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. .... Appellants

Versus

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  employees

i.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  5th 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  14th 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. 1st 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  Tripathi’s 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 Duraphe’s case on 1st

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. 1st 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  1st 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 1st April, 2000 in O.A. No.45 of 1998

directing Duraphe’s 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 1st 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  1st 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. 1st 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  Tripathi’s case  or  the

judgment in O.A. No.45 of 1998 dated 1st 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  22nd 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  25th

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 22nd July, 2006.  The Orders dated      25th March,

2006   and  22nd 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 18th

July,  2007.      It  was held  that  the new Police Ranks

(Ministerial) created for the Ministerial staff of the Police

Department by Memorandum dated 5th 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 1st 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 of

ad 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 Duraphe’s 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 1st April,  2000

and 17th 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 5th 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 1st January,

2000 and 17th 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 5th 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  5th 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  5th 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. 1st April, 1981.  It is

relevant to  mention that  the State Government by an

Order   dated  26th /  28th June,  1979  allowed  ad  hoc

increment to non-Gazetted employees of the Police Force

w.e.f. 14th 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  17th November,  2001  in  the  Review Application

filed  by  the  Government  in  Duraphe’s 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 1st 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 India1 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