UNION OF INDIA versus INDIAN NAVY CIVILIAN DESIGN OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ANR. on 22 February 2023

UNION OF INDIA

v.

INDIAN NAVY CIVILIAN DESIGN OFFICERS ASSOCIATIONAND ANR.

(Civil Appeal No. 8329 of 2011)

FEBRUARY 22, 2023

[AJAY RASTOGI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]

Service Law : Pay scale – Grant of – Respondent associationseeking pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 to the Junior Design Officersas allowed to the Civilian Technical Officers (Design), consequentto the implementation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission – Allowedby the tribunal and the High Court, by equating the posts of JDOswith CTOs, and in fixing the pay scales of JDOs equivalent to thatof CTOs – Justification of – Held: Equation and classification ofposts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of theExecutive and not of the Judiciary – Courts should not enter uponthe task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodieslike the Pay Commissions – Wisdom and advisability of the Courtsin the matters concerning the finance, are ordinarily not amenableto judicial review unless a gross case of arbitrariness or unfairnessis established by the aggrieved party –Though the doctrine equalpay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine and is capable ofbeing enforced in a Court of Law, the equal pay must be for equalwork of equal value – On facts, the probation period in case ofCTOs is longer than that of JDOs –Duties and responsibilities ofboth the posts are different and the promotional avenues also havedifferent duration and different criteria – Tribunal and the HighCourt erred in interfering with the pay scales recommended by theFifth Central Pay Commission and accepted by the appellant forthe posts of JDOs and CTOs, and in upgrading the pay scale ofJDOs making it equivalent to the pay scale of CTOs – Thus, theorders passed by the High Court and the tribunal quashed and setaside – Doctrine of equal pay for equal work.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1 The power of judicial review of the High Courtsin the matter of classification of posts and determination of pay

529

A

B

CDEF

G

H

Ascale is no more res integra. Equation of posts and equation ofsalaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert bodyunless there is cogent material on record to come to a firmconclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the payscale for a given post and the interference of the Court wasabsolutely necessary to undo the injustice. [Para 9][536-G-H; 537-BA]

1.2 Though the doctrine “equal pay for equal work” is notan abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Courtof Law, the equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. Theequation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primaryCfunction of the Executive and not of the Judiciary. The Courtstherefore should not enter upon the task of job evaluation whichis generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissionswhich undertake rigorous exercise for job evaluation after takinginto consideration several factors like the nature of work, theDduties, accountability and responsibilities attached to the posts,the extent of powers conferred on the persons holding a particularpost, the promotional avenues, the Statutory rules governing theconditions of service, the horizontal and vertical relativities withsimilar jobs etc. It may be true that the nature of work involvedin two posts may sometimes appear to be more or less similar,Ehowever, if the classification of posts and determination of payscale have reasonable nexus with the objective or purpose soughtto be achieved, namely, the efficiency in the administration, thePay Commissions would be justified in recommending and theState would be justified in prescribing different pay scales for the

Fseemingly similar posts. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnationor resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues orfrustration due to longer duration of promotional avenues is alsoan acceptable reason for pay differentiation. There could be morethan one grade in a particular service. The classification of postsand the determination of pay structure, thus falls within theGexclusive domain of the Executive, and the Courts or Tribunalscannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Executive inprescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service.[Para 14][541-C-G; 542-A]

H

1.3 The Recruitment Rules governing the JDOs are as perthe SRO 367 dated 08.12.1996, as amended by SRO 246 dated21.11.2002, whereas the Recruitment Rules governing the CTOs(Design) are as per the SRO 132 dated 12.05.1982. The probationperiod in case of CTOs is longer than that of JDOs. The dutiesand responsibilities of both the posts are different and thepromotional avenues also have different duration and differentcriteria. There was not a single error, much less grave error inthe fixation of the pay scales for the JDOs and CTOs, which wouldhave justified the interference of the Tribunal. [Para 15][542-B-C]

1.4 Much emphasis was placed on the noting made by theOfficer of the Naval Department in the file recommending payscale of JDOs equivalent to that of CTOs, however, it may benoted that a noting recorded in the file is merely an expressionof opinion by a particular officer, and by no-stretch of imaginationsuch noting could be treated as a decision of the Government.[Para 16][542-D]

1.5 The powers of judicial review in the matters involvingfinancial implications are also very limited. The wisdom andadvisability of the Courts in the matters concerning the finance,are ordinarily not amenable to judicial review unless a gross caseof arbitrariness or unfairness is established by the aggrieved party.[Para 17][542-E]

1.6 The tribunal and the High Court had committed grosserror in interfering with the pay scales recommended by the FifthCentral Pay Commission and accepted by the appellant for theposts of JDOs and CTOs, and in upgrading the pay scale of JDOsmaking it equivalent to the pay scale of CTOs. The impugnedorders passed by the High Court and the tribunal are quashedand set aside. [Para 18, 19][542-F-G]

State of U.P. and Others vs. J.P. Chaurasia and Others1989(1) SCC 121 : [1988] 3 Suppl. SCR 288; Unionof India and Others vs. Makhan Chandra Roy 1997(11) SCC 182 : [1997] 2 SCR 1167; Secretary, FinanceDepartment and Others vs. West Bengal RegistrationService Association and Others 1993 Suppl. (1) SCC153 : [1992] 1 SCR 897; State of Haryana and Others AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Avs. Charanjit Singh and Others 2006 (9) SCC 321 :[2005] 4 Suppl. SCR 57; Union of India throughSecretary, Department of Personnel, Public Grievancesand Pensions and Anr. vs. T.V.L.N Mallikarjuna Rao(2015) 3 SCC 653 : [2014] 13 SCR 149 – referred to.

Case Law Reference

B

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.8329of 2011.

DFrom the Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2010 of the High Courtof Delhi at New Delhi in WPC No.1006 of 2008.

R Bala, Sr. Adv., Ms. Aakanksha Kaul, Mrs. Indira Bhakar,Sharath Nambiar, Varun Chugh, Digvijay Dam, Rajan Kumar Chourasia,Chitransh Sharma, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, Advs.Efor the Appellant.

Salman Khurshid, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Naghma Imtiaz, Zargham Ahmed,Saif Naseem, Mrs. Arushi Jain, Mrs. Shama Usmani, Ishu Dixit, M/s.Equity Lex Associates, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered byF

BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

1. By way of present appeal, the appellant-Union of Indiahaschallenged the judgment and order dated 02.08.2010 passed by theHigh Court of Delhi, in WP(C)No. 1006 of 2008, whereby the HighCourt had dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant and confirmedGthe judgment and order dated 08.06.2007 passed by the CentralAdministrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A.No. 2228 of 2006.

2. The respondent-Indian Navy Civilian Design OfficersAssociation had by way of filing the O.A. No.2223/2006 before the H

Tribunal, challenged the decision of the appellant rejecting theirrepresentation for the grant of pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 to the JuniorDesign Officers as allowed to the Civilian Technical Officers (Design),consequent to the implementation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission.As per the case of the respondent-association, the cadre of Designofficers in the Indian Navy was created in the year 1965 in order tomeet with the functional requirements of Navy regarding specificassignments to the Naval dockyards, Training, Establishments, Directorateof Naval Design and other Technical Directorates of Naval Headquarters.The drawing staff in the Navy belonged to diverse disciplines such asConstruction, Electrical, Engineering and Armament. So far as thedisciplines of Construction, Electrical and Engineering were concerned,the Group ‘B’ gazetted posts were designated as Junior Design Officers(JDOs), and for Armament disciplines, the Group ‘B’ gazetted postswere designated as Civilian Technical Officers (CTOs) (Design). TheRecruitment Rules governing the JDOs notified by SRO 367 dated08.12.1996, were amended by SRO 246 dated 21.11.2002. TheRecruitment Rules for the post of CTOs (Design) were notified by SRO132 dated 12.05.1982.

3. As per the further case of the respondent-Association, up tothe Fifth Central Pay Commission, all the pay scales of all the disciplinesand all grades were the same, however, after the recommendations ofthe Fifth Pay Commission, the pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 was fixedfor the CTOs, whereas the pay scale of Rs.7450-11500 was fixed forthe JDOs. Since the pay scales of the feeder cadre had remained thesame in all the disciplines, the respondent-Association had maderepresentation to the appellant for the grant of revised pay scale of Rs.7500-12000 to the JDOs as allowed to the CTOs (Design) consequentupon the implementation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission. TheMinistry of Finance having rejected the respondent’s proposal forupgradation of the pay scale, the respondent-Association had filed theO.A. No. 1730 of 2003 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide the orderdated 01.11.2004 disposed of the said O.A. with direction to the appellantto consider the parity of pay scale of JDOs along with CTOs by evaluatingtheir duties and responsibilities and to pass a detailed speaking order.

4. The Ministry of Finance reconsidered the said representationof the respondent-Association, however, again rejected the same by aspeaking order on 07.04.2006. Being aggrieved by the said order, the AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Arespondent-Association had preferred the O.A. No. 2228 of 2006 beforethe Tribunal, which came to be allowed vide the order dated 08.06.2007.The Tribunal set aside the order dated 07.04.2006 passed by the appellant-UOI and directed the appellant to grant to the JDOs, the pay scale ofRs. 7500-12000 at par with Group ‘B’ gazetted posts of CTOs (Design)from the same date as it was given to the Group ‘B’ gazetted posts withBall consequential benefits. The appellant being aggrieved by the saidorder passed by the Tribunal had filed W.P(C) No. 1006 of 2008, whichcame to be dismissed by the High Court vide the impugned order.

5. The main question that falls for consideration before this Courtis whether the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in equating theCposts of JDOs with CTOs, and in fixing the pay scales of JDOs equivalentto that of CTOs, in utter disregard of the legal position settled by thisCourt in catena of decisions to the effect that the Courts should notinterfere with the complex issues of evaluating the nature of duties andresponsibilities of posts, and of fixing the pay scales, which task otherwiseDis best done by the expert bodies like the Pay Commission.

6. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. R. Bala Subramanyamappearing for the appellant placing heavy reliance upon the decision ofthe Ministry of Finance dated 07.04.2006 submitted as under:

(i) The posts of JDOs and CTOs are governed by two differentEsets of Rules. Accordingly, the qualifications for recruitment/promotion in the case of CTOs are higher than that of theJDOs;

(ii) The probation period in case of CTOs is longer than that ofJDOs;F

(iii) The duties and responsibilities attached to the posts of CTOsare more onerous, varied and challenging as compared tothat of JDOs;

(iv) The post of CTOs also exists in other streams like R&D inthe revised pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000. These posts couldGnot be given the lower pay scale of Rs. 7450-11500, as thefeeder post of foreman exists in the said pay scale.

(v) As the post of CTOs in different streams within the NavalArmament Inspection Organizations were already in thehigher pay scale of Rs. 7500-12000, the same pay scaleH

had to be extended to the CTOs (Design) as well, whereasAno such exigency existed in case of the post of JDOs.

(vi) The pay scales for the posts of the JDOs and CTOs werefixed on the basis of the specific recommendations of theFifth Central Pay Commission, and therefore the Tribunalas well as the High Court had committed gross error inBinterfering with the same and in upgrading the pay scale ofJDOs to put them at par with CTOs (Design).

7. Mr. R. Bala Subramanyam has also placed on record the chartshowing the promotional hierarchy of CTOs and JDOs in different CPCs:- CDEFG

Promotional hierarchy of CTO and JDO in different CPCs

* New grade of PTO(D) created in the cadre restructuring on 29Oct. 2020.

The posts of D’Man in NAI cadre has been abolished in thecadre restricting on 29 Oct. 2020.

- Grade/Posts doesn’t exists in cadre.

A8. Per contra, learned senior advocate Mr. Salman Khurshidappearing for the respondent-Association made the followingsubmissions-

(i) The Fifth Pay Commission had ignored the fact that fromthe very beginning, the posts of JDOs and CTOs (Design)Bcarried the same pay scales, as they were having the sameduties and responsibilities.

(ii) The post of Senior Foreman was granted the pay scale ofRs. 7450-11500, which was the pay scale granted to theJDOs, though the JDOs in the course of their duties had toCsupervise the work of Chief Draughtsman and SeniorForeman.

(iii) The department itself had strongly supported the case ofJDOs by putting a note dated 16.02.2005 recorded by theJoint Director who had recommended upgradation of theDpay scale of JDOs and for putting them at par with CTOs(Design).

(iv) Up to the Fourth Pay Commission, both the posts werecarrying the same pay scale.

(v) There would not have been any cascading effect if the payEscale of JDOs was upgraded, as the post of JDOs did notexist in the other organizations like EME, MES, and AirForce etc. and the financial implications were also not verybig.

(vi) The essential qualifications in the Recruitment Rules forFCTO (Design) and in the Recruitment Rules for JDO werealso more or less same and the promotional avenues in boththe cadres were also similar.

9. Before adverting to the rival contentions raised by the learnedcounsels for the parties, it deserves to be noted that the power of judicialGreview of the High Courts in the matter of classification of posts anddetermination of pay scale is no more res integra. It has been consistentlyheld by this Court in plethora of decisions that equation of posts andequation of salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expertbody unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firmconclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale forH

a given post and the interference of the Court was absolutely necessaryto undo the injustice.

10. In State of U.P. and Others Vs. J.P. Chaurasia and Others[1],while answering the questions as to whether the Bench Secretaries inthe High Court of Allahabad were entitled to pay scale admissible to theSection Officers and whether the creation of two grades with differentscales in the cadre of Bench Secretaries who were doing the same andsimilar work was violative of the right to have “equal pay for equalwork”. This Court observed as under: - “18. The first question regarding entitlement to the pay scaleadmissible to Section Officers should not detain us longer. Theanswer to the question depends upon several factors. It does notjust depend upon either the nature of work or volume of workdone by Bench Secretaries. Primarily it requires among others,evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts.More often functions of two posts may appear to be the same orsimilar, but there may be difference in degrees in the performance.The quantity of work may be the same, but quality may be differentthat cannot be determined by relying upon averments in affidavitsof interested parties. The equation of posts or equation of paymust be left to the executive Government. It must be determinedby expert bodies like Pay Commission. They would be the bestjudge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts.If there is any such determination by a Commission or Committee,the court should normally accept it. The court should not try totinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was madewith extraneous consideration.”

11. The afore-stated ratio was followed by this Court in Union ofIndia and Others Vs. Makhan Chandra Roy[2]. Again, in Secretary,Finance Department and Others Vs. West Bengal RegistrationService Association and Others[3], the claim of Sub-Registrars of WestBengal Registration Service claiming parity in pay scale with Munsiffson the basis that Sub-Registrars were conferred gazetted status, wasexamined by this Court. It was elaborately observed in para 12 as under:- 1 1989(1) SCC 121

2 1997 (11) SCC 182

3 1993 Suppl. (1) SCC 153

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

1 1989(1) SCC 121

2 1997 (11) SCC 182

3 1993 Suppl. (1) SCC 153

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A“12. We do not consider it necessary to traverse the case law onwhich reliance has been placed by counsel for the appellants as itis well settled that equation of posts and determination of payscales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciaryand, therefore, ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of jobevaluation which is generally left to expert bodies like the PayBCommissions, etc. But that is not to say that the Court has nojurisdiction and the aggrieved employees have no remedy if theyare unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction. Courtsmust, however, realise that job evaluation is both a difficult andtime-consuming task which even expert bodies having theCassistance of staff with requisite expertise have found difficult toundertake sometimes on account of want of relevant data andscales for evaluating performances of different groups ofemployees. This would call for a constant study of the externalcomparisons and internal relativities on account of the changingnature of job requirements. The factors which may have to beDkept in view for job evaluation may include (i) the work programmeof his department (ii) the nature of contribution expected of him(iii) the extent of his responsibility and accountability in thedischarge of his diverse duties and functions (iv) the extent andnature of freedoms/limitations available or imposed on him in theEdischarge of his duties (v) the extent of powers vested in him (vi)the extent of his dependence on superiors for the exercise of hispowers (vii) the need to co-ordinate with other departments, etc.We have also referred to the history of the service and the effortof various bodies to reduce the total number of pay scales to areasonable number. Such reduction in the number of pay scalesFhas to be achieved by resorting to broad banding of posts by placingdifferent posts having comparable job charts in a common scale.Substantial reduction in the number of pay scales must inevitablylead to clubbing of posts and grades which were earlier differentand unequal. While doing so care must be taken to ensure thatsuch rationalisation of the pay structure does not throw upGanomalies. Ordinarily a pay structure is evolved keeping in mindseveral factors, e.g., (i) method of recruitment, (ii) level at whichrecruitment is made, (iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre,(iv) minimum educational/technical qualifications required, (v)avenues of promotion, (vi) the nature of duties and responsibilities,H(vii) the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs, (viii)

A

B

C

D

E

G

H

public dealings, (ix) satisfaction level, (x) employer’s capacity topay, etc. We have referred to these matters in some detail only toemphasise that several factors have to be kept in view whileevolving a pay structure and the horizontal and vertical relativitieshave to be carefully balanced keeping in mind the hierarchicalarrangements, avenues for promotion, etc. Such a carefully evolvedpay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed as it may upsetthe balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well. Itis presumably for this reason that the Judicial Secretary who hadstrongly recommended a substantial hike in the salary of the Sub-Registrars to the Second (State) Pay Commission found it difficultto concede the demand made by the Registration Service beforehim in his capacity as the Chairman of the Third (State) PayCommission. There can, therefore, be no doubt that equation ofposts and equation of salaries is a complex matter which is bestleft to an expert body unless there is cogent material on record tocome to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in whilefixing the pay scale for a given post and Court’s interference isabsolutely necessary to undo the injustice.”

12. In State of Haryana and Others Vs.Charanjit Singh andOthers[4], a three-judge Bench in a referred matter considered whetherthe doctrine of “equal pay for equal work”, was an abstract doctrine,and observed thus: - “19. Having considered the authorities and the submissions weare of the view that the authorities in the cases of JasmerSingh [(1996) 11 SCC 77 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 210 : AIR 1997 SC1788 : (1997) 2 LLJ 667] , Tilak Raj [(2003) 6 SCC 123 : 2003SCC (L&S) 828] , Orissa University of Agriculture &Technology [(2003) 5 SCC 188 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 645 : (2003) 2LLJ 968] and Tarun K. Roy [(2004) 1 SCC 347 : 2004 SCC (L&S)225] lay down the correct law. Undoubtedly, the doctrine of “equalpay for equal work” is not an abstract doctrine and is capable ofbeing enforced in a court of law. But equal pay must be for equalwork of equal value. The principle of “equal pay for equal work”has no mechanical application in every case. Article 14 permitsreasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics ofpersons recruited and grouped together, as against those who were ABC

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics must have areasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In servicematters, merit or experience can be a proper basis for classificationfor the purposes of pay in order to promote efficiency inadministration. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultantfrustration for lack of promotional avenues is also an acceptablereason for pay differentiation. The very fact that the person hasnot gone through the process of recruitment may itself, in certaincases, make a difference. If the educational qualifications aredifferent, then also the doctrine may have no application. Eventhough persons may do the same work, their quality of work maydiffer. Where persons are selected by a Selection Committee onthe basis of merit with due regard to seniority a higher pay scalegranted to such persons who are evaluated by the competentauthority cannot be challenged. A classification based on differencein educational qualifications justifies a difference in pay scales. Amere nomenclature designating a person as say a carpenter or acraftsman is not enough to come to the conclusion that he is doingthe same work as another carpenter or craftsman in regularservice. The quality of work which is produced may be differentand even the nature of work assigned may be different. It is notjust a comparison of physical activity. The application of theprinciple of “equal pay for equal work” requires consideration ofvarious dimensions of a given job. The accuracy required and thedexterity that the job may entail may differ from job to job. Itcannot be judged by the mere volume of work. There may bequalitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility.Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make adifference. Thus normally the applicability of this principle mustbe left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body. Theseare not matters where a writ court can lightly interfere. Normallya party claiming equal pay for equal work should be required toraise a dispute in this regard. In any event, the party who claimsequal pay for equal work has to make necessary averments andprove that all things are equal. Thus, before any direction can beissued by a court, the court must first see that there are necessaryaverments and there is a proof. If the High Court is, on basis ofmaterial placed before it, convinced that there was equal work ofequal quality and all other relevant factors are fulfilled it may direct payment of equal pay from the date of the filing of therespective writ petition. In all these cases, we find that the HighCourt has blindly proceeded on the basis that the doctrine of equalpay for equal work applies without examining any relevant factors.”

13. In Union of India through Secretary, Department ofPersonnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and Anr. Vs. T.V.L.NMallikarjuna Rao[5], this Court reiterated the said position: - “26. The classification of posts and determination of pay structurecomes within the exclusive domain of the executive and theTribunal cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the executive inprescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service.There may be more grades than one in a particular service.”

14. In view of the afore-stated legal position, it clearly emergesthat though the doctrine “equal pay for equal work” is not an abstractdoctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of Law, the equalpay must be for equal work of equal value. The equation of posts anddetermination of pay scales is the primary function of the Executive andnot of the Judiciary. The Courts therefore should not enter upon the taskof job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the PayCommissions which undertake rigorous exercise for job evaluation aftertaking into consideration several factors like the nature of work, theduties, accountability and responsibilities attached to the posts, the extentof powers conferred on the persons holding a particular post, thepromotional avenues, the Statutory rules governing the conditions ofservice, the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs etc. Itmay be true that the nature of work involved in two posts may sometimesappear to be more or less similar, however, if the classification of postsand determination of pay scale have reasonable nexus with the objectiveor purpose sought to be achieved, namely, the efficiency in theadministration, the Pay Commissions would be justified in recommendingand the State would be justified in prescribing different pay scales forthe seemingly similar posts. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation orresultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues or frustration dueto longer duration of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reasonfor pay differentiation. It is also a well-accepted position that there couldbe more than one grade in a particular service. The classification ofposts and the determination of pay structure, thus falls within the exclusivedomain of the Executive, and the Courts or Tribunals cannot sit in appeal 5 (2015) 3 SCC 653

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H

Aover the wisdom of the Executive in prescribing certain pay structureand grade in a particular service.

15. So far as the facts of the present case are concerned, it is notdisputed that the Recruitment Rules governing the JDOs are as per theSRO 367 dated 08.12.1996, as amended by SRO 246 dated 21.11.2002,Bwhereas the Recruitment Rules governing the CTOs (Design) are asper the SRO 132 dated 12.05.1982. The probation period in case ofCTOs is longer than that of JDOs. The duties and responsibilities ofboth the posts are different and the promotional avenues also havedifferent duration and different criteria. There was not a single error,much less grave error pointed out by learned Senior Advocate. Mr.CKhurshid, in the fixation of the pay scales for the JDOs and CTOs,which would have justified the interference of the Tribunal.

16. Much emphasis was placed by the learned senior advocateMr. Khurshid on the noting made by the Officer of the Naval Departmentin the file recommending pay scale of JDOs equivalent to that of CTOs,Dhowever, it may be noted that a noting recorded in the file is merely anexpression of opinion by a particular officer, and by no-stretch ofimagination such noting could be treated as a decision of the Government[6].

17. The powers of judicial review in the matters involving financialimplications are also very limited. The wisdom and advisability of theCourts in the matters concerning the finance, are ordinarily not amenableEto judicial review unless a gross case of arbitrariness or unfairness isestablished by the aggrieved party.

18. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that theTribunal and the High Court had committed gross error in interferingwith the pay scales recommended by the Fifth Central Pay CommissionFand accepted by the appellant for the posts of JDOs and CTOs, and inupgrading the pay scale of JDOs making it equivalent to the pay scale ofCTOs.

19. Consequently, the impugned orders passed by the High Courtand the Tribunal are quashed and set aside. The appeal stands allowedGaccordingly.

Nidhi Jain

(Assisted by : Bhavyata Kapoor and Shashwat Jain, LCRAs)

Appeal allowed.