The Delhi High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a CAT order that denied LDCs of the C.A.T. Delhi parity in pay scales with LDCs of District and Sessions Courts. The Court upheld the CAT view that pay fixation is an executive function.
Writ petition was held to be without merit and was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~23
KAPIL KUMAR SETIA AND ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Padma Kumar and Mr. Amandeep Joshi, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra with Mr. Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, Advocats for UOI
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
WP(c) 3717 of 2016 Page 1 of 7
Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, under the administrative control of Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India. At the relevant time they were working as LDC‟s. 3. The petitioners‟ representations dated 13th October and 19th November, 2011 for grant of pay scale of Rs.4500-125-7000 with effect from 01.01.1996 at par with the LDCs working in the office of District & Sessions‟ Court, Delhi, was rejected vide memorandum dated 27.07.2012 by the Chairman of the Tribunal. The petitioners‟ claim is that they should be treated at par with the LDCs working in the District & Sessions Courts at Delhi, instead of their counterparts in CSS/CSSS/CSCS. The memorandum rejecting the said request reads:
“Memorandum
With reference to their representation date 13.10.2011 & 19.11.2011 for grant of pay scale of Rs.4500-125-7000 w.e.f. 01.01.1996 at par with the LDCs of District & Sessions Courts in Delhi pursuant to judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court dated 09.02.2011, the following LDCs working in the Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal are hereby informed that taking into account the pay scales for various posts in District & Sessions Court and promotional hierarchy vis-a-vis their counterparts in CAT and also the fact that there is a historical parity of pay scales in respect of employees of CAT with their counterparts of CSS/CSS/CSCS, Hon‟ble Chairman, Central Administrative Tribunal has been pleased to direct that the Central Administrative Tribunal will continue to claim parity for scales in respect of all the posts including LDC in CAT wit the counterparts in CSS/CSSS/CSCS.
(L.R. Sharda)
WP(c) 3717 of 2016 Page 2 of 7
Deputy Registrar
(E)”
“12. It would be clear from what has been recorded above that fixation of pay is an issue not to be interfered with unless there is hostile discrimination. It is for the government to take appropriate decision in this regard. In Union of India Vs. P.V. Hariharan, 1997 (3) SCC 568, it could be held thus:
WP(c) 3717 of 2016 Page 3 of 7
“.......................over the past few weeks, we have come across several matters decided by Administrative tribunals on the question of pay scales. We have noticed that quite often the tribunals are interfering with pay scales without proper reasons and without being conscious of the fact that fixation of pay is not their function. It is the function of the government which normally acts on the recommendations of a Pay Commission. Change of pay scale of a category has a cascading effect. Several other categories similarly situated, as well as those situated above and below, put forward their claims on the basis of such change. The tribunal should realise that interfering with the prescribed pay scales is a serious matter. The Pay Commission, which goes into the problem at great depth and happens to have a full picture before it, is the proper authority to decide upon this issue. Very often, the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is also being misunderstood and misapplied, freely revising and enhancing the pay scales across the board. We hope and trust that the tribunals will exercise due restraint in the matter. Unless a clear case of hostile discrimination is made out, there would be no justification for interfering with the fixation of pay scales.”
13. Similarly in Union of India Vs. Makhan Chand Roy, AIR 1997 SC 2391, it could be held thus:
WP(c) 3717 of 2016 Page 4 of 7
“2.......The Tribunal compared the earlier pay-scales of Auxiliary Nurses and Midwife with the earlier pay-scales of the respondent and thought it fit to grant the same hike in the pay-scale which was made available under the Revised Pay Rules to Auxiliary Nurses and Midwife to respondent also. In our view that exercise was totally unauthorised as it amount to taking a policy-decision which was within the domain of the authorities themselves who are the authors of the Revised PayScales......”
14. If the pay scale of LDCs in CAT is disturbed, it will have immediate repercussion on the pay scale of UDCs and so on. It will be an endless chain reaction. Therefore, we are of the considered view that this Tribunal cannot move into the shoes of the government and the Pay Commissions and determine what is the right pay scale. Moreover, VII Pay Commission is considering the pay scale matters and would perhaps finalize its report soon.”
WP(c) 3717 of 2016 Page 5 of 7
Court in (i) State of Haryana and anr. Vs. Tilak Raj and ors. , 2003 (5) SCALE 251, (ii) S.C. Chandra and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors. , 2007 (10) SCALE 209; and (iii) State of Punjab and anr. Vs. Surjit Singh and ors. , 2009 (11) SCALE 149, which elucidate that the doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟ cannot he applied even if the functions are the same, for the responsibilities etc. may differ. Pay determination must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body. Ergo, the applicability of the principle of „equal pay for equal work‟ which requires considerations of various dimensions of a given job is best left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body.
WP(c) 3717 of 2016 Page 6 of 7
with the impugned order. The petition is without merit and it is accordingly dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
SANJIV KHANNA, J
MAY 03, 2016/acm
WP(c) 3717 of 2016 Page 7 of 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the CAT order declining the petitioners' claim for pay parity with LDCs of Delhi District and Sessions Courts.
Whether the principle of equal pay for equal work applies to grant higher pay scales to CAT staff over their historical counterparts.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mirza Zahid Beg & Ors. v. Sunion of India & Ors. WP(C) 484/1988Referred¶20
Union of India Vs. P.V. Hariharan, 1997 (3) SCC 568Relied on¶22
Union of India Vs. Makhan Chand Roy, AIR 1997 SC 2391Relied on¶25
State of Haryana and anr. Vs. Tilak Raj and ors., 2003 (5) SCALE 251Relied on¶31
S.C. Chandra and ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors., 2007 (10) SCALE 209Relied on¶31
State of Punjab and anr. Vs. Surjit Singh and ors., 2009 (11) SCALE 149Relied on¶31
KAPIL KUMAR SETIA AND ORS
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
NAJMI WAZIRI
SANJIV KHANNA
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
