Different Posts Coincidentally Having Same Pay Scale Does Not Create Indefeasible Right To Pay Parity: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday observed that pay parity cannot be claimed as an indefeasible right unless the competent authority consciously decides to equate two posts despite their different nomenclature or qualifications.“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. 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”A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice KV Vishwanathan highlighted that the prescription of pay scales for a post is a policy decision, and the state's obligation is just to ensure that the pay structure for promotional or higher posts is not lower than the feeder cadre.“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.”The court made these observations while disposing of State of UP's appeal concerning the pay scales of Headmasters and other educational officials within the State Education Department.The case began with a Uttar Pradesh Government Order on July 20, 2001, which increased the pay scales of state government teachers, including Headmasters, based on the Fifth Central Pay Commission's recommendations, effective from July 1, 2001. The Headmasters' pay scale was revised from 4625-125-7000 to 6500-200-10500, with a further revision of their Selection Grade from 4800-150-7650 to 7500-250-12000. However, this did not apply to Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools (SDI/ABSA) and Deputy Basic Shiksha Adhikaris (DBSA), resulting in their pay being lower than that of Headmasters.The Uttar Pradesh Vidhyalay Nirikshak Sangh and others filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking the 7500-12000 pay scale for SDI/ABSA and a higher pay scale for DBSAs. On May 6, 2002, the High Court ruled in their favor, directing the State to grant the revised pay scales effective from July 1, 2001. The State appealed to the Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal on December 8, 2010, noting that the State had already taken steps to address the pay discrepancies.In 2011, the respondents challenged a new Government Order dated July 14, 2011, which created 1031 posts of 'Block Education Officer' by merging 1360 posts of SDI/ABSA and 157 posts of DBSA, with a sanctioned pay scale of 7500-12000 effective from January 1, 2006, with actual benefits from December 1, 2008. The respondents sought a higher pay scale from January 1, 1996. On February 2, 2018, a Single Judge of the High Court quashed the 2011 Order and directed the State to act within three months.The State filed a delayed appeal on May 23, 2019. The High Court division bench dismissed this appeal on April 6, 2023, due to the delay. Thus, the state filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court.Further, the court reiterated that the creation, merger, de-merger, or amalgamation of cadres within a service for administrative efficiency is within the state's prerogative. Judicial interference in such policy decisions would be sparing unless there is a blatant violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.In the present case, the court noted there was no pay parity between Headmasters and the posts of SDI/ABSA. The posts carried the same pay scale coincidentally until the State Government granted a higher revised pay scale to the Headmasters, leading to an anomalous situation where Headmasters, part of the feeder cadre for selection to 10% posts of SDI/ABSA, were in a higher pay scale. The court observed that the Appellant-State, directed by the High Court, had recalibrated and recompensed the affected employees, a proposal approved by the Supreme Court in an earlier round of litigation. The State issued necessary orders granting restructured benefits to these employees. Most of the respondents are senior citizens who have retired and utilized the monetary benefits for personal needs, the court noted.Given this context, the court opined that remitting the case to the High Court would not resolve the endless litigation which had taken a toll on the respondents' financial and health conditions. To avoid opening a floodgate of litigation and considering the respondents' old age and financial condition, the court decided to invoke its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to pass orders in the larger interest of justice and prevent manifest injustice, especially in cases involving protracted litigation.The court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgments of the Division Bench and the Single Judge of the ...

Different Posts Coincidentally Having Same Pay Scale Does Not Create Indefeasible Right To Pay Parity: Supreme Court

Amisha Shrivastava

Tags