'Courts Can't Interfere In Executive Function Of Pay Commission, Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition Claiming Pay Parity

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justices C Hari Shankar and Ajay Digpaul held that the Petitioner who was an Advisor (Nutrition) could not be granted the same salary as that of the Advisor (Ayurveda) and Advisor (Homeopathy). The Bench held that since the posts were different, it could not be expected that the nature of duties performed by the employees could be the same and therefore, granting the petitioner the pay scale which was at par with the other posts would not be possible. The Bench further ruled that matters falling within the province of expert bodies like Pay Commission could not be interfered with by courts. Background The Petitioner held the position of Advisor (Nutrition) in the Directorate General of Health Services, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. He claimed before the Central Administrative Tribunal that he was entitled to a pay scale that was at par with the posts of Advisor (Ayurveda) and Advisor (Homeopathy). The Tribunal rejected his claim on 07.10.2011. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Tribunal, the Petitioner approached the High Court by filing a Writ Petition. Findings of the Court The Court observed that the 5th Central Pay Commission had recommended that the Post of Advisor (Nutrition) be placed in the scale of Rs.4500-5700. The replacement scale for the said Post was Rs.14300- 18300 and this scale was paid to the petitioner. The Counsel for the Petitioner during submissions had referred to the noting, entered by the Deputy Directorate General (P) on the file wherein it was stated, 'It will be more appropriate to recommend to the 5th Pay Commission to upgrade the pay scale of the post of Adviser (Nutrition) in the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) equivalent to Adviser (Nutrition) in the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) equivalent to Adviser (Homeopathy)/Adviser(Ayurveda) of the Ministry of Health and F.W. or in the scale of Advisers in the Ministry of Science and Technology/Planning Commission etc.' The Court however held that a noting does not entitle a party to a right. While observing so, the Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bachhittar Singh v State of Punjab, State of Punjab v Aman Singh Harika, Nareshbhai Bhagubhai v UOI, Sethi Auto Service Station v DDA, Shanti Sports Club v UOI and several other judgments. Moreover, the noting was entered before the matter was taken to the 5th Central Pay Commission, following which the 5th CPC had not recommended to extend pay parity of the post of Advisor (Nutrition) with the posts of Advisor (Ayurveda) and Advisor (Homeopathy). The Court further reiterated the findings of the Supreme Court regarding matters that involve expert bodies and held that courts cannot exercise their power of judicial review in matters that fall under the domain of Pay Commission. Referring to the decision in the case of UOI v Rajesh Kumar Gond as relied on by the Counsel for the Petitioner, the Court identified a difference in facts of the case and therefore held that the Petitioner's case could not be decided on the basis of the relied judgement. Furthermore, the Court observed that the qualifications for the post of Advisor (Nutrition) and for the posts of Advisor (Homeopathy) and Advisor (Ayurveda) in the relevant Recruitment Rules were distinct and different and therefore, claiming parity considering the same would not yield any outcome. Additionally, the Court held that the 5th Central Pay Commission had found it inadvisable to grant pay parity to the post of Advisor (Nutrition) with the posts of Advisor (Ayurveda) and Advisor (Homeopathy) after considering all factors. Thus, the Petitioner could not approach the Court claiming parity as it was a settled principle that in such matters, the Court could not sit in appeal or exercise its power of judicial review. The Court further elaborated upon law regarding pay parity and cited the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar v Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee wherein it was held, Analysis of the decisions referred to above shows that this Court has accepted the following limitations or qualifications to the applicability of the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work”: The application of the principle of “equal pay for equal work” requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job.Thus, normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body. These are not matters where a writ court can lightly interfere.Granting pay scales is a purely executive function and hence the court should not interfere with the same. It may have a cascading effect creating all kinds of problems for the Government and authorities.Equation of posts and salary is a complex matter which should be left to an expert body.Granting of pay parity by the court may result in a cascading effect and reaction which ...

'Courts Can't Interfere In Executive Function Of Pay Commission, Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition Claiming Pay Parity

Syed Nazarat Fatima

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Syed Nazarat Fatima

'Courts Can't Interfere In Executive Function Of Pay Commission, Delhi High Court Dismisses Petition Claiming Pay Parity

Syed Nazarat Fatima

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Syed Nazarat Fatima

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers