keyboard_arrow_up

S.H.BAIG vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH On 2018-09-25

HEADNOTE

Civil Appeal Nos ._9925-9926 of 2018 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos .17498-17499 of 2013 ) Civil Appeal No ._9929 of 2018 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No .13561 of 2014) Civil Appeal No ._9930 of 2018 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No .25985 of 2014) Civil Appeal Nos ._9900-9905 of 2018 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos .27300-27305 of 2011) Civil Appeal Nos .9907-9908 of 2018 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos .30992-30993 of 2011) 1 | P a g eRule 7 provides for fixation of initial pay of the Revised Scale which reads as under: Rule 7- Fixation of initial pay in the revised scale- (1) .. .. (b) .. .. (iv)- Ad hoc increase sanctioned to certain categories of Government servants in Police, Home Guard, Jail and Excise Department, except the ad hoc increase allowed to Ministerial Staff of Police Department.The High Court referred to a specific condition in the said Memorandum that even after enrolment under the Police Act, 1861, the Ministerial employees of the Police Department would continue to draw emoluments in the existing scale in which they were working prior to 1 st April, 1981 or as may be revised from to time.The High Court referred to several cases filed by the Ministerial employees in the State Ad
Read more...
Civil Appeal Nos ._9925-9926 of 2018 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos .17498-17499 of 2013 ) Civil Appeal No ._9929 of 2018 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No .13561 of 2014) Civil Appeal No ._9930 of 2018 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No .25985 of 2014) Civil Appeal Nos ._9900-9905 of 2018 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos .27300-27305 of 2011) Civil Appeal Nos .9907-9908 of 2018 (@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos .30992-30993 of 2011) 1 | P a g eRule 7 provides for fixation of initial pay of the Revised Scale which reads as under: Rule 7- Fixation of initial pay in the revised scale- (1) .. .. (b) .. .. (iv)- Ad hoc increase sanctioned to certain categories of Government servants in Police, Home Guard, Jail and Excise Department, except the ad hoc increase allowed to Ministerial Staff of Police Department.The High Court referred to a specific condition in the said Memorandum that even after enrolment under the Police Act, 1861, the Ministerial employees of the Police Department would continue to draw emoluments in the existing scale in which they were working prior to 1 st April, 1981 or as may be revised from to time.The High Court referred to several cases filed by the Ministerial employees in the State Administrative Tribunal seeking relief of parity of pay with the members of the Executive Force in the Police Department which were transferred to the High Court on abolition of the Tribunal.It was held that the request of the Appellants for equal pay could not be accepted as the recruitment process for the employees of the Executive and Ministerial staff is different, the qualifications for appointment to Executive and Ministerial posts are not the same, and the duties 12 | P a g e
Show less

SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT

Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.__9888-9899_OF 2018
[A    rising out of S.L.P (Civil) Nos.     27288-27299     of
2011]
S.H Baig & Ors.  .... AppellantsVersus
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. .Respondents
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos    ._9925-9926     of     2018
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos    .17498-17499     of
2013    )
Civil Appeal No    ._9929     of     2018
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No    .13561     of      2014)
Civil Appeal No    ._9930     of     2018
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No    .25985     of      2014)
Civil Appeal Nos    ._9900-9905     of     2018
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos    .27300-27305     of
2011)
Civil Appeal Nos    .9907-9908     of     2018
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos    .30992-30993     of
2011)
1  |  P a g e
Civil Appeal No    ._9906     of     2018
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No    .29387     of      2011)
Civil Appeal Nos    .9915-9924     of     2018
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos    .26760-26769     of
2012)
Civil Appeal Nos    ._9912-9914     of     2018
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos    .15743-15745     of
2012)
Civil Appeal Nos    . 9909-9911     of     2018
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos    .1584-1586     of     2012)
Civil Appeal No    ._9927     of     2018
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No    .4983     of     2014)
Civil Appeal No    ._9928     of     2018
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No    .7915     of 

Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.__9888-9899_OF 2018
[A    rising out of S.L.P (Civil) Nos.     27288-27299     of
2011]
S.H Baig & Ors.  .... AppellantsVersus
The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. .Respondents
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos    ._9925-9926     of     2018
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos    .17498-17499     of
2013    )
Civil Appeal No    ._9929     of     2018
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No    .13561     of      2014)
Civil Appeal No    ._9930     of     2018
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No    .25985     of      2014)
Civil Appeal Nos    ._9900-9905     of     2018
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos    .27300-27305     of
2011)
Civil Appeal Nos    .9907-9908     of     2018
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos    .30992-30993     of
2011)
1  |  P a g e
Civil Appeal No    ._9906     of     2018
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No    .29387     of      2011)
Civil Appeal Nos    .9915-9924     of     2018
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos    .26760-26769     of
2012)
Civil Appeal Nos    ._9912-9914     of     2018
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos    .15743-15745     of
2012)
Civil Appeal Nos    . 9909-9911     of     2018
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos    .1584-1586     of     2012)
Civil Appeal No    ._9927     of     2018
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No    .4983     of     2014)
Civil Appeal No    ._9928     of     2018
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No    .7915     of     2014)
Civil Appeal Nos    ._9931     of     2018
(@ Special Leave Petition (Civil) No    .35247     of     2017)
J U D G M E N T
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
I.A.   Nos.43-54   of   2015   in   SLP   (C)   Nos.27288-27299   of
2011
(Applications for directions)
I.A.Nos. 6-7 of 2011 in SLP (C) Nos.30992-30993 of 2011
(Applications for impleadment.)
2  |  P a g e
I.A. No in SLP (C) Nos.15743-15745 of 2012
(Applications   for   deletion   of   name   of   proforma
Respondent Nos.6-18)
I.A. No in SLP (C) Nos.26760-26769 of 2012
(Application   for   deletion   of   name   of   proforma
Respondent)
AND 
I.A. No.96266 of 2018
(Application for substitution of deceased Petitioner No.4)
All the above Interlocutory Applications are allowed. 
Leave granted.
1. These Appeals have been filed against the judgment
of   the   High   Court   of   Madhya   Pradesh   at   Jabalpur,   by
which        the claim of parity of pay-scales made by the
Ministerial   employees   of   the   Police   Department   in   the
State of Madhya Pradesh was not accepted.
2. Recruitment   to   the   posts   of   Ministerial   employeesi.e.  
Head   Clerk,   Assistant   Clerk,   Accountant,   Assistant
Accountant,   Record   Keeper,   Daftari,  	
etc .   was   governed
by the M.P. Police Regulations, which were framed under
the   Police   Act,   1861.     Inspectors,   Sub-Inspectors,
Subedars,   Assistant  Sub-Inspectors,  
etc .   were   appointed
3  |  P a g e
as   per   the   provisions   governed   by   Part   III   of   M.P.   Police
Regulations.       On   5 th
  November,   1967,   the   State
Government created new Police Ranks (Ministerial) in the
State   Police   Force   under   Section   2   of   the   Police   Act,
1861.     The   Ministerial   employees   who   opted   to   be
enrolled   under   the   Police   Act,   1861   would   continue   to
draw emoluments in their existing pay-scales      or as
may   be   revised   from   time   to   time.     They   were   given
Uniform   Grant   and   Uniform   Maintenance   Allowance   in
accordance   with   the   scale   prescribed   for   the
corresponding   regular   posts   (Executive).     They   would,
however,   not   be   entitled   to   House   Rent   or   Rent   Free
Accommodation   and   Conveyance   Allowance   admissible
to   Officers   of   corresponding   Ranks   in   the   Executive
branch.     There   was   a   difference   in   pay-scales   between
the Ministerial and Executive branches of the Police from
the   beginning,   which   can   be   seen   from   the   M.P.   Pay-
Revision Rules, 1961, popularly known as Tarachand Pay
Scales.         The   difference   between   pay-scales   was
continued   even   as   per   the   Faquir   Chand   Pay-Scales   in
1973.     On   14 th
  October,   1982,   the   Chaudhary   Pay
4  |  P a g e
Commission   submitted   its   Report   in   which   it
recommended as follows :We are unable to make recommendation of the
pay   scales   equivalent   to   Police   Executive   Force
to   the   ministerial   employees   of   police
department.     They   will   have   to   satisfy   with   the
pay scales received by the colleagues working in
other departments.
   
3. The   M.P.   Revision   of   Pay   Rules,   1983   (hereinafter
referred   to   as   the   1983   Rules)   were   brought   into   force
on the basis of the Chaudhary Commission 	
w.e.f.  1 st
 April,
1981.  Rule 7 provides for fixation of initial pay of the
Revised Scale which reads as under: 	
Rule 7- Fixation of initial pay in the revised scale-
(1) .. ..
(b) .. ..
(iv)-   Ad   hoc   increase   sanctioned   to   certain
categories   of   Government   servants   in   Police,   Home
Guard,   Jail   and   Excise   Department,   except   the   ad
hoc   increase   allowed   to   Ministerial   Staff   of   Police
Department.
(2)   An   amount   equal   to   20%   of   the   basic   pay
(inclusive   of  stagnation   allowance,  if   any)   shall  first
be  calculated.   In  case this amount exceeds  Rs.150
it should be reduced to Rs.150.  
From such amount of interim relief, or in the case of
certain   categories   of   Government   servants   in   the
Engineering   Department,   the   amount   of  the   ad  hoc
increase sanctioned to them, shall be deducted and
the balance be added to the emoluments arrived at
as in sub-rule (1).  If in any case, the balance is less
than   Rs.10/-   then   Rs.10/-   shall   be   added   to   the
emoluments.  
5  |  P a g e
4. Mr.   P.N.   Tripathi   who   was   initially   appointed   to
a   Ministerial   post   and   was   working   as   a   Deputy
Superintendant   of   Police   (DSP)   in   the   office   of   the
Director   General   of   Police   (DGP),   Madhya   Pradesh   filed
O.A.   No.   165   of   1994   in   the   Administrative   Tribunal,
Bhopal   Bench   seeking   revised   pay-fixation   and   the
quashing   of   an   order   passed   for   recovery   of   excess
amounts paid to him.  The Tribunal held that P.N. Tripathi
was entitled to get the  ad hoc   increase of pay of Rs.70/-
for   fixation   of   pay   as   per   Rule   7(1)(b)(iv)   of   the   M.P.
Revision   of   Pay   Rules,   1983.     The   Tribunal,   however,
observed   that   the   special   pay   was   not   to   be   merged   in
the revised  pay-scales.    Mr.  Krishna  Gopal  Duraphe filed
O.A. No.45 of 1998 seeking  	
ad hoc   increase of Rs.70/- in
the   basic   pay   as   per   the   M.P.   Revised   Pay   Rules,   1983.
Mr. Duraphe retired as a Deputy Superintendant of Police
(DSP).     He   was   denied   the   benefit   of   addition   of  	
ad   hoc
increase   of   Rs.70/-   to   his   basic   pay.     Following   the
judgment   in  	
Tripathis   case,   the   Tribunal   allowed   O.A.
No.45   of   1998   filed   by   Mr.   Duraphe   and   directed   the
Respondents-therein to re-fix his pay in the revised pay-
6  |  P a g e
scale   as   per   Table  31   of   the   M.P.   Revision   of   Pay-Scales,
1983 by including Rs.70/- for calculation of initial pay as
per Rule 7.   After the judgment in  Duraphes   case on 1 st
January,   2000,          a   decision   was   taken   by   the
Government   of   Madhya   Pradesh   to   give   the   benefit   of
Rs.70/- as 	
ad hoc  increment in the Chaudhary Pay-Scales	
w.e.f.
  1 st
  April,  1981  to  all  the  employees  working  in  the
Executive (Ministerial) Force.  
5. Miscellaneous   Application   No.218   of   2001   was   filed
by   the   State   of   Madhya   Pradesh   seeking   review   of   the
Order   dated   1 st
  April,   2000   passed   by   the   Tribunal   in
O.A. No.45 of 1998.  The Government of Madhya Pradesh
was   aggrieved   by   the   operative   portion   of   the   Order
passed   on   1 st
  April,   2000   in   O.A.   No.45   of   1998
directing   Duraphes pay  to  be  fixed  in  revised  pay  scale
as   per   Table   No.31   of   the   M.P.   Revision   of   Pay   Scales
Rules,   1983.     It   was   contended   on   behalf   of   the   State
that the Table No.31 is relatable       to an Executive Post.
According   to   the   Government,   the   judgment   of   the
Tribunal   dated   1 st
  January,   2000   needed   to   be   reviewed
because   several   persons   of   the   Ministerial   cadre   at   the
7  |  P a g e
lower   levels  i.e.   Inspector   (M)/   Peon,   Head   Constables
(M),   Daftari,   ASI   (M)/   LDC,   Sub-Inspector   (M)/   UDC,
Subedar   (M)/   Auditor   Stenographer   were   seeking   the
same   relief.     According   to   the   Government,   the
Ministerial employees though declared as police officers,
continued   to   remain   in   the   same   cadre   performing
ministerial   work   with   separate   pay-scales   which   are
lower than that of the Executive Force.  The Government
insisted   that   there   was   no   intention   of   granting   pay-
scales to Ministerial employees 	
on par  with the Executive
Force.     The   Tribunal   held   that   it   never   intended   or
ordered a higher pay-scale to be given to the Ministerial
employees,   that   too,   from   1 st
  April,   1981.     The   relief
claimed   by   Mr.   Duraphe   was   for   an  	
ad   hoc   increase   of
Rs.70/- to be added to his basic pay while fixing the pay
in   the   revised   scale   of   pay  	
w.e.f.   1 st
  April,   1981.     The
Tribunal   made   it   clear   that   the   question   of   grant   of   a
scale higher than the corresponding revised scale which
was   given   to   the   Executive   Force   was   not   a   subject
matter   of   the   dispute   either   in  	
Tripathis   case   or   the
judgment in O.A. No.45 of 1998 dated 1 st
  January, 2000.
8  |  P a g e
The   only   point   that   was   adjudicated   in   both   the   above
cases was grant of  ad hoc   increase of Rs.70/- for the
purpose   of   initial   pay-revision.     The   apparent   error
committed by the Tribunal while directing Mr. Duraphe to
be   given   pay-scale   in   accordance   with   Table   31   which
pertains   to   Inspector   of   the   Executive   Force,   was
corrected.  
6. By   a   letter   dated   22 nd
  February,   2001,   the
Government   of   Madhya   Pradesh   informed   the   Director
General   of   Police   that   the   earlier   order   by   which   the
benefit   of   Rs.50/-,   Rs.60/-   and   Rs.70/-  	
ad   hoc   increment
in   the   Chaudhary   Pay   Scales   given   to   the   Executive   (M)
employees   was   deferred   till   further   orders.     On   25 th
March,   2006,   the   Government   of   Madhya   Pradesh
informed   the   Director   General   of   Police   that   the
members   of   the   Ministerial   employees   shall   be   entitled
for   adding   the     	
ad   hoc   increment   of  Rs.50/-,   Rs.60/-
and Rs.70/- for     pay-fixation.   However, the pay-scale of
such  employees  shall   not be  increased.     In  other   words,
they   will   not   be   entitled   to   claim   the   benefit   of   being
placed in a higher pay scale which was given only to the
9  |  P a g e
Executive   Force.     Excess   payment   made   due   to   the
faulty fixation of higher pay-scale in favour of Ministerial
employees was sought to be recovered  by a proceeding
dated 22 nd
  July, 2006.   The Orders dated  25 th
  March,
2006     and   22 nd
  July,   2006   were   challenged   by   the
Ministerial   employees   in   the   High   Court   of   Madhya
Pradesh.      
7. The   Writ   Petitions   were   dismissed   by   the   learned
Single   Judge   of   the   Madhya   Pradesh   High   Court   on   18 th
July,   2007.  It   was   held   that   the   new   Police   Ranks
(Ministerial) created for the Ministerial staff of the Police
Department by Memorandum dated 5 th
  November, 1967
did   not   entitle   the   Ministerial   employees   to   claim   parity
of   pay   with   the   members   of   the   Executive   Force   in   the
Police Department.  The High Court referred to a specific
condition   in   the   said   Memorandum   that   even   after
enrolment   under   the   Police   Act,   1861,         the   Ministerial
employees   of   the   Police   Department   would   continue   to
draw   emoluments   in   the   existing   scale   in   which   they
were working prior to 1 st
 April, 1981 or as may be revised
from   to   time.     The   High   Court   observed   that   the
10  |  P a g e
ministerial   employees   were   entitled   to   the   payment   ofad   hoc
  increase   to   be   added   to   the   basic   pay   but   they
cannot claim the higher pay-scale which was granted  to
the   Executive   Force.     Reliance   was   placed   by   the   High
Court   on the 1983 Rules according to which the claim of
the   Appellants   for   being   placed   in   the   next   higher   pay
scale was not possible.  The Order passed by the Tribunal
in the Review Application filed by the State Government
in  	
Gopal Krishna Duraphes   case was relied upon by the
High Court to reject the relief claimed by the Appellants.
The   High   Court   referred   to   several   cases   filed   by   the
Ministerial   employees   in   the   State   Administrative
Tribunal seeking relief of parity of pay with the members
of   the   Executive   Force   in   the   Police   Department   which
were   transferred   to   the   High   Court   on   abolition   of   the
Tribunal.  Finally, the High Court held that the Appellants
were   entitled   for   fitment   in   the   corresponding   pay-scale
of   their   existing   pay-scale   as   per   Rule   7   of   the   1983
Rules.     According   to   the   Rules,   the   members   of   the
Executive   Force   in   the   Police   Department   were   entitled
to the next higher pay-scale of the corresponding revised
11  |  P a g e
pay-scale.     The   Ministerial   employees   were   not   entitled
to   the   said   benefit,   according   to   the   High   Court.
Recovery   of   excess   amounts   paid   due   to   wrong   fixation
on   the   revision   of   pay   scales   was   upheld   by   the   High
Court. 
8. The   Writ   Appeals   filed   by   the   Appellants   were
dismissed.     The   point   pertaining   to   the   parity   of   pay
scales   was   answered   against   the   Appellants.     However,
recovery   of   emoluments   made   between   1 st
  April,   2000
and   17 th
  November,   2001   was   held   to   be   not   justified.
The Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh
reiterated   that   the   Ministerial   staff   in   the   Police
Department   were   given   police   ranks   by   the
Memorandum dated 5 th
 November, 1967.  However, their
emoluments   continued   to   be   different   from   that   of   the
Executive   Force   in   the   Police   Department.     It   was   held
that   the   request   of   the   Appellants   for   equal   pay   could
not   be   accepted   as   the   recruitment   process   for   the
employees   of   the   Executive   and   Ministerial   staff   is
different, the qualifications for appointment to Executive
and   Ministerial   posts   are   not   the   same,   and   the   duties
12  |  P a g e
that   are   discharged   by   them   are   also        not   similar.
The   High   Court   observed   that   the   duties   discharged   by
the employees in the Executive Force are more rigorous
in   comparison   to   the   employees   of   the   Ministerial   staff.
On   a   detailed   examination   of   the   Rules,   the   Division
Bench of the High Court was of the opinion that there is
no   doubt   that   the   benefit   of   the   higher   pay-scale
to   the   corresponding   pay-scale   in   the   Rules   was   not
given   to   the   Ministerial   (E)   employees.     After   deciding
the   point   of   parity   of   pay-scales   against   the   Appellants,
the High Court declared the recovery sought to be made
from   the   Appellants   for   the   period   between   1 st
  January,
2000 and 17 th
 November, 2001     as not justified.  
9. The   main   contention   of   the   Appellants   is   that   they
have   become   members   of   the   Police   Force   as   per   the
Memorandum dated 5 th
 November, 1967.  It is contended
that   after   their   enrolment   under   the   Police   Act,   1861
they   cannot   be   discriminated   against   in   any   manner.
The   Appellants   urge   that   there   can   be   no   difference
between   Ministerial   employees   and   members   of   the
Executive Force as they were also provided with facilities
13  |  P a g e
like   Uniform   Grant   and   Uniform   Maintenance   Allowance
by   the   Memorandum   dated   5 th
  November,   1967   and
there   was   re-designation   of   their   posts.     A   Peon/   Farash
was   given   the   rank   of   Constable   (M),   Daftari/   Jamadar
was   given   the   rank   of   Head   Constable   (M).     Likewise,
Ministerial employees in the categories of LDC, UDC and
Stenographer   were   re-designated   as   Assistant   Sub-
Inspector   (M),   Sub-Inspector   (M)   and   Subedar   (M).       We
do not agree with the Appellants.  It is no doubt true that
police   ranks   were   given   to   the   Ministerial   staff   in   the
departments   with   certain   privileges.     However,   the
emoluments   of   the   Ministerial   staff   in   the   Police
Departments   were   not   revised.     It   was   categorically
mentioned   in   the   Memorandum   dated   5 th
  November,
1967   that   the   Ministerial   employees   will   continue   to
draw   the   same   emoluments   even   after   the   enrolment
under   the   Police   Act,   1861.     Therefore,   merely   because
police   ranks   were   given   to   Ministerial   employees,   they
cannot claim parity of pay.    
10. The controversy relating to the entitlement of parity
of   pay-scales   started   with   the   introduction   of   the   M.P.
14  |  P a g e
Revision   of   Pay   Rules,   1983  w.e.f.   1 st
  April,   1981.     It   is
relevant   to   mention   that   the   State   Government   by   an
Order     dated   26 th
  /   28 th
  June,   1979   allowed  	
ad   hoc
increment to non-Gazetted employees of the Police Force	
w.e.f.
 14 th
 June, 1981.  A Constable was given Rs.50/- per
month,       Head   Constable  Rs.60/-   and   the  Assistant  Sub-
Inspectors,       Sub-Inspectors   and   Inspectors   were   given
Rs.70/-   per   month.     The   Executive   as   well   as   Ministerial
employees   were   entitled   for   the  	
ad   hoc   increment.
While   submitting   its   Report,   the   Chaudhary   Pay
Commission   expressed   its   inability   to   recommend   pay-
scales   of   the   Ministerial   employees   in   the   Police
Department equivalent to those working in the Executive
posts.     It   was   mentioned   in   the   recommendation   of   the
Chaudhary Commission that the Ministerial employees in
the   Police   Department   will   be   entitled   to   get   pay-sales
received   by   their   colleagues   working   in   corresponding
posts   in   the   other   departments.     The   revision   of   pay-
scales in the State of Madhya Pradesh were made by the
Rules and the revised scales of pay have been specified
in   the   said   Rules.     Fixation   of   initial   pay   in   the   revised
15  |  P a g e
scale   is   dealt   with   in   Rule   7   which   includes   the  ad   hoc
increase sanctioned to certain categories of government
servants   in   Police,   Home   Guard,   Jail   and   Excise
Departments   excluding   the  	
ad   hoc   increase   allowed   to
Ministerial staff in Police Department.  It is clear that the	
ad   hoc
  increase   allowed   to   the   Ministerial   staff   of   the
Police   Department   cannot   be   taken   into   account   for
the   purpose   of   revision   of   pay   in   view   of   the   express
exclusion   in   Rule   7  (1)(b)(iv).     The  Executive   employees
were   given   the   benefit   of   the   next   higher   pay-scale   to
the   corresponding   revised   pay-scale   in   the   Rules   which
benefit was not given to the Ministerial (E) staff.  Neither
the   Rules   nor   the   pay   fixation   of   the   Appellants   under
the   Rules   was   challenged.     The   interpretation   of   the
Rules of 1983 sought to be placed by the Police does not
appeal   to   us.     The   recommendation   made   by   the
Chaudhary   Pay   Commission   which   was   reflected   clearly
in the Rules disentitles the Appellants from claiming  the
benefit   of   being   given   one   scale   higher   than   the
corresponding revised pay-sale.  
16  |  P a g e
11. The   Appellants   relied   upon   the   judgments   of   the
Tribunal in the cases of Tripathi  and 	Duraphe .  The Order
dated   17 th
  November,   2001   in   the   Review   Application
filed   by   the   Government   in  	
Duraphes   case   makes   it
clear   that   there   was   no   relief   claimed   by   either   Mr.
Tripathi   or   Mr.   Duraphe   for   being   placed   in   the   higher
pay-scale.     The   relief   sought   by   both   of   them   was   to
include   the  	
ad   hoc   increment   to   the   basic   pay.     While
reviewing its Order dated 1 st
 January, 2000 in  O.A. No.45
of   1998,   the   Tribunal   observed   that   an   unintended
benefit flowed from an apparent error committed by the
Tribunal.   We are afraid that the Appellants cannot place
any   reliance   on   the   judgments   of   the   Tribunal   in   the
cases of 	
Tripathi  and 	Duraphe .  
12. Parity   of   pay-scales   cannot   be   given   to   the
Appellants   even   on   the   principle   of   equal   pay   for   equal
work.     The   Appellants   contend   that   some   of   the
Ministerial   employees   were   assigned   work   in   the
Executive   Police   Force.     Some   persons   in   the   Ministerial
(E)   branch   have   been   appointed   to   the   Police   Force   as
Deputy Superintendent of Police also.  The Ministerial (E)
17  |  P a g e
staff   is   also   assigned   duties   of   Executive   Police   Force
during   elections.     The   Government   maintains   that   the
members   of   the   Ministerial   (E)   branch   do   not   discharge
executive   functions.     It   is   well   settled   law   that   even   if
persons   are   holding   same   rank/   designation   and   having
similar   powers,   duties   and   responsibilities   they   can   be
placed   in   different   scales   of   pay   and   cannot   claim   the
benefit   of   the   principle   of   equal   pay   for   equal   work.
[See:  Randhir   Singh   v.  	Union   of   India	1   and  	State   of	
Punjab
  v.  	Jagjit   Singh   Ors.	2 ]        In   this   case   the
qualifications   for   appointment,   mode   of   recruitment,
training, the duties and responsibilities not being similar,
the Appellants are not entitled for the relief of equal pay.
13. We   are   in   agreement   with   the   High   Court   that   the
method   of   recruitment,   qualifications   for   appointment,
duties   and   responsibilities   of   the   Ministerial   and
Executive staff being different, Ministerial employees are
not   entitled   to   claim   parity   of   pay-scales   with   the
Executive   Force.     We   affirm   the   judgment   of   the   High
1  (1982) 1 SCC 618 
2  (2017) 1 SCC 148 
18  |  P a g e
Court   regarding   the   recoveries   sought   to   be   made
between 01.01.2000 to 17.11.2001.
14. For   the   aforementioned   reasons,   these   Appeals
are dismissed.          
     
       ..............................................J
    [ S.A. BOBDE ]
...............................................J
[ L. NAGESWARA RAO ]
NEW DELHI; 
SEPTEMBER 25, 2018.
19  |  P a g e

Show less
Join Us

Create annotations and case research papers through full feature set along with access to entire Supreme Court Judgements database. Sign up Now!

Judgement Profile

Diary Number 25113 / 2011

Case Number C.A. No.-009888-009899 / 2018

Judgment Date 25-09-2018

Bench HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.A. BOBDE, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NAGESWARA RAO

S. K. VERMA

CITED KEYWORDS