Pay Parity Cannot Be Claimed As Indefeasible Enforceable Right Except Where Competent Authority Taken Conscious Decision To Equate Two Posts: SC
The Supreme Court observed that pay parity cannot be claimed as an indefeasible enforceable right except where the competent authority has taken a conscious decision to equate two posts.
The Court was deciding a civil appeal preferred against the order of the Allahabad High Court by which an intra-court appeal of the State, challenging the Single Judge’s judgment was dismissed on the ground of delay.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Viswanathan held, “It needs no emphasis that prescription of pay scale for a post entails Policy decision based upon the recommendations of an expert body like Pay Commission. All that the State is obligated to ensure is that the pay structure of a promotional or higher post is not lower than the feeder cadre. Similarly, pay parity cannot be claimed as an indefeasible enforceable right save and except where the Competent Authority has taken a conscious decision to equate two posts notwithstanding their different nomenclature or distinct qualifications.”
The Bench added that the incidental grant of same pay scale to two or more posts, without any express equation amongst such posts, cannot be termed as an anomaly in a pay scale of a nature which can be said to have infringed the Right to Equality under Article 16 of our Constitution.
ASG K.M. Nataraj and AAG Sharan Dev Singh Thakur represented the appellants while Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave and AOR Shubhangi Tuli represented the respondents.
Factual Background -
The controversy centred around the alleged discrepancy in the pay scales of Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools/Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikaris (SDI/ABSA) and Deputy Basic Shiksha Adhikaris (DBSA) of the Basic Education Department, State of UP vis-à-vis the Headmasters of Junior High Schools. The genesis of the disparity was the Government Order issued based on the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission, pursuant to which the pay scales of State Government teachers, including Headmasters were brought on par with Central Government teachers.
Resultantly, the basic pay scale of Headmasters stood revised, however, there was no alteration in the pay scales of SDI/ABSAA and DBSA due to which their pay scales became lesser than those granted to the Headmasters. The Single Judge effectively directed to grant the higher pay scale to SDI/ABSA and DBSA. The High Court on an intra-court appeal preferred by the State, dismissed the same and affirmed the judgment of the Single Judge. Being aggrieved, the State approached the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in the above regard said, “… once leave has been granted in a Special Leave Petition, regardless of whether such appeal is subsequently dismissed with or without reasons, the doctrine of merger comes into play resulting in merger of the order under challenge with that of the appellate forum, and only the latter would hold the field. Consequently, it is the decision of the superior court which remains effective, enforceable, and binding in the eyes of the law, whether the appeal is dismissed by a speaking order or not.”
The Court asked that even if it was a fit case for condonation of delay, will it serve the cause of justice to set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench and remit the intra-court appeal for a fresh adjudication on merits?
“Equally well settled is that the creation, merger, de-merger or amalgamation of cadres within a service to bring efficacy or in the administrative exigencies, is the State’s prerogative. The Court in exercise of its power of judicial review would sparingly interfere in such a policy decision, unless it is found to have brazenly offended Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution”, it noted.
Moreover, the Court observed that most of the respondents have retired from service long back and are now senior citizens and the monetary benefits have already been utilised by them on their personal needs.
“That being the state of affairs, it seems to us that remittance of the case to the High Court is not likely to bring quietus to the endless litigation. The party who gets aggrieved by the judgement of the Division Bench owing to the previous record will most likely approach this Court again. The litigation has taken its toll on the financial and health conditions of the private Respondents, in their old age. We are, therefore, of the considered view that as long as the Respondents can be suitably compensated without subjecting them to any recovery and in such a manner that the relief so granted does not become a precedent for one and all to open a Pandora’s box and drag the State into a flood of litigation, it would be in the interests of one and all that such like litigation which has the potentiality of multiplying in the future, should be brought to an end without any delay”, it remarked.
The Court concluded that it is a matter of common knowledge that the cases entailing discord over pay parity, are frequently subjected to prolonged litigation and these squabbles often lead to parties enduring significant challenges and hardships over extended periods as they await adjudication. It added by saying that regrettably, the delay in resolving such matters usually renders them infructuous by the time a decision is reached.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench in its entirety and that of the Single Judge in part, and directed payment of pension and other retiral benefits to the respondents.
Cause Title- State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. v. Virendra Bahadur Katheria and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 524)
Appearance:
Appellants: ASG K.M. Nataraj, AAG Sharan Dev Singh Thakur, AOR Ruchira Goel, Advocates Siddharth Thakur, Indira Bhakar, Adit Jayeshbhai Shah, Sharanya Sinha, Mustafa Sajad, and Keerti Jaya.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave, AOR Shubhangi Tuli, Advocates Tanya Agarwal, Ayushi, Akshat, Yatish Mohan, and AOR E. C. Vidya Sagar.
