the cutting edge of administration.HHowever, it came to the conclusion that parity would need to be absolute

till the grade of Assistant. It was clearly stipulated that beyond that “itmay not be possible or even justified to grant complete paritybecause the hierarchy and career progression will need to bedifferent taking in view the functional considerations and relativitiesacross the board.” If this principle is observed, the benefit cannot accrueto the respondents and we cannot accept the plea that as a result ofparity being given up to the level of Assistant (which would put them inthe grade of Rs.4200 (later Rs.4600)), the respondents, being one posthigher, would automatically have to get one higher grade.

19. We are fortified in the view we are seeking to adopt ininterpreting the aforesaid paragraphs of the Pay Commission by theobservations in Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das,[7 ]where it wasopined that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be appliedmerely on basis of designation. While dealing with the 5[th] Pay Commissionrecommendations with respect to functional requirements, it was heldthat there was no question of any equivalence on that basis. The saidcase dealt with Stenographers of the Geological Survey of India. Whileobserving that as a general statement it was correct to state that thebasic nature of work of a Stenographer remained by and large the samewhether they were working for an officer in the Secretariat or for anofficer in a subordinate office; it was held that Courts ought not tointerfere if the Commission itself had considered all aspects and afterdue consideration opined that absolute equality ought not to be given.

20. In the end we would like to reiterate that the aspect of disparitybetween the Secretariat and the field offices was a matter taken note ofby the Commission itself while making the recommendations. Yet tosome extent, a separate recommendation was made qua SecretariatOrganizations and non-Secretariat Organizations. Once theserecommendations are separately made, to direct absolute parity wouldbe to make the separate recommendations qua non-SecretariatOrganizations otiose. If one may say, there would have been norequirement to make these separate recommendations if everyone wasto be treated on parity on every aspect.

21. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we find the impugnedjudgment, which in turn relies upon other orders passed by differentTribunals and Courts unsustainable, and is accordingly set aside.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

1176SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2021] 8 S.C.R.

A22. The appeals are accordingly allowed.

23. We hope this puts to rest this controversy which has beenagitated before different forums without receiving a final reasoned viewof this Court.

B

Ankit Gyan

Appeals allowed.

C

D

E

F

G

H