REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.  195-198        OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.35109-12 OF 2012)

PUNJAB STATE POWER CORPORATION     .…Appellant LIMITED

VERSUS

RAJESH KUMAR JINDAL & OTHERS        ….Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out  of  the judgment  dated 23.02.2012

passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

in LPA No.264 of 2012 and Order dated 04.05.2012 in LPA 1607-

LPA of 2012 dismissing the appeals and the order dated 04.05.2012

in review petition in RA No.LP-16 of 2012 dismissing the review filed

by  the  appellant-Board  by  holding  that  the  SLP(C)  No.10896  of

2011 involving the same issue i.e.  parity  of  pay scale is  already

pending before the Supreme Court.  

1

3. The parity in the pay scales of two posts – Head Clerks and

the Internal  Auditors  in  Group XII  of  the Punjab State  Electricity

Board (PSEB) is the subject matter of the issue in these present

appeals.  Brief facts of the case are as under:-

The Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB), in exercise of the

power conferred under Section 79(c) of the Electricity (Supply) Act,

1948 framed “Punjab Public Works Departments (Electricity Branch)

State Service Class-III (Subordinate Posts) Rules, 1958 (adopted by

the  Board)  Amendment  Regulations,  1975.  The  recruitment  and

conditions of service governing the Head Clerks was introduced on

11.09.1985  which  is  called  the  Punjab  State  Electricity  Board

Ministerial  Services  Class–III  Regulations,  1985  providing  for

educational  qualifications  and  minimum  experience  required  for

Head Clerks. Initially, the pay scale of Head Clerks was Rs.150-300

and the pay scale of  Internal  Auditors was Rs.130-240. The pay

scale  of  Internal  Auditors  was  revised  to  Rs.150-300  w.e.f.

01.08.1963. Head Clerks and Internal Auditors were getting same

pay scale of  Rs.225-500 from 01.06.1967 and Rs.620-1200 from

01.01.1978.   From  21.03.1989,  revised  scale  of  pay  of  regular

employees was issued by the PSEB,  and w.e.f.  01.01.1986,  the

scale  of  pay  of  the  Head  Clerks  and  the  Internal  Auditors  was

revised to Rs.1640-2925.

2

4. Pay  Anomaly  Committee  was  constituted  by  the  appellant-

Board to review the anomalies in the pay scales of various cadre.

That on the basis of the report of Pay Anomaly Committee, the  pay

scale of  both the categories -  Internal  Auditors and Head Clerks

have been improved vide office order No.223/Fin./PRC-1988 dated

03.10.1990. The Internal  Auditors have been allowed the revised

scale of Rs.1800-3200 w.e.f. 01.01.1986 considering that the posts

of  Internal Auditors are filled by 55% from direct  recruitment and

45% by promotion. The Head Clerks have been allowed the pay

scale of Rs.2000-3500 with effect from 01.01.1986 and thus linked

the scale of Head Clerk with Superintendent Grade-II under State

Government.

5. Aggrieved  by  the  order  dated  03.10.1990  issued  by  the

appellant-Board and alleging disparity and violation of Article 14 of

the  Constitution  of  India,  the  respondents  preferred  Civil  Writ

Petition  No.10117 of  1992 before  the High Court  of  Punjab and

Haryana at Chandigarh, contending that the Internal Auditors, Head

Clerks as well as Sub Fire Officers belong to same group viz. Group

XII  and that  Internal  Auditors were always on par with the Head

Clerks  being  the  promotional  post  from  the  post  of  Circle

Assistants/ARAs        Group XII.  It  was averred that  vide order

3

dated 03.10.1990, the appellant-Board fixed the pay scale of  the

Internal  Auditor  at  Rs.1800-3200  and  of  the  Head  Clerks  at

Rs.2000-3500 and thus disturbing the parity in the pay scales of two

posts  which  were  being  maintained  for  more  than  two decades.

According to the respondents, the pay scale of Rs.1800-3200 had

been  given  to  the  post  of  Circle  Assistant  from  which  the

respondents were being promoted and there is no justification to

give the same pay scale to the promotional post as well as feeder

cadre.   The  said  revision  of  pay  scale  was  totally  illogical  and

without any justification.

6. In  the  counter  affidavit  filed  before  the  High  Court,  the

appellant-Board contended that  though the posts of  Head Clerks

and Internal Auditors are categorised in Group XII, that cannot be

the reason for claiming parity of pay scale. It was averred that the

manner of recruitment, nature of duties and responsibilities of both

the cadres are entirely different and respondents cannot claim parity

of  scale  of  pay.  As  per  PSEB  Ministerial  Services  Class-III

Regulations, 1975, the post of Head Clerk is a promotional post and

is generally available to the employees after completion of twenty-

five years of service; whereas in the case of Internal Auditors, they

are partly recruited directly from the market to the extent of 55% and

4

balance 45% from Circle Assistants/ARAs after obtaining option for

the  purpose.   According  to  the  Board,  on  promotion  the  Circle

Assistant/ARA are also eligible to opt for the cadre of Head Clerk

and  they  cannot  contend  that  they  have  not  been  given  any

opportunity for the post of Head Clerk. It is averred that the exercise

of  option  to  go  in  the  channel  of  cadre  of  Internal  Auditor  is  a

‘preferred option’ because of the promotional avenues with higher

scales of pay. In view of this position, the Pay Anomaly Committee

did not accept the demand of Internal Auditors to give parity with

Head Clerks in the matter of pay scale.

7. Sub  Fire  Officers  which  is  categorised  in  Group  XII

approached the High Court by way of Civil Writ Petition No.9294 of

1993 seeking parity in pay scale as that of the Head Clerks and

Internal Auditors on the ground that they are included in the same

group  viz.,  Group  XII.  The  learned  Single  Judge  vide judgment

dated 21.01.2010 allowed the CWP No.9294 of 1993 filed by the

Sub Fire Officers by holding that  till  some point of time, persons

working  as  Head Clerks,  Head Clerk-cum-Divisional  Accountants

and Internal Auditors were given same scale of pay and therefore,

parity of  scale of  pay cannot  be denied to the Sub Fire Officers

5

when the scales were increased for other three classes of persons

within Group XII.  

8. Against the order dated 21.01.2010 in CWP No.9294 of 1993,

the appellant-Board preferred LPA No.713 of 2010 which came to

be dismissed by the judgment dated 28.09.2010. Aggrieved by the

judgment  dated  28.09.2010,  the  appellant  preferred  SLP(C)

No.10896 of 2011 before this Court wherein, notice was issued and

the  same was pending for consideration before this Court.   

9. The learned Single Judge of the High Court by its order dated

11.11.2011 allowed the Civil Writ Petition No.10117 of 1992 filed by

the respondents-Internal Auditors claiming parity of pay scale with

the Head Clerks on the erroneous assumption that the respondents

are Sub Fire Officers or similarly situated as Sub Fire Officers who

are seeking parity of wages with other persons. The learned Single

Judge  relying  on  the  judgment  in  CWP No.9294  of  1993  dated

21.01.2010 allowed the writ petition without going into the merits of

the contention of either of the parties. Appeal (LPA No.713 of 2010)

preferred by the appellant-Board also came to be dismissed on the

ground  that  SLP  (C)  No.10896  of  2011  is  pending  before  the

Supreme Court.

6

10. In these appeals, we are concerned with the question of parity

of  pay scale between the Head Clerks and the Internal  Auditors.

Though various contentious issues arose for determination between

the parties, learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of

the High  Court  proceeded under  the erroneous footing  as  if  the

respondents are placed on par with Sub Fire Officer and held that

the issue is covered by the judgment in CWP No.9294 of 1993 and

that  the  issue  is  pending  before  the  Supreme  Court  in  SLP(C)

No.10896 of 2011. Since the writ petition was filed way back in the

year 1992 and the lis is pending between the parties for more than

twenty-six  years,  we  have  proceeded  to  consider  the  matter  on

merits without remitting the matter back to the High Court. We have

heard the parties at length.

11. We have heard Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, learned Senior counsel

appearing for appellant-Board at length and Mr. Saravpreet Singh,

learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The learned Senior

counsel  Mr.  Nidhesh  Gupta  has  inter  alia made  the  following

submissions:-

 Appellant-Board  is  competent  to  revise  the  pay  scales  in

terms of  Regulation 3(g)  of  Punjab State Electricity  Board

(Revised  Pay)  Regulations,  1988  in  relation  to  any  post

specified in Column No.2 of the Schedule.  

7

 Internal Auditors who have been directly recruited as Internal

Auditors  against  an  open  advertisement  have  consciously

applied for the post in the pay scale of Rs.1800-3200 cannot

raise a plea that they will have to be placed on par with Head

Clerks.   

 Promotional  avenues available to the Internal  Auditors are

far more in comparison to the promotional  avenues which

are available to the Head Clerks; the pay scales which are

available  in  the  promotional  position  are  sharply  higher

compared  to  the  Head  Clerks  and  exercise  of  option  as

Internal Auditor is a “preferred option”.

 Internal Auditors cannot claim parity with Head Clerks on the

premise that they are in Group XII; though there were only

four cadre in the year 1988 in Group XII, seven more posts

were  added  in  Group  XII  by  Finance  Circular  No.44/89

dated  15.06.1989.  Thereafter,  vide  Finance  Circular

No.45/89 dated 26.06.1989, there were further increase of

seven  posts  in  Group  XII  and  total  fourteen  posts  were

added to Group XII. For all these posts, mode of recruitment,

qualifications,  nature  of  duties  and  responsibilities  are

entirely  different  and  merely  because  the  posts  are

mentioned in one cadre, they cannot claim parity of scale of

pay.

 If parity of pay scale is to be extended to the posts merely on

the  ground  that  they  are  categorised  in  one  Group

irrespective of the mode of recruitment, qualifications, nature

of  duties and responsibilities,  it  will  lead to  huge financial

repercussion causing huge financial loss to PSEB which is a

public service-oriented institution.

8

12. Learned counsel  for  the respondents  Mr.  Saravpreet  Singh

submitted that posts of Internal Auditors being in Group XII,  who

were on par with Head Clerks should be given parity of pay scale as

that  of  Head  Clerks,  irrespective  of  the  promotional  avenues

available to the Internal Auditors. It was submitted that the Internal

Auditors were always treated on par with Head Clerks being the

promotional post from the post of Circle Assistants/ARAs and when

so, there was no justification to disturb the parity in the pay scales of

two  posts  which  were  being  maintained  for  quite  some  time.

Contention  of  the  respondents  is  that  there  was a  parity  of  pay

scales of the posts of Internal Auditors and Head Clerks for about

two decades and while so, the order dated 03.10.1990 issued by

the  appellant-Board  revising  the  pay  scale  of  Head  Clerks  from

Rs.1640-2925 to    Rs.2000-3500 has disturbed the long-standing

parity of pay scales of the posts of Head Clerks and the Internal

Auditors. It is their contention that where the parity in the pay scales

of two posts has been maintained over a period of time then, if the

pay  scale  of  one  post  is  revised,  the  said  pay  scale  is  to  be

maintained for other post also and disturbing such parity would be

arbitrary  and  violative  of  the  Article  14  and  Article  16  of  the

Constitution  of  India.  Much  arguments  were  advanced  on  the

retrospective  operation  of  the  order  dated  03.10.1990  (w.e.f.

9

01.01.1986)  contending  that  such  retrospective  operation  has

caused serious prejudice to the Internal Auditors who have been

promoted between the year 1986 to 1990.  

13. In  the  light  of  the  submissions,  several  issues  arise  for

determination inter alia are as under:-

 Whether the Internal Auditors are entitled to claim parity of

pay scale with Head Clerks and Head Clerk–cum–Divisional

Accountants  irrespective  of  the  nature  of  recruitment,

qualifications and nature of duties and responsibilities?

 Can the Internal Auditors claim equity of pay scale, merely

because they are in the same group (Class-XII) irrespective

of  the  nature  of  work  and  the  internal  qualification  for

recruitment.  In view of the promotional avenues available to

the  Internal  Auditors  and  the  high  pay  scales  which  are

available  in  the  promotional  position,  opting  for  Internal

Auditors, is it not a “preferred option”?

 When there are about fourteen posts categorised in Group

XII, can Internal Auditors claim parity of pay scale with the

Head  Clerks  merely  because  they  were  categorised  in

Group XII?

14. Ordinarily,  the  courts  will  not  enter  upon  the  task  of  job

evaluation  which  is  generally  left  to  expert  bodies  like  the  Pay

Commission  etc.  The  aggrieved  employees  claiming  parity  must

establish  that  they  are  unjustly  treated  by  arbitrary  action  or

10

discriminated.  In Kshetriya Kisan Gramin Bank v. D.B. Sharma

and Others (2001) 1 SCC 353, this Court held as under:-

“7. The next question that arises for consideration is, as to what extent  the  High  Court  would  be  justified  in  exercise  of  its extraordinary  jurisdiction  under  Article  226  to  interfere  with  the findings of an expert body like the Equation Committee. In State of U.P. and Others v. J.P. Chaurasia and Others  (1989) 1 SCC 121, this Court unequivocally held that in the matter of equation of posts or  equation  of  pay,  the  same  should  be  left  to  the  Executive Government, who can get it determined by expert bodies like the Pay Commission, and such expert body would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of the posts and when such determination by a commission or committee is made, the court should normally accept it and should not try to tinker with such  equivalence  unless  it  is  shown  that  it  was  made  with extraneous consideration….”

15. In S.C.  Chandra  and Others  v.  State  of  Jharkhand and

Others (2007) 8 SCC 279, this Court held as under:-

“33. It  may  be  mentioned  that  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.  Hence,  the  court  should exercise  judicial  restraint  and  not  interfere  in  such  executive function  vide  Indian  Drugs  &  Pharmaceuticals  Ltd. v.  Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 408. ……….

35. In  our  opinion  fixing  pay  scales  by  courts  by  applying  the principle of equal pay for equal work upsets the high constitutional principle of separation of powers between the three organs of the State.  Realising  this,  this  Court  has  in  recent  years  avoided applying the principle of equal pay for equal work,  unless there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups (and there too  the  matter  should  be  sent  for  examination  by  an  Expert Committee appointed by the Government instead of the court itself granting higher pay).

36. It is well settled by the Supreme Court that only because the nature of work is the same, irrespective of educational qualification, mode of appointment,  experience and other relevant factors,  the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot apply vide  Govt.  of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy and Others (2004) 1 SCC 347.”

11

The same view was reiterated in  Union Territory Administration,

Chandigarh and Others v.  Manju  Mathur  and Another (2011)  2

SCC 452;  State of  Haryana and Others v.  Charanjit  Singh and

Others (2006) 9 SCC 321 and in  Hukum Chand Gupta v. Director

General,  Indian  Council  of  Agricultural  Research  and  Others

(2012) 12 SCC 666.

16. Observing that granting parity in pay scales depends upon the

comparative  evaluation  of  job  and  equation  of  posts,  in  Steel

Authority of India Limited and Others v. Dibyendu Bhattacharya

(2011) 11 SCC 122, this Court held as under:-

“30. ……….. the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that  parity  of  pay  can  be  claimed  by  invoking  the  provisions  of Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India by establishing that the eligibility, mode of selection/recruitment, nature and quality of work  and  duties  and  effort,  reliability,  confidentiality,  dexterity, functional need and responsibilities and status of both the posts are identical.  The  functions  may  be  the  same  but  the  skills  and responsibilities may be really and substantially different. The other post may not require any higher qualification, seniority or other like factors.  Granting  parity  in  pay  scales  depends  upon  the comparative evaluation of job and equation of posts. The person claiming parity, must plead necessary averments and prove that all things are equal  between the posts concerned. Such a complex issue cannot be adjudicated by evaluating the affidavits filed by the parties.”

17. Mode of recruitment of Head Clerks and Internal Auditors

and the qualifications:-  In the light of the above principles, let us

consider the claim of Internal Auditors claiming parity of pay scale

with  Head  Clerks.  The  mode  of  appointment  and  the  minimum

12

educational  and  other  qualifications  and  experience  required  for

Head Clerk are as under:-

Sr. No.

Name of Post

Method  of appointment

Minimum educational  and other qualifications

Minimum Experience

Remarks

12 Head Clerk

By  promotion from  Circle Assistant/ARAs., who  opt  for promotion  as Head Clerk

After having qualified Departmental  A/Cs, Examination  for Ministerial Establishment, If not already  done  or specially expected

Three year’s service  as Circle Assistant/ Asst. Revenue Accountant

-

18. Internal  Auditors  have  been  promoted  from  the  Ministerial

Cadre i.e. from the post of Circle Assistants/ARAs, who had opted

for the post of Internal Auditor were to be allowed the scales in the

Ministerial  Cadre considering the post  of  UDC as induction post.

The  posts  of  Internal  Auditors  are  filled  by  55%  from  direct

recruitment and 45% by promotion who have opted for promotion to

come to the Revenue Cadre.  The mode of  appointment  and the

minimum  educational  and  other  qualifications  and  experience

required for the post of Internal Auditor are as under:-

Sr. No.

Name of Post

Method  of Appointment

Minimum  Educational and  other qualification

Minimum Experience

Remarks

6. Internal Auditor

i)  By  direct appointment (55%  of vacancies)

ii) By promotion from  amongst ARAs/Circle Assistants  who opt  for

B.A.  IInd  class  with Honours in Economics or  Statistics Commerce

OR       B.Com  IInd Class

OR

Intermediate  Cost  and

Three  year’s service  as Circle Assistant/AR A/UDC  put together  out of  which  as

-

13

promotion  as Internal  Auditor (45%  of vacancies)

Works  Accountant  or Intermediate Chartered Accountant.

After  having  qualified Departmental Accounts  Examination for  Ministerial Establishment,  if  not already  done  or specially exempted.

minimum  of one  year service  shall be  as  Circle Assistant/ ARA.

19. The pay scale prior to 01.08.1963 of Head Clerks was higher

than the pay scale of Internal Auditors i.e. pay scale of Head Clerks

was Rs.150-300 and pay scale of Internal Auditors was Rs.130-240.

The  pay  scale  of  Internal  Auditors  was  Rs.130-240  and  it  was

subsequently revised to Rs.150-300 with effect from 01.08.1963 on

par  with  the  Head  Clerks.  The  pay  scales  of  Head  Clerks  and

Internal Auditors remained intact upto the year-1986 revision. But

the pay scale of Head Clerks was revised from Rs.1640-2925 to

Rs.2000-3500  on  the  recommendation  of  the  Pay  Anomaly

Committee formed by the Board to review the anomalies in the pay

scales of 1986 revision linking the scale of Head Clerks with the

Superintendent Grade-II under the State Government. As discussed

infra, the pay scale of Internal Auditors was revised from Rs.1640-

2925 to Rs.1800-3200 and after nine years of service to Rs.1880-

3300 i.e. scale of Revenue Accountant and after sixteen years of

service  Rs.2000-3500  as  per  Secretary  (Finance)  Office  Order

14

No.244 dated 15.02.1991 considering the post of Internal Auditor as

induction post  in  the basic  pay scale  of  Rs.1800-3200 for  direct

recruits.   

20. Burden of proof on the person claiming parity of pay scale:-

Ordinarily, the scale of pay is fixed keeping in view the several

factors i.e. (i) method of recruitment; (ii) level at which recruitment is

made; (iii)  the hierarchy of  service in a given cadre;  (iv)  minimum

educational/technical  qualifications  required;  (v)  avenues  of

promotion;  (vi)  the  nature  of  duties  and  responsibilities;  and  (vii)

employer’s capacity to pay, etc.   

21. It is well settled that for considering the equation of posts and

the issue of equivalence of posts, the following factors had been held

to be determinative:-

(i)  The nature and duties of a post; (ii)  The  responsibilities  and  powers  exercised  by  the  officer

holding a post, the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged;

(iii) The  minimum  qualifications,  if  any,  prescribed  for recruitment to the post; and

(iv) The salary of the post (vide Union of India and Another v. P.K. Roy and Others AIR 1968 SC 850).

22. After referring to P.K. Roy’s case, this Court, in SAIL, held as

under:-

“25. In  State of Maharashtra and Another  v.  Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni and Others  (1981) 4 SCC 130 and  Vice-Chancellor,  L.N. Mithila University v. Dayanand Jha (1986) 3 SCC 7, a similar view

15

has been reiterated observing  that  equal  status  and nature  and responsibilities of the duties attached to the two posts have to be taken into consideration for equivalence of the post. Similar view has been reiterated in  E.P. Royappa v.  State of T.N. and Another (1974)  4  SCC  3  and  Sub-Inspector  Rooplal and  Another  v.  Lt. Governor Through Chief Secretary, Delhi and Others (2000) 1 SCC 644, wherein this Court following the earlier judgment in  P.K. Roy AIR 1968 SC 850 held that the salary of the post alone may not be a  determining  factor,  the  other  three  criterion  should  also  be fulfilled.”

23. The burden of proof in establishing parity in pay scales and the

nature of duties and responsibilities is on the person claiming such

right.  The person claiming parity must produce material  before the

court to prove that the nature of duties and functions are similar and

that they are entitled to parity of pay scales. After referring to number

of judgments and observing that it is the duty of an employee seeking

parity of pay to prove and establish that he had been discriminated

against, this Court, in SAIL, held as under:-

“22. It is the duty of an employee seeking parity of pay under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India to prove and establish that he had been  discriminated  against,  as  the  question  of  parity  has  to  be decided on consideration of various facts and statutory rules, etc. The  doctrine  of  “equal  pay  for  equal  work”  as  enshrined  under Article 39(d) of the Constitution read with Article 14 thereof, cannot be  applied  in  a  vacuum.  The  constitutional  scheme  postulates equal pay for equal work for those who are equally placed in all respects. The court must consider the factors like the source and mode of recruitment/appointment, the qualifications, the nature of work,  the  value  thereof,  responsibilities,  reliability,  experience, confidentiality,  functional  need,  etc.  In  other  words,  the  equality clause can be invoked in the matter of pay scales only when there is wholesome/wholesale identity between the holders of two posts. The burden of establishing right and parity in employment is only on the person claiming such right. (Vide U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. and Another v. Sant Raj Singh and Others (2006) 9 SCC 82, Union of  India and  Another  v.  Mahajabeen  Akhtar  (2008)  1  SCC 368, Union of India v.  Dineshan K.K (2008) 1 SCC 586,  Union of India

16

and Others v. Hiranmoy Sen and Others (2008) 1 SCC 630, Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and Others (2008) 10 SCC 1, U.P. SEB and Another  v.  Aziz Ahmad  (2009) 2 SCC 606  and  State of M.P. and Others v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (2009) 13 SCC 635)”.

24. Nature of duties and responsibilities of Head Clerks are

different from the Internal Auditors:-  The duties and nature of

work  of  Head  Clerks  and  Internal  Auditors  are  entirely  different.

Head Clerk works under XEN, Drawing and Disbursement Officer

and there is only one Head Clerk in the Division Office. Head Clerk

is the Head of the establishment in the Divisional Office and total

work of the establishment is under the control of the Head Clerk.

The Head Clerk disburses the salaries and other payments of the

Sub-divisions and Division Offices and also maintains the leave and

other  miscellaneous works for  the Sub-divisions and the Division

Offices and discharges administrative functions and thus, has more

responsibilities.  Per contra, Internal Auditor works under the control

of Chief Auditor. Duty of the Internal Auditor is to audit the billing of

the Revenue Department of the Sub-division Office which includes

billing of domestic supply to large supply. Internal Auditors work in

the Sub-division and there can be one or more Internal Auditors as

per quantity of work.  

25. It is thus well settled that it is the duty of an employee seeking

parity of  scale of  pay to prove that  the educational  qualifications

17

required for both the posts, mode of recruitment and the nature of

work performed by them are one and the same. There are neither

pleadings nor any material produced by the respondents to prove

that the nature of work performed by the Internal Auditors is similar

with that of the Head Clerks.  In the writ petition, respondents have

claimed  parity  of  pay  scale  only  on  the  ground  that  they  were

categorised in Group XII along with the Head Clerks. Merely on the

ground that the cadre of Internal Auditors are placed in Group XII

along with the Head Clerks, cannot be a ground for seeking parity of

pay scale.

26. Considering  the  differences  in  the  nature  of  duties  and

responsibilities performed by the Head Clerks and Internal Auditors,

Pay  Anomaly  Committee  decided  to  allow  the  revised  scale  for

Internal  Auditor  at  Rs.1800-3200  with  benefit  of  promotional

increments  and  Rs.2000-3500  for  Head  Clerks.  Merely  because

Internal  Auditors  are  categorised  in  Group  XII  along  with  Head

Clerks,  the Internal  Auditors cannot claim parity as the nature of

duties  and  responsibilities  of  Internal  Auditors  are  different  from

Head Clerks.  

27. Report of the Pay Anomaly Committee:-  The Pay Anomaly

Committee was constituted by the appellant-Board  vide its Office

18

Order No.179/Fin./PRC-1988 dated 22.08.1989 to consider the pay

anomalies of various categories of employees in the revised scale

of pay w.e.f. 01.01.1986. Considering the post of Internal Auditors,

the mode of recruitment (55% from direct recruitment and 45% by

promotion  from amongst  ARAs/Circle  Assistants),  nature  of  work

and the promotional avenues available to the Internal Auditors, the

Pay  Anomaly  Committee  took  the  view that  Internal  Auditors  be

allowed revised scale of pay of Rs.1800-3200. The relevant portion

of the report of the Pay Anomaly Committee reads as under:-

“Revenue/Accounts Wing:

   “Presently the posts of Internal Auditors are being filled up with

55% through direct recruitment and 45% by promotion from amongst

A.R.As/Circle  Assistants.  As  per  promotional  channel  available  for

Revenue/Accounts  Cadre  in  the  PSEB,  A.R.As/Circle  Asstt  are

promoted either as Internal Auditor, Head Clerk or Head Office Asst.

as per option available for them. Internal Auditors get promotion as

Revenue  Accountant  and  then  finally  as  Revenue  Supdt.  On

accounts  side,  A.R.As/Circle  Asstt.,  after  passing  SAS  Part-I

Examination,  may  at  their  option,  get  promotion  as  Divisional

Accountant. He can, however, opt immediately after passing the SAS

Part-I  Examination  to  come over  as  Revenue Accountants  (which

option shall be final). The Divisional Accountants get promotion as

SAS Accountant which post  is  to be handled by SAS Parts-I  & II

passed personnels and involves higher duties and responsibilities.

Since the Punjab Govt. has allowed revised scale of Rs.1800-3200

for  Circle  Assistants  and  Rs.2000-3500  for  S.A.S.  Acctts.  The

19

Committee felt it necessary to devise promotional scale of I.A.s R.As

and  Revenue  Suptt.  between  the  revised  scale  allowed  to  Circle

Assistants (Rs.1800-3200) and SAS Accountants (Rs.2000-3500). It

has, therefore been decided by the Committee to allow the revised

scale as under:-

Internal Auditor Rs.1800-3200  with  benefit  of  promotional increment(s)  being  higher  post  than  that  of Circle  Asstt./Assistant  Revenue  Accountant  as Circle Asst./Assistant Revenue Accountants will get  promotion as  Internal  Auditor  in  the  same scale.

28. Considering  the  Pay  Anomaly  Committee  Report  08/1990,

appellant-Board revised the existing scale of pay of Internal Auditors

from Rs.1640-2925 to Rs.1800-3200 with the benefit of promotional

increment to Circle Assistants/ARAs on their promotion to the post

of Internal Auditors. By the same order, the existing scale of pay of

the  post  of  Head  Clerks  was  revised  from  Rs.1640-2925  to

Rs.2000-3500.

29. Considering  the  grievances  of  its  employees,  second  Pay

Anomaly Committee was constituted vide Office Order No.48/ENG-

30(25) by the appellant-Board. PSEB Employees Federation raised

the grievance about the disparity in the pay scale of Head Clerks

and  Internal  Auditors.  Considering  the  grievances,  Pay  Anomaly

Committee took the view that having regard to the nature of duties

and responsibilities attached to the posts and skill involved in the

20

performance of the job, the nature of duties of Head Clerks and the

Internal Auditors and the promotional avenues available to them are

entirely  different  and  that  there  is  no  parity  of  the  categories  of

Revenue Accountants/Divisional Accountants and Internal Auditors

with the Head Clerks and that they cannot claim parity. The relevant

portion of the report of Second Pay Anomaly Committee reads as

under:-

“4.1  The Committee has reviewed the position with regard to the

agenda put up to the Pay Anomaly Committee by the Secretary Pay

Revision  Committee  and  nature  of  duties  of  each  category  of

employees, qualifications prescribed and time-bound scales allowed

to direct recruitees where the recruitment through direct recruitment

or  by  qualifying  D.A.E.  etc.  and  make  its

recommendations/observation as under:-

i) The Pay Anomaly Committee has already considered the

representations of the employees and did not recommend

any  improvement  in  the  scale  of  Divisional

Accountant/Revenue  Accountant  and  Internal  Auditor,

that there is no parity of these categories with Head Clerk

as  their  nature  of  duties  are  different,  promotional

channel  is  different  and  the  induction  posts  has  been

made  for  directly  recruited  55%  Internal  Auditors  and

Revenue  Accountants  who  have  been  deployed  as

Revenue  Acctt;  after  they  have  passed  SAS  Part-I

Examination.  The  Head  Clerk  is  a  promotional

post/category and they are genially promoted after putting

a long service of about twenty-five years in the Ministerial

Cadre from the post of LDC/UDC, Circle Asstt;/A.R.A. etc.

whereas the Divisional Accountants are posted when they

qualify  the  D.A.E.  of  SAS  Part-I.  The  Divisional

21

Accountants have also been allowed time-bound scales

which is not available to the post of Head Clerk.  ii) On the promotion from Circle Asstt;/ARA to the post of

H.O.  Assistant  & Internal  Auditor  in  the  same scale  of

Rs.1800-3200,  benefit  of  promotional  increments  is

available. iii) ……… iv) In the Ministerial Cadre, the H.O. Cadre or amongst the

Circle Asstt;/ARA who opt for the post of H.O. Assistant.

The post of Head Clerk is filled up amongst the Circle

Asstt;/ARAs who opt for the post of Head Clerk. The post

of Internal Auditor is filled up 55% by direct recruitment

and 45% amongst Circle Asstt;/ARAs was opt for the post

of Internal Auditors. v) The scale of H.O. Assistant and Head Clerks have been

revised  on  the  pattern  of  Punjab  Govt;  and  these

categories  are  traditionally  linked  with  the  State  Govt;

whereas  the  categories  of  Internal  Auditors,  Revenue

Acctt;  Divisional  Accountants  are  exclusively  PSEB

categories. vi)  Nature  of  duties  of  the  Head  Clerk  and  the  Internal

Auditor/H.O.  Assistant  are  not  identical.  So  the  Pay

Anomaly Committee separated the scales considering the

nature of duties and promotional channels etc;

5.1  The Committee is of the view that the option may be given to

the employees who have been promoted between 01.01.1986 to

03.10.1990 (the  date  of  office  order  vide  which  scale  of  Head

Clerk revised) as H.O. Assistant & Internal Auditor for the post of

Head Clerk, provided some vacancies are available in the cadre

of Head Clerk. Till  the vacancy is falling due, they will  be H.O.

Assistant  or  Internal  Auditor,  as  the  case  may  be,  but  on  the

appointment  as  Head Clerk  they will  be given the  seniority  as

would have been if he would have exercised their option as Head

Clerk in the first  instance on promotion from Circle Asstt;/ARA.

The financial implication would be nominal.

22

5.2 The  Committee  recommends  that  the  scales  already

allowed by the Board on the recommendation of  Pay Revision

Committee and further improved on the recommendation of Pay

Anomaly Committee may not be further improved otherwise this

would  create  number  of  complications,  demand  from  other

categories for further revision of their pay scales also. The cases

filed by the Divisional Accountant & Internal Auditors in the Punjab

& Haryana High Court be defended by the Board on the basis of

record and regulations of the Board….. [Underlining added].”  

30. Internal  Auditors  cannot  claim  parity:- Grievance  of  the

respondents is that there was a parity of pay scale of the posts of

Internal Auditors and Head Clerks for about two decades and while

so,  the  order  dated  03.10.1990  revising  the  pay  scale  of  Head

Clerks from Rs.1640-2925 to Rs.2000-3500 has disturbed the long-

standing parity of pay scales of the posts of Head Clerks and the

Internal Auditors. It is their contention that where the employer has

been maintaining parity in the pay scales of two posts over a period

of time then, if the pay scale of one post is revised, the said parity of

pay scale is to be maintained and disturbing such parity would be

arbitrary  and  violative  of  the  Article  14  and  Article  16  of  the

Constitution of India.  

31. Though the above arguments of the respondents appear to be

attractive, when considered in the light of the well settled principles,

we find no merit in the contention. Equation of posts and revision of

23

pay  scale  is  within  the  domain  of  the  Government.  The  matter

should be left to the discretion and expertise of the Pay Committee

and  the  Government  to  take  the  decision  on  the  scale  of

pay/revision of pay scale by considering the nature of duties and

responsibilities. As pointed out earlier, the Pay Anomaly Committee

has given elaborate reasons for revising the pay scales of the Head

Clerks at Rs.2000-3500 and Internal Auditors at Rs.1800-3200. The

conclusion arrived at  by the experts/Pay Anomaly Committee are

not susceptible to judicial review and the courts are not to interfere

with the decision of the Government which is based on the opinion

of the experts.  

32. Conscious exercise of option to go as Internal Auditors:-

On behalf of the appellant-Board, the learned Senior counsel

has  drawn  our  attention  to  the  various  promotional  avenues

available to the Internal Auditors and the sharp rise in the scale of

pay in such promotional position. The Circle Assistants had been

asked to exercise their option to go in the channel of promotion of

Head Clerks or in the channel of Internal Auditors.  Those who have

chosen the channel of Internal Auditors post on 03.10.1990 have

consciously chosen to exercise the option of Internal Auditors being

mindful of the fact that the pay scale of the Head Clerks is higher

24

than that of Internal Auditors; yet they have chosen to exercise the

option of Internal Auditors.  Those who have exercised their option

for  the  post  of  Internal  Auditors  post  on  03.10.1990,  in  our

considered view, cannot make a grievance about their revised scale

of pay at Rs.1800-3200 which is not on par with the Head Clerks.

33. Likewise,  the  Internal  Auditors  who  have  been  directly

recruited as Internal Auditors, have consciously applied for the post

of  Internal  Auditors  in  the  scale  of  pay  of  Rs.1800-3200,  cannot

raise a plea claiming parity of pay scale as that of the Head Clerks,

since they have been directly recruited as per advertisement against

the post of Internal Auditors.  

34. The grievance of the respondents is that since the order dated

03.10.1990 has been given retrospective effect w.e.f.  01.01.1986,

those of them who have exercised their option as Internal Auditors

between 01.01.1986 to 03.10.1990 are deprived of the parity of pay

scale. It was further submitted that had such a disparity of pay scale

between the Head Clerks and the Internal Auditors was in force from

the year 1986 onwards, the Circle Assistants/ARAs would not have

exercised their  option for promotion as Internal Auditors and they

might have chosen to exercise their option for promotion as Head

Clerks.  This  contention  though  appears  to  be  attractive,  by

25

consideration of the same, it lacks merit for more than one reason.

As rightly submitted by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant-

Board, exercise of option for promotion as Internal Auditor was a

“conscious option”. Further, it was always open to the appellant-

Board to revise the scale of pay in terms of Regulation 3(g) of the

Punjab State Electricity Board (Revised Pay) Regulations, 1988.

35. That apart, while recommending the different pay scales for

Head Clerks and Internal Auditors, the Pay Anomaly Committee was

conscious about  those  Circle  Assistants/ARAs who have already

exercised  their  option  for  promotion  as  Head  Clerks  between

01.01.1986 to  03.10.1990.  The  Pay Anomaly  Committee  in  para

(5.1) of its report expressed its view that the option may be given to

the employees who have been promoted between 01.01.1986 to

03.10.1990 as Head Clerks and Internal  Auditors  for  the post  of

Head Clerk, provided some vacancies are available in the cadre of

Head Clerk. The Pay Anomaly Committee has also expressed its

view that  once  they are  appointed as  Head Clerks,  they will  be

given the seniority as would have been if they would have exercised

their option as Head Clerks in the first instance on promotion from

Circle Assistants/ARAs.  The grievance of  the respondents in this

26

regard has been taken note by the Pay Anomaly Committee and as

per its view in para (5.1), the same is redressed.  

36. Promotional avenues available to the Internal Auditors:-

Promotional channels which are available against the post of Head

Clerk, Internal Auditor and Senior Assistant are as under:-

Head Clerk Internal Auditor Senior Assistant Circle Superintendent

1) Revenue Accountant 1)Superintendent Grade II

2)Revenue Superintendent 2)Superintendent Grade I 3) Accounts Officer* 3) Under Secretary 4)  Deputy  Chief  Accounts Officer*

4) Dy. Secretary

5) Chief Accounts Officer* *Subject to passing of SAS Part  I  and  Part  II Examination

By perusal of the above, it  is seen that the promotional avenues

which  are  available  to  all  the  Internal  Auditors  are  far  more  in

comparison to the promotional avenues which are available to the

Head  Clerks.  Therefore,  for  this  reason  also,  option  of  Internal

Auditors which has been exercised by the Internal Auditors was a

“conscious  option” exercised  by  them  because  of  more

promotional  avenues  may  available  in  the  channel  of  Internal

Auditors.

37. That  apart,  the  pay  scales  which  are  available  in  the

promotional  channel  for  Internal  Auditors  are  also  sharply  higher

than  the  Head  Clerks.  A Head  Clerk  on  promotion  to  a  Circle

Superintendent receives one additional increment above the scale

27

of Rs.10900- 34800 plus grade pay of Rs.5450 (i.e. available to a

Head  Clerk).  However,  in  the  Internal  Auditors  channel,  further

promotion as Accounts Officer will be in the pay scale of Rs.16650-

39100  plus  grade  pay  of  Rs.5800.  Thereafter,  on  promotion  as

Deputy Chief  Accounts Officer,  he receives one further increment

and  the  grade  pay  increases  to  Rs.8500.  Thereafter,  on  further

promotion  as  Chief  Accounts  Officer,  he  goes  into  the  scale  of

Rs.41300-67000 plus grade pay of Rs.9600. Two senior-most Chief

Accounts Officers are put in the scale equivalent to Chief Engineer

i.e. Rs.41300-67000 plus grade pay of Rs.10500.   From submission

of the appellant-Board, we find that the increase in the pay scale is

much higher on promotion against the post in the Internal Auditor

promotional channel. Thus, for the said reason also, the choice of

Internal Auditors made by all the persons (including those who have

exercised  the  option  between  01.01.1986  to  03.10.1990)  is  a

reasoned choice keeping in view the greater promotional avenues

and the higher pay scales which are available.  

38. It is also relevant to note that insofar as the direct recruits are

concerned,  the direct  recruited  Internal  Auditors  are  entitled  to  a

time-bound  promotional  scale  on  completion  of  nine  and  sixteen

years of service. Time-bound promotional scale of directly recruited

28

Internal Auditors after regular service of nine years is Rs.1900-3300

(unrevised)  and  after  completion  of  sixteen  years  of  service  is

Rs.2000-3500  (unrevised).  However,  no  such  time-bound

promotional scale is available to Head Clerks. Head Clerks are not

directly  recruited  and  their  appointment  as  Head  Clerk  is  by

promotion only.

39. The  only  ground  urged  by  respondents-Internal  Auditors  is

that parity of pay scale between the Head Clerks and the Internal

Auditors was maintained by the appellant-Board for more than two

decades and while so, disturbing the parity is arbitrary and illegal.

The Court has to keep in mind that a mere difference in service

conditions,  does  not  amount  to  discrimination.  Unless  there  is

complete identity between the two posts, they should not be treated

as  equivalent  to  claim  parity  of  pay  scale.  No  doubt,  Internal

Auditors were earlier placed in the same group namely Group XII;

but educational qualifications for the post of Head Clerk and mode

of  recruitment  are  different.  As  submitted  by  the  learned  Senior

Counsel for the appellant-Board, that in the year 1980, there were

only  four  posts  in  Group XII  but  subsequently  some posts  were

added to Group XII and the total fourteen posts which were added

to Group XII are:- Punjabi Teacher, Drawing Teacher, Hindi Teacher,

D.P.Ed.  Teacher,  Master/Mistress,  Science  Teacher,  Security

29

Inspector,  Modeller  Divisional  Head  Draftsman,  Prosecuting

Inspector  (now  Law  Officer),  Law  Officer  Grade  II,  Medical

Assistant, Librarian and Fire Officer, etc. For all these posts, source

and  mode  of  recruitment,  qualifications  and  nature  of  work  are

entirely  different.  If  the  contention  of  the  Internal  Auditors  for

claiming parity of pay scale with that of Head Clerks merely on the

ground that the post of Internal Auditor was placed in Group XII,

then if such parity of pay scale may have to be extended to all other

posts, it would have huge financial implication on the finance of the

Board  which  is  a  service-oriented  institution  owing  to  the

consumers. As held in  Union of India and Another v. Manik Lal

Banerjee (2006) 9 SCC 643, “it is now a well settled principle of law

that  financial  implication  is  a  relevant  factor  for  accepting  the

revision of pay.”  

40. The  learned  Single  Judge  proceeded  under  the  erroneous

footing as if the case of Internal Auditors is covered by the case put

forth by Sub Fire Officers. The learned Single Judge did not keep in

view the counter statement filed by the appellant-Board before the

High Court pointing out various distinguishing features of Internal

Auditors and Head Clerks on account of which no parity could be

granted to  the  Internal  Auditors  with  the Head Clerks.  The High

30

Court also did not keep in view that the Pay Anomaly Committee did

consider the demand of Internal Auditors and had not accepted the

demand  in  view  of  different  nature  of  duties  and  various  other

relevant factors. The learned Single Judge erred in recording that

the respondents were in the same category of “Sub Fire Officers”

within  the  same  group  which  have  been  decided  by  the  earlier

judgment dated 21.01.2010.  

41. As discussed earlier, merely because various different posts

have been categorized under Group XII, they cannot claim parity of

pay scale as that  of  the Head Clerk.  All  the more so,  when the

Internal Auditors are appointed 55% by direct recruitment and 45%

by promotion from  Circle Assistant/Assistant Revenue Accountant.

The High Court did not keep in view that the duties, nature of work

and promotion channel  of  Head Clerks and Internal  Auditors are

entirely different and that option to seek promotion apparently as

Internal  Auditors  was  the  “conscious  exercise  of  option”,  the

impugned judgment  cannot  be  sustained  and is  liable  to  be  set

aside.

42. In  the  result,  the  impugned  judgment  dated 23.02.2012

passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in

LPA No.264  of  2012  and  Order  dated  04.05.2012  in  the  review

31

petition are set aside and these appeals are allowed.  No costs.   

………………………J.  [R. BANUMATHI]

………………………J. [INDIRA BANERJEE]

New Delhi; January 08, 2019

32