PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED versus RAJESH KUMAR JINDAL & OTHERS on 8 January 2019

[2019] 2 S.C.R. 289

PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

v.

RAJESH KUMAR JINDAL & OTHERS

(Civil Appeal Nos.195-198 of 2019)

JANUARY 08, 2019

[R. BANUMATHI AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]

Service Law: Pay scale – Parity of – Posts of Head Clerksand the Internal Auditors in State Electricity Board – InternalAuditors seeking parity of pay scale with Head Clerks irrespectiveof the nature of recruitment, qualifications and nature of dutiesand responsibilities – Entitlement of – Case of internal auditorsthat for about two decades there was a parity in pay scales of theposts of Internal Auditors and Head Clerks and thereafter, onrevision of the pay scale of Head Clerks by the Board, the longstanding parity of pay scales of the two posts was disturbed –Held: Internal auditors are not entitled to claim parity with headclerks irrespective of the nature of recruitment, qualifications andnature of duties and responsibilities – Pay Anomaly Committee gaveelaborate reasons for revising the pay scales of the Head Clerks atRs.2000-3500 and Internal Auditors at Rs.1800-3200 with benefitof promotional increments, considering the differences in the natureof duties and responsibilities performed by the Head Clerks andInternal Auditors – Conclusion arrived at by the experts/Pay AnomalyCommittee not susceptible to judicial review – Courts are not tointerfere with the decision of the Government which is based on theopinion of the experts – Furthermore, there was a conscious exerciseof option to go as internal auditor, in view of the promotionalavenues available to the Internal Auditors and the high pay scalesavailable in the promotional position in comparison to thepromotional avenues available to the Head Clerks – There areneither pleadings nor any material produced by the respondents toprove that the nature of work performed by the Internal Auditors issimilar with that of the Head Clerks – Court has to keep in mindthat a mere difference in service conditions, does not amount todiscrimination – Unless there is complete identity between the twoposts, they should not be treated as equivalent to claim parity ofpay scale.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AJudicial review: Parity in pay scale sought by employees –Interference by court – Held: Equation of posts and revision of payscale is within the domain of the Government – Matter should beleft to the discretion and expertise of the Pay Committee and theGovernment to take the decision by considering the nature of dutiesand responsibilities – Ordinarily, the courts will not enter upon theBtask of job evaluation – Aggrieved employees claiming parity mustestablish that they are unjustly treated by arbitrary action ordiscriminated – Granting parity in pay scales depends upon thecomparative evaluation of job and equation of posts.

Allowing the appeals, the CourtC

HELD: 1.1 Equation of posts and revision of pay scale iswithin the domain of the Government. The matter should be leftto the discretion and expertise of the Pay Committee and theGovernment to take the decision on the scale of pay/revision ofpay scale by considering the nature of duties and responsibilities.DOrdinarily, the courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluationwhich is generally left to expert bodies like the Pay Commissionetc. The aggrieved employees claiming parity must establish thatthey are unjustly treated by arbitrary action or discriminated.Granting parity in pay scales depends upon the comparativeEevaluation of job and equation of posts. [Paras 14, 16] [302-A-B;303-B]

1.2 Ordinarily, the scale of pay is fixed keeping in view theseveral factors i.e. (i) method of recruitment; (ii) level at whichrecruitment is made; (iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre;F(iv) minimum educational/technical qualifications required; (v)avenues of promotion; (vi) the nature of duties andresponsibilities; and (vii) employer’s capacity to pay, etc. Theburden of proof in establishing parity in pay scales and the natureof duties and responsibilities is on the person claiming such right.The person claiming parity must produce material before the courtGto prove that the nature of duties and functions are similar andthat they are entitled to parity of pay scales. [Para 20, 23] [305-E;306-D-E]

1.3 The duties and nature of work of Head Clerks andInternal Auditors are entirely different. Head Clerk works underHXEN, Drawing and Disbursement Officer and there is only one Head Clerk in the Division Office. Head Clerk is the Head of theestablishment in the Divisional Office and total work of theestablishment is under the control of the Head Clerk. The HeadClerk disburses the salaries and other payments of the Sub-divisions and Division Offices and also maintains the leave andother miscellaneous works for the Sub-divisions and the DivisionOffices and discharges administrative functions and thus, hasmore responsibilities. Per contra, Internal Auditor works underthe control of Chief Auditor. Duty of the Internal Auditor is toaudit the billing of the Revenue Department of the Sub-divisionOffice which includes billing of domestic supply to large supply.Internal Auditors work in the Sub-division and there can be oneor more Internal Auditors as per quantity of work. [Para 24][307-C-E]

1.4 It is the duty of an employee seeking parity of scale ofpay to prove that the educational qualifications required for boththe posts, mode of recruitment and the nature of work performedby them are one and the same. There are neither pleadings norany material produced by the respondents to prove that the natureof work performed by the Internal Auditors is similar with that ofthe Head Clerks. Merely on the ground that the cadre of InternalAuditors are placed in Group XII along with the Head Clerks,cannot be a ground for seeking parity of pay scale. [Para 25][307-F-G]

1.5 Considering the post of Internal Auditors, the mode ofrecruitment (55% from direct recruitment and 45% by promotionfrom amongst ARAs/Circle Assistants), nature of work and thepromotional avenues available to the Internal Auditors, the PayAnomaly Committee constituted by the appellant-Board took theview that Internal Auditors be allowed revised scale of pay ofRs.1800-3200. Considering the Pay Anomaly Committee Report08/1990, appellant-Board revised the existing scale of pay ofInternal Auditors from Rs.1640-2925 to Rs.1800-3200 with thebenefit of promotional increment to Circle Assistants/ARAs ontheir promotion to the post of Internal Auditors. By the sameorder, the existing scale of pay of the post of Head Clerks wasrevised from Rs.1640-2925 to Rs.2000-3500. Considering thegrievances, the second pay Anomaly Committee took the view A

B

C

D

E

FG

H

Athat having regard to the nature of duties and responsibilitiesattached to the posts and skill involved in the performance of thejob, the nature of duties of Head Clerks and the Internal Auditorsand the promotional avenues available to them are entirelydifferent and that there is no parity of the categories of RevenueAccountants/Divisional Accountants and Internal Auditors withBthe Head Clerks and that they cannot claim parity. [Paras 27-29][308-C-D; 309-C-F]

1.7 Though the submission of the respondents that wherethe employer has been maintaining parity in the pay scales of twoposts of Head Clerks and Internal Auditors over a period of timeCthen, if the pay scale of one post is revised, the said parity of payscale is to be maintained and disturbing such parity would bearbitrary and violative of the Article 14 and Article 16 of theConstitution, appear to be attractive, but when considered in thelight of the well settled principles, there is no merit in theDcontention. Equation of posts and revision of pay scale is withinthe domain of the Government. The matter should be left to thediscretion and expertise of the Pay Committee and theGovernment to take the decision on the scale of pay/revision ofpay scale by considering the nature of duties and responsibilities.

The Pay Anomaly Committee has given elaborate reasons forErevising the pay scales of the Head Clerks at Rs.2000-3500 andInternal Auditors at Rs.1800-3200. The conclusion arrived at bythe experts/Pay Anomaly Committee are not susceptible to judicialreview and the courts are not to interfere with the decision of theGovernment which is based on the opinion of the experts.F[Para 31] [311-G-H; 312-A-B]

1.8 The Circle Assistants had been asked to exercise theiroption to go in the channel of promotion of Head Clerks or in thechannel of Internal Auditors. Those who have chosen the channelof Internal Auditors post on 03.10.1990 have consciously chosenGto exercise the option of Internal Auditors being mindful of thefact that the pay scale of the Head Clerks is higher than that ofInternal Auditors; yet they have chosen to exercise the option ofInternal Auditors. They cannot make a grievance about theirrevised scale of pay at Rs.1800-3200 which is not on par with theHead Clerks. Likewise, the Internal Auditors who have beenH

directly recruited as Internal Auditors, have consciously appliedfor the post of Internal Auditors in the scale of pay ofRs.1800-3200, cannot raise a plea claiming parity of pay scale asthat of the Head Clerks, since they have been directly recruitedas per advertisement against the post of Internal Auditors.[Para 32, 33] [312-C-F]

1.9 Exercise of option for promotion as Internal Auditorwas a “conscious option”. Further, it was always open to theappellant-Board to revise the scale of pay in terms of Regulation3(g) of the Punjab State Electricity Board (Revised Pay)Regulations, 1988. That apart, while recommending the differentpay scales for Head Clerks and Internal Auditors, the Pay AnomalyCommittee was conscious about those Circle Assistants/ARAswho have already exercised their option for promotion as HeadClerks between 01.01.1986 to 03.10.1990. The Pay AnomalyCommittee in para (5.1) of its report expressed its view that theoption may be given to the employees who have been promotedbetween 01.01.1986 to 03.10.1990 as Head Clerks and InternalAuditors for the post of Head Clerk, provided some vacanciesare available in the cadre of Head Clerk. The Pay AnomalyCommittee has also expressed its view that once they areappointed as Head Clerks, they will be given the seniority aswould have been if they would have exercised their option asHead Clerks in the first instance on promotion from CircleAssistants/ARAs. [Para 34, 35] [313-A-D]

1.10 The promotional avenues which are available to allthe Internal Auditors are far more in comparison to thepromotional avenues which are available to the Head Clerks.Therefore, for this reason also, option of Internal Auditors whichhas been exercised by the Internal Auditors was a “consciousoption” exercised by them because of more promotional avenuesmay available in the channel of Internal Auditors. That apart, thepay scales available in the promotional channel for InternalAuditors are also sharply higher than the Head Clerks. Fromsubmission of the appellant-Board, it is found that the increasein the pay scale is much higher on promotion against the post inthe Internal Auditor promotional channel. Thus, for the saidreason also, the choice of Internal Auditors made by all the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Apersons (including those who have exercised the option between01.01.1986 to 03.10.1990) is a reasoned choice keeping in viewthe greater promotional avenues and the higher pay scales whichare available. [Paras 36, 37] [314-A-E]

1.11 The direct recruited Internal Auditors are entitled toBa time-bound promotional scale on completion of nine years ofservice Rs.1900-3300 (unrevised) and sixteen years of serviceRs.2000-3500 (unrevised). However, no such time-boundpromotional scale is available to Head Clerks. Head Clerks arenot directly recruited and their appointment as Head Clerk is bypromotion only. [Para 38] [314-F-G]

C

1.12 The Court has to keep in mind that a mere differencein service conditions, does not amount to discrimination. Unlessthere is complete identity between the two posts, they shouldnot be treated as equivalent to claim parity of pay scale. No doubt,Internal Auditors were earlier placed in the same group namelyDGroup XII; but educational qualifications for the post of HeadClerk and mode of recruitment are different. As submitted bythe appellant-Board, that in 1980, there were only four posts inGroup XII but subsequently some posts were added to GroupXII and in total fourteen posts. For all these posts, source andEmode of recruitment, qualifications and nature of work are entirelydifferent. If the submission of the Internal Auditors for claimingparity of pay scale with that of Head Clerks merely on the groundthat the post of Internal Auditor was placed in Group XII, then ifsuch parity of pay scale may have to be extended to all otherposts, it would have huge financial implication on the finance ofFthe Board which is a service-oriented institution owing to theconsumers. [Para 39] [315-A-E]

1.13 The Single Judge proceeded under the erroneousfooting as if the case of Internal Auditors is covered by the caseput forth by Sub Fire Officers. The Single Judge did not keep inGview the counter statement filed by the appellant-Board beforethe High Court pointing out various distinguishing features ofInternal Auditors and Head Clerks on account of which no paritycould be granted to the Internal Auditors with the Head Clerks.

The High Court also did not keep in view that the Pay AnomalyCommittee did consider the demand of Internal Auditors and hadnot accepted the demand in view of different nature of duties andvarious other relevant factors. The Single Judge erred inrecording that the respondents were in the same category of “SubFire Officers” within the same group which have been decidedby the earlier judgment dated 21.01.2010. [Para 40][315-F-H]

1.14 Merely because various different posts have beencategorized under Group XII, they cannot claim parity of pay scaleas that of the Head Clerk. All the more so, when the InternalAuditors are appointed 55% by direct recruitment and 45% bypromotion from Circle Assistant/Assistant Revenue Accountant.The High Court did not keep in view that the duties, nature ofwork and promotion channel of Head Clerks and Internal Auditorsare entirely different and that option to seek promotion apparentlyas Internal Auditors was the “conscious exercise of option”, theimpugned judgment cannot be sustained and is set aside.[Para 41][316-A-B]

Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bank v. D.B. Sharma andOthers (2001) 1 SCC 353 : [2000] 4 Suppl. SCR 638 ;S.C. Chandra and Others v. State of Jharkhand andOthers (2007) 8 SCC 279 : [2007] 9 SCR 130 ;UnionTerritory Administration, Chandigarh and Others v.Manju Mathur and Another(2011) 2 SCC 452 :[2011] 1 SCR 883 ; State of Haryana and Others v.Charanjit Singh and Others (2006) 9 SCC 321 : [2005]4 Suppl. SCR 57 ;Hukum Chand Gupta v. DirectorGeneral, Indian Council of Agricultural Research andOthers(2012) 12 SCC 666 : [2012] 8 SCR 831 ;SteelAuthority of India Limited and Others v. DibyenduBhattacharya(2011) 11 SCC 122 : [2010] 13 SCR429 ;Union of India and Another v. P.K. Roy and OthersAIR 1968 SC 850 : [1968] 2 SCR 186 ;Union of Indiaand Another v. Manik Lal Banerjee(2006) 9 SCC643 : [2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 66 - referred to.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

ACase Law Reference

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil AppealDNos.195-198 of 2019.

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.02.2012 of the HighCourt of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No. 264 of 2012and Order dated 04.05.2012 in CM No. 1606 –LPA & 1607 –LPA of2012 and RA No. LP-16 of 2012 in LPA No. 264 of 2012 .

E

Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv., Pritpal Singh Nijjar, Ms. Vriti Gujral,Ms. Pallavi Singh, A. Venayagam Balan, Advs. for the Appellants.

Saravpreet Singh, Tushar Bakshi, Shovit Singh, Naresh Bakshi,Advs. for the Respondents.

FThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 23.02.2012 passedby the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPANo.264 of 2012 and Order dated 04.05.2012 in LPA 1607-LPA of 2012Gdismissing the appeals and the order dated 04.05.2012 in review petitionin RA No.LP-16 of 2012 dismissing the review filed by the appellant-Board by holding that the SLP(C) No.10896 of 2011 involving thesame issue i.e. parity of pay scale is already pending before theSupreme Court.

H

3. The parity in the pay scales of two posts – Head Clerks andthe Internal Auditors in Group XII of the Punjab State Electricity Board(PSEB) is the subject matter of the issue in these present appeals. Brieffacts of the case are as under:- The Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB), in exercise of thepower conferred under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act,1948 framed “Punjab Public Works Departments (Electricity Branch)State Service Class-III (Subordinate Posts) Rules, 1958 (adopted by theBoard) Amendment Regulations, 1975. The recruitment and conditionsof service governing the Head Clerks was introduced on 11.09.1985which is called the Punjab State Electricity Board Ministerial ServicesClass–III Regulations, 1985 providing for educational qualifications andminimum experience required for Head Clerks. Initially, the pay scale ofHead Clerks was Rs.150-300 and the pay scale of Internal Auditorswas Rs.130-240. The pay scale of Internal Auditors was revised toRs.150-300 w.e.f. 01.08.1963. Head Clerks and Internal Auditors weregetting same pay scale of Rs.225-500 from 01.06.1967 and Rs.620-1200from 01.01.1978. From 21.03.1989, revised scale of pay of regularemployees was issued by the PSEB, and w.e.f. 01.01.1986, the scale ofpay of the Head Clerks and the Internal Auditors was revised toRs.1640-2925.

4. Pay Anomaly Committee was constituted by the appellant-Boardto review the anomalies in the pay scales of various cadre. That on thebasis of the report of Pay Anomaly Committee, the pay scale of boththe categories - Internal Auditors and Head Clerks have been improvedvide office order No.223/Fin./PRC-1988 dated 03.10.1990. The InternalAuditors have been allowed the revised scale of Rs.1800-3200 w.e.f.01.01.1986 considering that the posts of Internal Auditors are filled by55% from direct recruitment and 45% by promotion. The Head Clerkshave been allowed the pay scale of Rs.2000-3500 with effect from01.01.1986 and thus linked the scale of Head Clerk with SuperintendentGrade-II under State Government.

5. Aggrieved by the order dated 03.10.1990 issued by theappellant-Board and alleging disparity and violation of Article 14 of theConstitution of India, the respondents preferred Civil Writ PetitionNo.10117 of 1992 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana atChandigarh, contending that the Internal Auditors, Head Clerks as well A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aas Sub Fire Officers belong to same group viz. Group XII and that InternalAuditors were always on par with the Head Clerks being the promotionalpost from the post of Circle Assistants/ARAs Group XII. It was averredthat vide order dated 03.10.1990, the appellant-Board fixed the pay scaleof the Internal Auditor at Rs.1800-3200 and of the Head Clerks atRs.2000-3500 and thus disturbing the parity in the pay scales of twoBposts which were being maintained for more than two decades.According to the respondents, the pay scale of Rs.1800-3200 had beengiven to the post of Circle Assistant from which the respondents werebeing promoted and there is no justification to give the same pay scale tothe promotional post as well as feeder cadre. The said revision of payCscale was totally illogical and without any justification.

6. In the counter affidavit filed before the High Court, the appellant-Board contended that though the posts of Head Clerks and InternalAuditors are categorised in Group XII, that cannot be the reason forclaiming parity of pay scale. It was averred that the manner of recruitment,Dnature of duties and responsibilities of both the cadres are entirelydifferent and respondents cannot claim parity of scale of pay. As perPSEB Ministerial Services Class-III Regulations, 1975, the post of HeadClerk is a promotional post and is generally available to the employeesafter completion of twenty-five years of service; whereas in the case ofInternal Auditors, they are partly recruited directly from the market toEthe extent of 55% and balance 45% from Circle Assistants/ARAs afterobtaining option for the purpose. According to the Board, on promotionthe Circle Assistant/ARA are also eligible to opt for the cadre of HeadClerk and they cannot contend that they have not been given anyopportunity for the post of Head Clerk. It is averred that the exercise ofFoption to go in the channel of cadre of Internal Auditor is a ‘preferredoption’ because of the promotional avenues with higher scales of pay. Inview of this position, the Pay Anomaly Committee did not accept thedemand of Internal Auditors to give parity with Head Clerks in the matterof pay scale.G7. Sub Fire Officers which is categorised in Group XII approachedthe High Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No.9294 of 1993 seekingparity in pay scale as that of the Head Clerks and Internal Auditors onthe ground that they are included in the same group viz., Group XII. Thelearned Single Judge vide judgment dated 21.01.2010 allowed the CWP

H

No.9294 of 1993 filed by the Sub Fire Officers by holding that till somepoint of time, persons working as Head Clerks, Head Clerk-cum-Divisional Accountants and Internal Auditors were given same scale ofpay and therefore, parity of scale of pay cannot be denied to the SubFire Officers when the scales were increased for other three classes ofpersons within Group XII.

8. Against the order dated 21.01.2010 in CWP No.9294 of 1993,the appellant-Board preferred LPA No.713 of 2010 which came to bedismissed by the judgment dated 28.09.2010. Aggrieved by the judgmentdated 28.09.2010, the appellant preferred SLP(C) No.10896 of 2011before this Court wherein, notice was issued and the same was pendingfor consideration before this Court.

9. The learned Single Judge of the High Court by its order dated11.11.2011 allowed the Civil Writ Petition No.10117 of 1992 filed by therespondents-Internal Auditors claiming parity of pay scale with the HeadClerks on the erroneous assumption that the respondents are Sub FireOfficers or similarly situated as Sub Fire Officers who are seeking parityof wages with other persons. The learned Single Judge relying on thejudgment in CWP No.9294 of 1993 dated 21.01.2010 allowed the writpetition without going into the merits of the contention of either of theparties. Appeal (LPA No.713 of 2010) preferred by the appellant-Boardalso came to be dismissed on the ground that SLP (C) No.10896 of 2011is pending before the Supreme Court.

10. In these appeals, we are concerned with the question of parityof pay scale between the Head Clerks and the Internal Auditors. Thoughvarious contentious issues arose for determination between the parties,learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Courtproceeded under the erroneous footing as if the respondents are placedon par with Sub Fire Officer and held that the issue is covered by thejudgment in CWP No.9294 of 1993 and that the issue is pending beforethe Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.10896 of 2011. Since the writ petitionwas filed way back in the year 1992 and the lis is pending between theparties for more than twenty-six years, we have proceeded to considerthe matter on merits without remitting the matter back to the High Court.We have heard the parties at length.

11. We have heard Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned Senior counselappearing for appellant-Board at length and Mr. Saravpreet Singh, learned A

B

C

D

E

F

G

Acounsel appearing for the respondents. The learned Senior counsel Mr.Nidhesh Gupta has inter alia made the following submissions:- ·Appellant-Board is competent to revise the pay scales in termsof Regulation 3(g) of Punjab State Electricity Board (RevisedPay) Regulations, 1988 in relation to any post specified in ColumnBNo.2 of the Schedule.

·Internal Auditors who have been directly recruited as InternalAuditors against an open advertisement have consciously appliedfor the post in the pay scale of Rs.1800-3200 cannot raise aplea that they will have to be placed on par with Head Clerks.

C·Promotional avenues available to the Internal Auditors are farmore in comparison to the promotional avenues which areavailable to the Head Clerks; the pay scales which are availablein the promotional position are sharply higher compared to theHead Clerks and exercise of option as Internal Auditor is aD“preferred option”.

·Internal Auditors cannot claim parity with Head Clerks on thepremise that they are in Group XII; though there were only fourcadre in the year 1988 in Group XII, seven more posts wereadded in Group XII by Finance Circular No.44/89 dated15.06.1989. Thereafter, vide Finance Circular No.45/89 datedE26.06.1989, there were further increase of seven posts in GroupXII and total fourteen posts were added to Group XII. For allthese posts, mode of recruitment, qualifications, nature of dutiesand responsibilities are entirely different and merely becausethe posts are mentioned in one cadre, they cannot claim parityFof scale of pay.

·If parity of pay scale is to be extended to the posts merely onthe ground that they are categorised in one Group irrespectiveof the mode of recruitment, qualifications, nature of duties andresponsibilities, it will lead to huge financial repercussion causingGhuge financial loss to PSEB which is a public service-orientedinstitution.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Saravpreet Singhsubmitted that posts of Internal Auditors being in Group XII, who wereon par with Head Clerks should be given parity of pay scale as that ofH

Head Clerks, irrespective of the promotional avenues available to theInternal Auditors. It was submitted that the Internal Auditors were alwaystreated on par with Head Clerks being the promotional post from thepost of Circle Assistants/ARAs and when so, there was no justificationto disturb the parity in the pay scales of two posts which were beingmaintained for quite some time. Contention of the respondents is thatthere was a parity of pay scales of the posts of Internal Auditors andHead Clerks for about two decades and while so, the order dated03.10.1990 issued by the appellant-Board revising the pay scale of HeadClerks from Rs.1640-2925 to Rs.2000-3500 has disturbed the long-standing parity of pay scales of the posts of Head Clerks and the InternalAuditors. It is their contention that where the parity in the pay scales oftwo posts has been maintained over a period of time then, if the payscale of one post is revised, the said pay scale is to be maintained forother post also and disturbing such parity would be arbitrary and violativeof the Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Mucharguments were advanced on the retrospective operation of the orderdated 03.10.1990 (w.e.f. 01.01.1986) contending that such retrospectiveoperation has caused serious prejudice to the Internal Auditors who havebeen promoted between the year 1986 to 1990.

13. In the light of the submissions, several issues arise fordetermination inter alia areas under:- ·Whether the Internal Auditors are entitled to claim parity of payscale with Head Clerks and Head Clerk–cum–DivisionalAccountants irrespective of the nature of recruitment,qualifications and nature of duties and responsibilities?

·Can the Internal Auditors claim equity of pay scale, merelybecause they are in the same group (Class-XII) irrespective ofthe nature of work and the internal qualification for recruitment.In view of the promotional avenues available to the InternalAuditors and the high pay scales which are available in thepromotional position, opting for Internal Auditors, is it not a“preferred option”?

·When there are about fourteen posts categorised in Group XII,can Internal Auditors claim parity of pay scale with the HeadClerks merely because they were categorised in Group XII?

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

A14. Ordinarily, the courts will not enter upon the task of jobevaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like the Pay Commissionetc. The aggrieved employees claiming parity must establish that theyare unjustly treated by arbitrary action or discriminated. In KshetriyaKisan Gramin Bank v. D.B. Sharma and Others (2001) 1 SCC 353,this Court held as under:-B

A

“7. The next question that arises for consideration is, as to whatextent the High Court would be justified in exercise of itsextraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with thefindings of an expert body like the Equation Committee. In Stateof U.P.and Others v.J.P. Chaurasia and Others (1989) 1 SCC121, this Court unequivocally held that in the matter of equation ofposts or equation of pay, the same should be left to the ExecutiveGovernment, who can get it determined by expert bodies like thePay Commission, and such expert body would be the best judgeto evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of the postsand when such determination by a commission or committee ismade, the court should normally accept it and should not try totinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was madewith extraneous consideration….”

C

D

15. In S.C. Chandra and Others v. State of Jharkhand and EOthers (2007) 8 SCC 279, this Court held as under:- “33. It may be mentioned that granting pay scales is a purelyexecutive function and hence the court should not interfere withthe same. It may have a cascading effect creating all kinds ofproblems for the Government and authorities. Hence, the courtFshould exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in such executivefunction vide Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen,Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 408.

...........

35. In our opinion fixing pay scales by courts by applying theprinciple of equal pay for equal work upsets the high constitutionalprinciple of separation of powers between the three organs of theState. Realising this, this Court has in recent years avoided applyingthe principle of equal pay for equal work, unless there is completeand wholesale identity between the two groups (and there toothe matter should be sent for examination by an Expert Committee G

H

appointed by the Government instead of the court itself grantinghigher pay).

36. It is well settled by the Supreme Court that only because thenature of work is the same, irrespective of educational qualification,mode of appointment, experience and other relevant factors, theprinciple of equal pay for equal work cannot apply vide Govt. ofW.B. v. Tarun K. Roy and Others (2004) 1 SCC 347.”

The same view was reiterated in Union Territory Administration,Chandigarh and Others v. Manju Mathur and Another (2011) 2 SCC452; State of Haryana and Others v. Charanjit Singh and Others(2006) 9 SCC 321 and in Hukum Chand Gupta v. Director General,Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Others (2012) 12 SCC666.

16. Observing that granting parity in pay scales depends upon thecomparative evaluation of job and equation of posts, in Steel Authorityof India Limited and Others v. Dibyendu Bhattacharya (2011) 11SCC 122, this Court held as under:-

“30. ……….. the law on the issue can be summarised to theeffect that parity of pay can be claimed by invoking the provisionsof Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India by establishingthat the eligibility, mode of selection/recruitment, nature and qualityof work and duties and effort, reliability, confidentiality, dexterity,functional need and responsibilities and status of both the postsare identical. The functions may be the same but the skills andresponsibilities may be really and substantially different. The otherpost may not require any higher qualification, seniority or otherlike factors. Granting parity in pay scales depends upon thecomparative evaluation of job and equation of posts. The personclaiming parity, must plead necessary averments and prove thatall things are equal between the posts concerned. Such a complexissue cannot be adjudicated by evaluating the affidavits filed bythe parties.”

17. Mode of recruitment of Head Clerks and InternalAuditors and the qualifications:- In the light of the above principles,let us consider the claim of Internal Auditors claiming parity of pay scalewith Head Clerks. The mode of appointment and the minimum A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Aeducational and other qualifications and experience required for HeadClerk are as under:- Sr. ame Method of Minimum Minimum Remarks o. of Post appointment educational and Experience other qualifications12 Head By promotion After having Three year’s - BClerk from Circle qualified service as Assistant/ARAs., Departmental A/Cs, Circle who opt for Examination for Assistant/ promotion as Ministerial Asst. Head Clerk Establishment, If not Revenue already done or Accountant specially expected C

18. Internal Auditors have been promoted from the MinisterialCadre i.e. from the post of Circle Assistants/ARAs, who had opted forthe post of Internal Auditor were to be allowed the scales in the MinisterialCadre considering the post of UDC as induction post. The posts ofDInternal Auditors are filled by 55% from direct recruitment and 45% bypromotion who have opted for promotion to come to the Revenue Cadre.The mode of appointment and the minimum educational and otherqualifications and experience required for the post of Internal Auditor

19. The pay scale prior to 01.08.1963 of Head Clerks was higherthan the pay scale of Internal Auditors i.e. pay scale of Head Clerkswas Rs.150-300 and pay scale of Internal Auditors was Rs.130-240.The pay scale of Internal Auditors was Rs.130-240 and it wassubsequently revised to Rs.150-300 with effect from 01.08.1963 on parwith the Head Clerks. The pay scales of Head Clerks and InternalAuditors remained intact upto the year-1986 revision. But the pay scaleof Head Clerks was revised from Rs.1640-2925 to Rs.2000-3500 on therecommendation of the Pay Anomaly Committee formed by the Boardto review the anomalies in the pay scales of 1986 revision linking thescale of Head Clerks with the Superintendent Grade-II under the StateGovernment. As discussed infra, the pay scale of Internal Auditors wasrevised from Rs.1640-2925 to Rs.1800-3200 and after nine years ofservice to Rs.1880-3300 i.e. scale of Revenue Accountant and aftersixteen years of service Rs.2000-3500 as per Secretary (Finance) OfficeOrder No.244 dated 15.02.1991 considering the post of Internal Auditoras induction post in the basic pay scale of Rs.1800-3200 for directrecruits.

20. Burden of proof on the person claiming parity of payscale:- Ordinarily, the scale of pay is fixed keeping in view the severalfactors i.e. (i) method of recruitment; (ii) level at which recruitment ismade; (iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre; (iv) minimumeducational/technical qualifications required; (v) avenues of promotion;(vi) the nature of duties and responsibilities; and (vii) employer’s capacityto pay, etc.

21. It is well settled that for considering the equation of posts andthe issue of equivalence of posts, the following factors had been held tobe determinative:-

(i) The nature and duties of a post;

(ii) The responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer holdinga post, the extent of territorial or other charge held orresponsibilities discharged;

(iii) The minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitmentto the post; and

(iv) The salary of the post (vide Union of India and Another v.P.K. Roy and Others AIR 1968 SC 850).

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

A22. After referring to P.K. Roy’s case, this Court, in SAIL, heldas under:- “25. In State of Maharashtraand Another v. ChandrakantAnant Kulkarni and Others (1981) 4 SCC 130 and Vice-Chancellor, L.N. Mithila University v. Dayanand Jha (1986)B3 SCC 7, a similar view has been reiterated observing that equalstatus and nature and responsibilities of the duties attached to thetwo posts have to be taken into consideration for equivalence ofthe post. Similar view has been reiterated in E.P. Royappa v.State of T.N. and Another (1974) 4 SCC 3 and Sub-InspectorRooplaland Another v. Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary,CDelhi and Others (2000) 1 SCC 644, wherein this Court followingthe earlier judgment in P.K. Roy AIR 1968 SC 850 held that thesalary of the post alone may not be a determining factor, the otherthree criterion should also be fulfilled.”

23. The burden of proof in establishing parity in pay scales andDthe nature of duties and responsibilities is on the person claiming suchright. The person claiming parity must produce material before the courtto prove that the nature of duties and functions are similar and that theyare entitled to parity of pay scales. After referring to number of judgmentsand observing that it is the duty of an employee seeking parity of pay toprove and establish that he had been discriminated against, this Court, inESAIL, held as under:- “22. It is the duty of an employee seeking parity of pay underArticle 39(d) of the Constitution of India to prove and establishthat he had been discriminated against, as the question of parityhas to be decided on consideration of various facts and statutoryFrules, etc. The doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” as enshrinedunder Article 39(d) of the Constitution read with Article 14 thereof,cannot be applied in a vacuum. The constitutional schemepostulates equal pay for equal work for those who are equallyplaced in all respects. The court must consider the factors like theGsource and mode of recruitment/appointment, the qualifications,the nature of work, the value thereof, responsibilities, reliability,experience, confidentiality, functional need, etc. In other words,the equality clause can be invoked in the matter of pay scalesonly when there is wholesome/wholesale identity between theholders of two posts. The burden of establishing right and parityHin employment is only on the person claiming such right. (Vide

U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. and Another v. Sant Raj Singhand Others (2006) 9 SCC 82, Union of Indiaand Another v.Mahajabeen Akhtar (2008) 1 SCC 368, Union of India v.Dineshan K.K (2008) 1 SCC 586, Union of Indiaand Others v.Hiranmoy Sen and Others (2008) 1 SCC 630, OfficialLiquidator v. Dayanand and Others (2008) 10 SCC 1, U.P.SEBand Another v. Aziz Ahmad (2009) 2 SCC 606 and State ofM.P.and Others v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (2009) 13 SCC635)”.

24. Nature of duties and responsibilities of Head Clerksare different from the Internal Auditors:- The duties and nature ofwork of Head Clerks and Internal Auditors are entirely different. HeadClerk works under XEN, Drawing and Disbursement Officer and thereis only one Head Clerk in the Division Office. Head Clerk is the Head ofthe establishment in the Divisional Office and total work of theestablishment is under the control of the Head Clerk. The Head Clerkdisburses the salaries and other payments of the Sub-divisions andDivision Offices and also maintains the leave and other miscellaneousworks for the Sub-divisions and the Division Offices and dischargesadministrative functions and thus, has more responsibilities. Per contra,Internal Auditor works under the control of Chief Auditor. Duty of theInternal Auditor is to audit the billing of the Revenue Department of theSub-division Office which includes billing of domestic supply to largesupply. Internal Auditors work in the Sub-division and there can be oneor more Internal Auditors as per quantity of work.

25. It is thus well settled that it is the duty of an employee seekingparity of scale of pay to prove that the educational qualifications requiredfor both the posts, mode of recruitment and the nature of work performedby them are one and the same. There are neither pleadings nor anymaterial produced by the respondents to prove that the nature of workperformed by the Internal Auditors is similar with that of the Head Clerks.In the writ petition, respondents have claimed parity of pay scale only onthe ground that they were categorised in Group XII along with the HeadClerks. Merely on the ground that the cadre of Internal Auditors areplaced in Group XII along with the Head Clerks, cannot be a ground forseeking parity of pay scale.

26. Considering the differences in the nature of duties andresponsibilities performed by the Head Clerks and Internal Auditors, AB

CDE

F

G

H

APay Anomaly Committee decided to allow the revised scale for InternalAuditor at Rs.1800-3200 with benefit of promotional increments andRs.2000-3500 for Head Clerks. Merely because Internal Auditors arecategorised in Group XII along with Head Clerks, the Internal Auditorscannot claim parity as the nature of duties and responsibilities of InternalAuditors are different from Head Clerks.

B

27. Report of the Pay Anomaly Committee:- The PayAnomaly Committee was constituted by the appellant-Board vide itsOffice Order No.179/Fin./PRC-1988 dated 22.08.1989 to consider thepay anomalies of various categories of employees in the revised scale ofpay w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Considering the post of Internal Auditors, theCmode of recruitment (55% from direct recruitment and 45% by promotionfrom amongst ARAs/Circle Assistants), nature of work and thepromotional avenues available to the Internal Auditors, the Pay AnomalyCommittee took the view that Internal Auditors be allowed revised scaleof pay of Rs.1800-3200. The relevant portion of the report of the PayDAnomaly Committee reads as under:- “Revenue/Accounts Wing:

“Revenue/Accounts Wing:

“Presently the posts of Internal Auditors are being filled upwith 55% through direct recruitment and 45% by promotion fromamongst A.R.As/Circle Assistants. As per promotional channelavailable for Revenue/Accounts Cadre in the PSEB, A.R.As/CircleAsstt are promoted either as Internal Auditor, Head Clerk or HeadOffice Asst. as per option available for them. Internal Auditorsget promotion as Revenue Accountant and then finally as RevenueSupdt. On accounts side, A.R.As/Circle Asstt., after passing SASPart-I Examination, may at their option, get promotion as DivisionalAccountant. He can, however, opt immediately after passing theSAS Part-I Examination to come over as Revenue Accountants(which option shall be final). The Divisional Accountants getpromotion as SAS Accountant which post is to be handled bySAS Parts-I & II passed personnels and involves higher dutiesand responsibilities. Since the Punjab Govt. has allowed revisedscale of Rs.1800-3200 for Circle Assistants and Rs.2000-3500for S.A.S. Acctts. The Committee felt it necessary to devisepromotional scale of I.A.s R.As and Revenue Suptt. between therevised scale allowed to Circle Assistants (Rs.1800-3200) and E

F

G

H

SAS Accountants (Rs.2000-3500). It has, therefore been decidedby the Committee to allow the revised scale as under:-

28. Considering the Pay Anomaly Committee Report 08/1990,appellant-Board revised the existing scale of pay of Internal Auditorsfrom Rs.1640-2925 to Rs.1800-3200 with the benefit of promotionalincrement to Circle Assistants/ARAs on their promotion to the post ofInternal Auditors. By the same order, the existing scale of pay of thepost of Head Clerks was revised from Rs.1640-2925 to Rs.2000-3500.

29. Considering the grievances of its employees, second PayAnomaly Committee was constituted vide Office Order No.48/ENG-30(25) by the appellant-Board. PSEB Employees Federation raised thegrievance about the disparity in the pay scale of Head Clerks and InternalAuditors. Considering the grievances, Pay Anomaly Committee tookthe view that having regard to the nature of duties and responsibilitiesattached to the posts and skill involved in the performance of the job, thenature of duties of Head Clerks and the Internal Auditors and thepromotional avenues available to them are entirely different and thatthere is no parity of the categories of Revenue Accountants/DivisionalAccountants and Internal Auditors with the Head Clerks and that theycannot claim parity. The relevant portion of the report of Second PayAnomaly Committee reads as under:- “4.1 The Committee has reviewed the position with regard to theagenda put up to the Pay Anomaly Committee by the SecretaryPay Revision Committee and nature of duties of each category ofemployees, qualifications prescribed and time-bound scales allowedto direct recruitees where the recruitment through directrecruitment or by qualifying D.A.E. etc. and make itsrecommendations/observation as under:-

A

B

C

D

EF

G

Ai) The Pay Anomaly Committee has already considered therepresentations of the employees and did not recommend anyimprovement in the scale of Divisional Accountant/RevenueAccountant and Internal Auditor, that there is no parity of thesecategories with Head Clerk as their nature of duties are different,promotional channel is different and the induction posts has beenBmade for directly recruited 55% Internal Auditors and RevenueAccountants who have been deployed as Revenue Acctt; afterthey have passed SAS Part-I Examination. The Head Clerk is apromotional post/category and they are genially promoted afterputting a long service of about twenty-five years in the MinisterialCCadre from the post of LDC/UDC, Circle Asstt;/A.R.A. etc.whereas the Divisional Accountants are posted when they qualifythe D.A.E. of SAS Part-I. The Divisional Accountants havealso been allowed time-bound scales which is not available tothe post of Head Clerk.

Dii) On the promotion from Circle Asstt;/ARA to the post of H.O.Assistant & Internal Auditor in the same scale of Rs.1800-3200,benefit of promotional increments is available.

iii) ………

iv) In the Ministerial Cadre, the H.O. Cadre or amongst the CircleEAsstt;/ARA who opt for the post of H.O. Assistant. The post ofHead Clerk is filled up amongst the Circle Asstt;/ARAs who optfor the post of Head Clerk. The post of Internal Auditor is filledup 55% by direct recruitment and 45% amongst Circle Asstt;/ARAs was opt for the post of Internal Auditors.F

v) The scale of H.O.Assistant and Head Clerks have been revisedon the pattern of Punjab Govt; and these categories aretraditionally linked with the State Govt; whereas the categoriesof InternalAuditors, RevenueAcctt; DivisionalAccountants areexclusively PSEB categories.

Gvi) Nature of duties of the Head Clerk and the Internal Auditor/H.O. Assistant are not identical. So the Pay Anomaly Committeeseparated the scales considering the nature of duties andpromotional channels etc; H

5.1 The Committee is of the view that the option may be given tothe employees who have been promoted between 01.01.1986 to03.10.1990 (the date of office order vide which scale of HeadClerk revised) as H.O.Assistant & InternalAuditor for the postof Head Clerk, provided some vacancies are available in the cadreof Head Clerk.Till the vacancy is falling due, they will be H.O.Assistant or Internal Auditor, as the case may be, but on theappointment as Head Clerk they will be given the seniority aswould have been if he would have exercised their option as HeadClerk in the first instance on promotion from CircleAsstt;/ARA.The financial implication would be nominal.

5.2 The Committee recommends that the scales already allowedby the Board on the recommendation of Pay Revision Committeeand further improved on the recommendation of Pay AnomalyCommittee may not be further improved otherwise this wouldcreate number of complications, demand from other categoriesfor further revision of their pay scales also. The cases filed by theDivisional Accountant & Internal Auditors in the Punjab &Haryana High Court be defended by the Board on the basis ofrecord and regulations of the Board….. [Underlining added].”

30. Internal Auditors cannot claim parity:- Grievance of therespondents is that there was a parity of pay scale of the posts of InternalAuditors and Head Clerks for about two decades and while so, the orderdated 03.10.1990 revising the pay scale of Head Clerks from Rs.1640-2925 to Rs.2000-3500 has disturbed the long-standing parity of pay scalesof the posts of Head Clerks and the Internal Auditors. It is their contentionthat where the employer has been maintaining parity in the pay scales oftwo posts over a period of time then, if the pay scale of one post isrevised, the said parity of pay scale is to be maintained and disturbingsuch parity would be arbitrary and violative of the Article 14 and Article16 of the Constitution of India.

31. Though the above arguments of the respondents appear to beattractive, when considered in the light of the well settled principles, wefind no merit in the contention. Equation of posts and revision of payscale is within the domain of the Government. The matter should be leftto the discretion and expertise of the Pay Committee and the Governmentto take the decision on the scale of pay/revision of pay scale by A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

312SUPREME COURT REPORTS

Aconsidering the nature of duties and responsibilities. As pointed out earlier,the Pay Anomaly Committee has given elaborate reasons for revisingthe pay scales of the Head Clerks at Rs.2000-3500 and Internal Auditorsat Rs.1800-3200. The conclusion arrived at by the experts/Pay AnomalyCommittee are not susceptible to judicial review and the courts are notto interfere with the decision of the Government which is based on theBopinion of the experts.

32. Conscious exercise of option to go as Internal Auditors:-On behalf of the appellant-Board, the learned Senior counsel has drawnour attention to the various promotional avenues available to the InternalAuditors and the sharp rise in the scale of pay in such promotionalCposition. The Circle Assistants had been asked to exercise their optionto go in the channel of promotion of Head Clerks or in the channel ofInternal Auditors. Those who have chosen the channel of Internal Auditorspost on 03.10.1990 have consciously chosen to exercise the option ofInternal Auditors being mindful of the fact that the pay scale of theDHead Clerks is higher than that of Internal Auditors; yet they have chosento exercise the option of Internal Auditors. Those who have exercisedtheir option for the post of Internal Auditors post on 03.10.1990, in ourconsidered view, cannot make a grievance about their revised scale ofpay at Rs.1800-3200 which is not on par with the Head Clerks.

E33. Likewise, the Internal Auditors who have been directly recruitedas Internal Auditors, have consciously applied for the post of InternalAuditors in the scale of pay of Rs.1800-3200, cannot raise a plea claimingparity of pay scale as that of the Head Clerks, since they have beendirectly recruited as per advertisement against the post of InternalAuditors.F

E

34. The grievance of the respondents is that since the order dated03.10.1990 has been given retrospective effect w.e.f. 01.01.1986, thoseof them who have exercised their option as Internal Auditors between01.01.1986 to 03.10.1990 are deprived of the parity of pay scale. It wasfurther submitted that had such a disparity of pay scale between theGHead Clerks and the Internal Auditors was in force from the year 1986onwards, the Circle Assistants/ARAs would not have exercised theiroption for promotion as Internal Auditors and they might have chosen toexercise their option for promotion as Head Clerks. This contention though appears to be attractive, by consideration of the same, it lacks merit formore than one reason. As rightly submitted by the learned Senior counselfor the appellant-Board, exercise of option for promotion as InternalAuditor was a “conscious option”. Further, it was always open to theappellant-Board to revise the scale of pay in terms of Regulation 3(g) ofthe Punjab State Electricity Board (Revised Pay) Regulations, 1988.

35. That apart, while recommending the different pay scales forHead Clerks and Internal Auditors, the Pay Anomaly Committee wasconscious about those Circle Assistants/ARAs who have alreadyexercised their option for promotion as Head Clerks between 01.01.1986to 03.10.1990. The Pay Anomaly Committee in para (5.1) of its reportexpressed its view that the option may be given to the employees whohave been promoted between 01.01.1986 to 03.10.1990 as Head Clerksand Internal Auditors for the post of Head Clerk, provided some vacanciesare available in the cadre of Head Clerk. The Pay Anomaly Committeehas also expressed its view that once they are appointed as Head Clerks,they will be given the seniority as would have been if they would haveexercised their option as Head Clerks in the first instance on promotionfrom Circle Assistants/ARAs. The grievance of the respondents in thisregard has been taken note by the Pay Anomaly Committee and as perits view in para (5.1), the same is redressed.

36. Promotional avenues available to the Internal Auditors:-Promotional channels which are available against the post of Head Clerk,Internal Auditor and Senior Assistant are as under:- A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ABy perusal of the above, it is seen that the promotional avenueswhich are available to all the Internal Auditors are far more in comparisonto the promotional avenues which are available to the Head Clerks.Therefore, for this reason also, option of Internal Auditors which hasbeen exercised by the Internal Auditors was a “conscious option”exercised by them because of more promotional avenues may availableBin the channel of Internal Auditors.

37. That apart, the pay scales which are available in the promotionalchannel for Internal Auditors are also sharply higher than the Head Clerks.A Head Clerk on promotion to a Circle Superintendent receives oneadditional increment above the scale of Rs.10900- 34800 plus grade payCof Rs.5450 (i.e. available to a Head Clerk). However, in the InternalAuditors channel, further promotion as Accounts Officer will be in thepay scale of Rs.16650-39100 plus grade pay of Rs.5800. Thereafter, onpromotion as Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, he receives one furtherincrement and the grade pay increases to Rs.8500. Thereafter, on furtherDpromotion as Chief Accounts Officer, he goes into the scale of Rs.41300-67000 plus grade pay of Rs.9600. Two senior-most Chief AccountsOfficers are put in the scale equivalent to Chief Engineer i.e. Rs.41300-67000 plus grade pay of Rs.10500. From submission of the appellant-Board, we find that the increase in the pay scale is much higher onpromotion against the post in the Internal Auditor promotional channel.EThus, for the said reason also, the choice of Internal Auditors made byall the persons (including those who have exercised the option between01.01.1986 to 03.10.1990) is a reasoned choice keeping in view the greaterpromotional avenues and the higher pay scales which are available.

38. It is also relevant to note that insofar as the direct recruits areFconcerned, the direct recruited Internal Auditors are entitled to a time-bound promotional scale on completion of nine and sixteen years ofservice. Time-bound promotional scale of directly recruited InternalAuditors after regular service of nine years is Rs.1900-3300 (unrevised)and after completion of sixteen years of service is Rs.2000-3500G(unrevised). However, no such time-bound promotional scale is availableto Head Clerks. Head Clerks are not directly recruited and theirappointment as Head Clerk is by promotion only.

39. The only ground urged by respondents-Internal Auditors isthat parity of pay scale between the Head Clerks and the Internal Auditors H

was maintained by the appellant-Board for more than two decades andwhile so, disturbing the parity is arbitrary and illegal. The Court has tokeep in mind that a mere difference in service conditions, does not amountto discrimination. Unless there is complete identity between the twoposts, they should not be treated as equivalent to claim parity of payscale. No doubt, Internal Auditors were earlier placed in the same groupnamely Group XII; but educational qualifications for the post of HeadClerk and mode of recruitment are different. As submitted by the learnedSenior Counsel for the appellant-Board, that in the year 1980, there wereonly four posts in Group XII but subsequently some posts were added toGroup XII and the total fourteen posts which were added to Group XIIare:- Punjabi Teacher, Drawing Teacher, Hindi Teacher, D.P.Ed. Teacher,Master/Mistress, Science Teacher, Security Inspector, Modeller DivisionalHead Draftsman, Prosecuting Inspector (now Law Officer), LawOfficer Grade II, Medical Assistant, Librarian and Fire Officer, etc. Forall these posts, source and mode of recruitment, qualifications and natureof work are entirely different. If the contention of the Internal Auditorsfor claiming parity of pay scale with that of Head Clerks merely on theground that the post of Internal Auditor was placed in Group XII, then ifsuch parity of pay scale may have to be extended to all other posts, itwould have huge financial implication on the finance of the Board whichis a service-oriented institution owing to the consumers. As held in Unionof India and Another v. Manik Lal Banerjee (2006) 9 SCC 643, “it isnow a well settled principle of law that financial implication is arelevant factor for accepting the revision of pay.”

40. The learned Single Judge proceeded under the erroneous footingas if the case of Internal Auditors is covered by the case put forth bySub Fire Officers. The learned Single Judge did not keep in view thecounter statement filed by the appellant-Board before the High Courtpointing out various distinguishing features of Internal Auditors and HeadClerks on account of which no parity could be granted to the InternalAuditors with the Head Clerks. The High Court also did not keep inview that the Pay Anomaly Committee did consider the demand ofInternal Auditors and had not accepted the demand in view of differentnature of duties and various other relevant factors. The learned SingleJudge erred in recording that the respondents were in the same categoryof “Sub Fire Officers” within the same group which have been decidedby the earlier judgment dated 21.01.2010.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A41. As discussed earlier, merely because various different postshave been categorized under Group XII, they cannot claim parity of payscale as that of the Head Clerk. All the more so, when the InternalAuditors are appointed 55% by direct recruitment and 45% by promotionfrom Circle Assistant/Assistant Revenue Accountant. The High Courtdid not keep in view that the duties, nature of work and promotion channelBof Head Clerks and Internal Auditors are entirely different and that optionto seek promotion apparently as Internal Auditors was the “consciousexercise of option”, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and isliable to be set aside.

42. In the result, the impugned judgment dated 23.02.2012 passedCby the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in LPA No.264of 2012 and Order dated 04.05.2012 in the review petition are set asideand these appeals are allowed. No costs.

D

Nidhi Jain

Appeals allowed.

E

F

G

H