Civil Appeal No.10029 of 2017 etc. Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers and Assistant Engineers Association   vs.  Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

1

Reportable   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10029 OF 2017

Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers and  Assistant Engineers Association …Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Government of Tamil Nadu and Others …Respondents

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10030-10189 of 2017  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10190 of 2017  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10191 of 2017  

AND

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10192 of 2017  

J U D G M E N T

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. These  Appeals  arise  out  of  the  judgment  and  order  dated

27.02.2014  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Madras  in  Writ

Appeal No.504 of 2012 and all other connected matters.

Civil Appeal No.10029 of 2017 etc. Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers and Assistant Engineers Association   vs.  Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

2

2. After the recommendations were given in March 2008 for revision

of pay-scales by the 6th Central Pay Commission, an Official Committee

was constituted by the Government of Tamil Nadu to examine and make

recommendations  about  the  pay-scales  of  Government  Employees  in

consonance  with  the  recommendations  made  by  the  6th Central  Pay

Commission.  This Official Committee submitted its report on 27.05.2009

making certain recommendations on “pay-scale to pay-scale” basis i.e. to

say that for the existing scales of pay, the revised pay (pay band) and grade

pay were recommended.  The recommendations were accepted by the State

Government by GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009.  For the present purposes

the relevant part of GO No.234 may be quoted here:

“(d) Further, the Government of India has granted two different revised scales of pay for the existing scale of Rs.8000-13500, one for promotees on the revised pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 (Pay Band – 2) with a Grade Pay  of  Rs.5,400/-  and  the  other  for  direct  recruits (Group  –  A  entry)  on  the  revised  pay  scale  of Rs.15600–39100 (Pay Band-3) with the same Grade Pay  of  Rs.5,400/-.  The  scale  of  pay  of  Section Officers in Central Secretariat has been placed in the Pay  Band-3  i.e.  Rs.15600-39100  +  Grade  Pay  of Rs.5400/-. As the State Government is extending the same  pay  scale  to  the  Section  Officer  /  Private Secretary  in  Tamil  Nadu Secretariat  Service  on  par with  their  counterparts  in  Central  Secretariat,  the Government direct that the Section Officer / Private Secretary  in  Secretariat  /  High Court  /  Tamil  Nadu Public  Service  Commission  shall  also  be  placed  in

Civil Appeal No.10029 of 2017 etc. Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers and Assistant Engineers Association   vs.  Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

3

Pay Band–3.  Further,  all  middle management posts, such  as  Administrative  Officer,  Accounts  Officer, Deputy Collector etc.  including Group–I entry level posts  are  presently  granted  a  uniform scale  of  pay both  for  promotees  and  direct  recruits.  Hence,  the Government  direct  that  all  the  posts  carrying  the present scale of pay of Rs.8000-13500 shall be placed uniformly in Pay Band–3 and given the revised pay scale  of  Rs.15600-39100  with  the  Grade  Pay  of Rs.5,400/-.  Further,  taking note  of  the  fact  that  the same Grade Pay is allowed to the employees in Pay Band-2 from Rs.5000-8000 to Rs.6500-10500 in the Government of India,  the Government has modified the Grade Pay as shown below so as to maintain the existing local relativity: -

Sl. Existing Scale of pay Revised Pay Revised  No.    (w.e.f. 1-1-96) (Pay Band) Grade Pay

1. 5000-8000 9300-34800 4,200 2. 5300-8300 9300-34800 4,300 3. 5500-9000 9300-34800 4,400 4. 5900-9900 9300-34800 4,500 5. 6500-10500 9300-34800 4,600 6. 6500-11100 9300-34800 4,700”

In terms of GO No.234 notional effect was given from 01.01.2006

while  monetary  benefits  were  accruable  to  the  employees  w.e.f.

01.01.2007.  Separate Government Orders were issued in respect each of

the departments based on GO No.234.

3. Thereafter,  One Man Commission headed by Mr.  Rajiv  Ranjan,

Principal  Secretary  to  the  Government  of  Tamil  Nadu,  Industries

Department was constituted to rectify pay anomalies which had arisen as

a  result  of  implementation  of  the  revised  pay-scales  pursuant  to  GO

No.234.  Said One Man Commission submitted its report on 31.03.2010.

Civil Appeal No.10029 of 2017 etc. Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers and Assistant Engineers Association   vs.  Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

4

The State Government, through GO Nos.254 to 340 (86 GOs) accepted

the  recommendations  of  The  One  Man  Commission.   By  way  of

illustration,  GO  No.312  dated  26.08.2010  with  respect  to  certain

categories of Public Works Department stated as under:

“The One Man Commission constituted in the G.O. second  read  above  to  examine  anomalies,  if  any, consequent  on  the  implementation  of  the recommendations of the Official Committee 2009 has recommended for revision of scales of pay of certain categories in Public Works Department. After careful examination,  the Government has decided to  accept the  recommendations  made  by  the  One  Man Commission  in  respect  of  the  above  department. Accordingly, Government direct that the scales of pay of  the  following  posts  shall  be  revised  as  shown below:-

Sl.  No.

Name of the Posts

Existing  scale  of pay + Grade Pay

Revised Scale  of pay + Grade Pay

Rs. Rs. 1 Executive

Engineer 15600- 39100+6600

15600-39100 +7600

2 Assistant Executive Engineer

15600-39100 +5400

15600-39100 +6600

3 Assistant Engineer

9300-34800 +4700

15600-39100 +5400

4 Head Draughting Officer

15600-39100 +5700

15600-39100 +6600

2) The revision of scales of pay ordered in para -1 above shall take notional effect from 1-1-2006 for the purpose of fixation of pay in the revised scales of pay and with monetary benefit from 01-08-2010.”

Civil Appeal No.10029 of 2017 etc. Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers and Assistant Engineers Association   vs.  Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

5

4. It is a matter of record that all Assistant Engineers who were earlier

put in the pay-scale of Rs.9300-34800 with Rs.4700 as Grade Pay were

thus placed in the revised scale of pay of Rs.15600-39100 with Rs.5400

Grade Pay, as a result of GOs dated 26.08.2010 and the benefit in terms

thereof was extended to the concerned persons and their pay-scale stood

revised accordingly.

5.  The  State  Government,  however,  issued  GO  No.71  dated

26.02.2011  scaling  down  certain  benefits  which  were  granted  in

pursuance  of  said  GOs  dated  26.08.2010.   Such  exercise  was  done

without  issuing  any  notice  or  affording  any  hearing  to  the  persons

concerned.  As a result of this exercise, 52 categories of posts in various

departments  were  downgraded  to  lower  pay-scales.   It  was,  however,

made  clear  that  whatever  payment  was  made  in  terms  of  the  earlier

decision, would not be recovered.  The State Government also constituted

Pay Grievance Redressal Cell (“PGRC”, for short) in Finance Department

headed  by  Thiru  R.  Thiyagrajan,  Special  Secretary  to  Government,

Finance  Department  to  look  into  the  grievances  and  consider  the

representations of the employees aggrieved as a result of scaling down of

the pay-scales.  

Civil Appeal No.10029 of 2017 etc. Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers and Assistant Engineers Association   vs.  Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

6

6. Various  writ  petitions  were  filed  by  the  concerned  employees

challenging the correctness and validity of GO No.71 dated 26.02.2011.

These petitions were dismissed by a Single Judge of the High Court by

judgment and order dated 08.03.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.7006 of

2011  and  all  connected  matters.   Since  the  services  of  Thiru  R.

Thiyagrajan  were  not  available,  the  Single  Judge  directed  the  State

Government to re-constitute the PGRC.

7. The decision of the Single Judge was challenged by way of Writ

Appeals and the Division Bench of  the High Court by its  order dated

27.03.2012 granted interim stay except with regard to the constitution of

the PGRC.  Consequently, the State Government issued GO No.123 dated

10.04.2012 and re-constituted the PGRC with Mr. Krishnan, Secretary to

the Government as the Chairperson.  The PGRC received around 4376

representations from various associations of employees/individuals.  The

PGRC gave hearing to the concerned representationists on 09.07.2012,

10.07.2012,  11.07.2012  and  16.08.2012  and  thereafter  submitted  its

recommendations to the State Government.  The relevant portion of the

recommendations was:-

“1) The scales of pay of the employees in every pay revision from Tamil Nadu Fifth Pay Commission is based on the parity with similar posts in Government of India.

Civil Appeal No.10029 of 2017 etc. Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers and Assistant Engineers Association   vs.  Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

7

2) In  Government  of  India  both  the  Junior Engineer  /  Assistant  Engineers  are  placed  at  the section  level  and  its  promotional  posts  Assistant Executive Engineer is placed at Sub-divisional level.

3) In Central Public Works Department the post of Assistant Engineer are placed in the scale of pay of Rs.9300-34800  +  G.P.  Rs.4600  as  against  the  pre- revised scale of pay of Rs.7400-11100 based on the Sixth  Central  Pay  Commission  recommendations. Further,  the  Junior  Engineers  are  also claiming pay hike  given  to  Assistant  Engineer  due  to  the  huge variation  in  emoluments  consequent  on  placing  the Assistant  Engineers  erroneously  in  Pay  Band-3 (Rs.15600-39100 + G.P. Rs.5400) as both these posts are placed at section level and discharging the same work.  The comparison with Medical  Doctor  is  also not appropriate as there is no equivalent of Diploma holder in that line. In the Engineering line, there is a separate category of Diploma holders, who are Junior Engineers and holding charge as ‘section in-charge’ like Assistant Engineers. The recommendation of the One man Commission to place Assistant Engineers in Pay Band-3 opened up a huge differential with Junior Engineers, which appears unjustified. Therefore, it is appropriate  that  the  scale  of  pay  of  Assistant Engineers in State Government may be brought down to Pay Band-2 at Rs.9300-34800. However, the Grade Pay  of  Rs.5100  already  fixed  in  G.O.Ms.No.71, Finance (PC) Department, dated: 26-2-2011, which is at a level above their counterparts in Government of India  would  be  appropriate.  It  also  maintains  an appropriate difference of Rs.700/- in Grand Pay from Junior Engineer. The Committee also recommend that the  excess  payments  made  till  the  issue  of  revised orders may be waived and not recovered.  

4) It is observed that the Official Committee, 2009 had rightly placed the post  of Assistant Engineer at Rs.9300-34800  +  G.P.  Rs.4700  as  against  the  pre- revised scale of pay of Rs.6500-11100. In the light of the above facts, the Committee consider it appropriate

Civil Appeal No.10029 of 2017 etc. Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers and Assistant Engineers Association   vs.  Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

8

to place the post of Assistant Engineers on par with similar posts in Central Public Works Department and also considering the local pay relatively among other higher  posts,  the  Committee  recommends  that  it would be appropriate that the pay scale of Assistant Engineers may be brought down to Pay Band-2 from Pay Band-3 and granted an enhanced Grade Pay in the scale  of  pay  of  Rs.9300-34800 +  G.P.  Rs.5100  i.e. with the same Grade pay as ordered in G.O.Ms.No.71, Finance  (Pay  Cell)  Department  dated:26-02-2011. This  implies  that  the  Assistant  Engineer  in  State Public  Works  Department  would  be  placed  with  a difference  in  Grade  pay  of  Rs.500/-  in  Grade  Pay above the  Assistant  Engineers  in  the  Central  Public Works  Department.  Likewise,  the  Committee  also recommends to place the post of Executive Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer in the appropriate revised  scale  of  pay  of  Rs.15600-39100  +  GP. Rs.6600  and  Rs.15600-39100  +  G.P.  Rs.5400 respectively  as  originally  recommended  by  the Official  Committee, 2009 duly endorsing the orders issued  by  Government  in  G.O.Ms.No.71,  Finance (Pay  Cell)  Department  dated:26-02-2011  uniformly on par with the equivalent posts in other Government Departments.”

8. The recommendations  of  the  PGRC were accepted  by the  State

Government and GO No.242 was issued on 22.07.2013 to implement the

recommendations.  After quoting certain portions of the recommendations

given by the PGRC, GO No.242 stated as under:

“After  careful  examination,  the  Government  has decided to implement the above recommendations of the  Pay  Grievance  Redressal  Cell  considering  the level of Assistant Engineer in Central Public Works Department  and  the  consequential  changes  made thereon by endorsing / modifying the scales of pay of

Civil Appeal No.10029 of 2017 etc. Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers and Assistant Engineers Association   vs.  Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

9

certain  categories  ordered  in  the  G.O.Ms.  No.  71, Finance  (Pay  Cell)  Department,  dated:  26.02.2011 read above.”

GO No.242 also gave a tabulated chart about various departments

and insofar as Public Works Department was concerned, the tabulated chart

was as under:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S. No.

Name of the Post/ Department

Pre-Revised Scale of Pay

Correspondin g  revised scale of pay + G.P.

Scale  of  pay granted  based on  OMC  / subsequent GOS

Scale  of  Pay as  per G.O.Ms No.71  dated 26.02.2011

Revised Scale of pay

Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. 1 to 32.

…. … …. … … ..

XII PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT  33. Assistant

Engineer 6500-11100 9300-34800

+4700 15600-39100 +5400

15600-39100 +5100

9300-34800 +5100

34. Assistant Executive Engineer

8000-13500 15600-39100 +5400

15600-39100 +6600

15600-39100 +5400

15600-39100 +5400

35. Executive Engineer

10000-15200 15600-39100 +6600

15600-39100 +7600

15600-39100 +6600

15600-39100 +6600

36. Head Draughting Officer

9100-14050 15600-39100 +5700

15600-39100 +6600

15600-39100 +5700

15600-39100 +5700

37. to 52.

… … … … … …

It was also stated:

“(3) The revision of scale of pay ordered above shall take  notional  effect  from  01.01.2006/12.12.2007  as the  case  may  be  with  monetary  benefit  from 01.04.2013.   However,  the  excess  payments,  if  any made to the employees so far shall be waived and the pay refixed in the appropriate scales of pay as ordered above.”

Civil Appeal No.10029 of 2017 etc. Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers and Assistant Engineers Association   vs.  Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

10

9. Number of writ petitions were filed challenging GO No.242 dated

22.07.2013.  Those writ petitions as well as the pending writ appeals were

taken up together and disposed of by the Division Bench of the High Court

by its judgment under appeal.

10. The Division Bench found that by fixing higher pay by virtue of

GO  No.234  dated  01.06.2009  and  consequential  separate  Government

Orders  issued  for  various  departments,  the  concerned  government

employees were paid higher salaries/pay-scales w.e.f. 01.01.2007 and such

benefits were now reduced by the Orders which were under challenge and

the  reduction  in  benefits  was  without  following  principles  of  natural

justice.   Following  directions  were,  therefore,  issued  by  the  Division

Bench:

“50.  As  we  found  illegality  in  not  following  the principles  of  natural  justice,  before  reducing  the scales of pay, it is necessary that the matter is to be considered  afresh  by  the  Government  after  giving opportunity to all concerned especially, for reducing the scale of pay/grade pay. It is not in dispute that if really,  there is  any pay anomaly,  the government is entitled  to  remove  the  same  by  following  the  due procedures.  As  rightly  contended  by  the  learned Senior  Counsels  and other  learned counsels  for  the petitioners,  the One-Man Committee and the PGRC appointed  by  the  Government,  all  its  members  are Government Officers and they have already decided to  reduce  the  pay  scale  of  52  categories  of  20

Civil Appeal No.10029 of 2017 etc. Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers and Assistant Engineers Association   vs.  Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

11

departments,  including  pensioners  and  family pensioners  in  those  departments,  it  may  not  be appropriate  again  to  permit  the  Government  to reconsider the issue on the recommendations of  the Government  officials  alone.  At  this  juncture  it  is relevant  to  note  that  the  Central  Government appointed retired Judge of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to head the V Central Pay Commission. Similarly, a retired  Judge  of  Hon’ble  Supreme  Court  was appointed  as  the  Chairman  of  VI  Central  Pay Commission. The Hon’ble Supreme Court appointed a  retired  Judge  of  this  Court  to  consider  the  pay anomaly  among  the  Judicial  Officers/Judicial Pensioners at All India level. It  is also not disputed that  while  extending  the  Pay  Commission  benefits, the technicalities as well as the legal issues regarding the claim of Equal Pay for Equal Work, qualifications, nature  of  duties  etc.  are  also  to  be  analysed  and considered. Hence, we are of the view that it is just and appropriate to appoint a retired Judge to head the Pay Grievance Redressal Committee.

51. In such circumstances, the writ appeals and writ petitions  are  disposed  of  with  the  following directions:

(i) The Government shall constitute a Pay Grievance Redressal  Committee  under  the  Chairmanship  of Hon’ble  Mr.  Justice  A.S.  Venkatachalmoorthy, formerly Judge of this Court, who was elevated and retired  as  Chief  Justice  of  the  Chattishgarh  High Court.

(ii) The Government is at liberty to nominate one or two Senior level IAS Officers at the level of Principal Secretary,  serving/retired  as  Member(s)  of  the  Pay Grievance Redressal Committee.

Civil Appeal No.10029 of 2017 etc. Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers and Assistant Engineers Association   vs.  Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

12

(iii) The Pay Grievance Redressal Committee shall be given specific terms of reference by the Government, with a request to submit a report/recommendations for taking  fresh  decision  regarding  the enhancement/reduction of the pay scales/grade pay of 52 or more categories of 20 or more departments, etc.

(iv) The  Government  is  directed  to  constitute  the above said committee within a period of three weeks from  the  date  of  receipt  of  copy  of  this  order, prescribing  time  limit,  within  which report/recommendations is to be submitted for taking fresh decision.

(v) In  view  of  the  constitution  of  the  above  said Committee as ordered above, the implementation of G.O.Ms.No.71 dated  26.2.2011 and G.O.Ms.No.242 dated 22.7.2013 insofar as it affects any category of Government  Servants/  pensioners/family  pensioners, which are not implemented as on today shall not be implemented till fresh decision is taken.  

(vi) If any of the categories of Government servants of  any  department,  who  have  been  offered  higher scales  of  pay  as  on  today,  it  is  open  to  the Government to implement the same insofar as the pay scales, which are beneficial to the employees of such categories.

(vii)  As  we  have  appointed  the  Chairman  of  the PGRC, we direct the Government of Tamil Nadu to make available office premises with supporting staff and to provide a Government car with driver for the use of the Chairman for effective functioning of the Committee.

(viii) We fix the remuneration for the Chairman of the Committee as Rs.1.50 lakhs per month and direct the Government  to  sanction  necessary  funds  towards remuneration  and  for  meeting  other  expenses  for effective functioning of the Committee.

Civil Appeal No.10029 of 2017 etc. Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers and Assistant Engineers Association   vs.  Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

13

(ix) It is open to the Government to fix remuneration of  the  Members/Member  of  the  Committee,  to  be nominated by the Government, if they are retired IAS officer(s).”

11. Two sets of appeals have been filed in this Court challenging the

decision  of  the  Division  Bench.   The  first  set  is  by  the  Government

Employees  and  their  Associations  submitting  inter  alia that  once  the

process undertaken by the State Government was found to be in violation

of the principles of natural justice, complete benefit of setting aside the

impugned decisions ought to have been extended.  It is also submitted that

the  exercise  undertaken  by  the  One  Man  Commission  was  a  proper

exercise and its recommendations were accepted by the State Government

after considering the matter carefully and thus there was no occasion for

the State Government to take any different view in the matter.   On the

other  hand,  the  second  set  of  appeals,  at  the  instance  of  the  State

Government submits inter alia that the exercise undertaken by the PGRC

was after  giving due opportunity to the concerned employees and their

Associations and as such the High Court was not justified in setting aside

GO  No.242  seeking  to  implement  the  recommendations  given  by  the

PGRC.  

Civil Appeal No.10029 of 2017 etc. Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers and Assistant Engineers Association   vs.  Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

14

By interim order passed in these matters, stay of operation of the

judgment under appeal, to the extent fresh PGRC was directed to be set up,

was granted by this Court which status is still continuing.   

12. We heard Mr.  Dushyant  Dave,  Mr.  R.  Venkataramani,  Mr.  C.A.

Sundaram, Mr. P. S. Patwalia, Mr. Vinay Navare, learned Senior Advocates

and Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned Advocate for the appellants in the first

set of appeals and Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Advocate General for the

State.   It  was  submitted  by  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the

Government Employees and their  Associations that  having accepted the

recommendations made by the One Man Commission and having given

benefits in terms of said recommendations, the State Government could not

have lowered the pay scales of the concerned employees.  On the other

hand,  it  is  the  submission  of  the  State  that  the  acceptance  of  the

recommendations  of  the  One  Man  Commission  resulted  in  greater

anomalies; that the level of Assistant Engineers, which is the entry level in

various Engineering services was wrongly clubbed with other entry level

services like Assistant Surgeons; and that as a result of upward revision for

Assistant Engineers the gap between the level of the Assistant Engineers

and the subordinate ranks got widened to a considerable level while the

Assistant Engineers and the promotional level for Assistant Engineer were

Civil Appeal No.10029 of 2017 etc. Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers and Assistant Engineers Association   vs.  Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

15

brought almost at the same levels.    According to the learned Advocate

General, various such anomalies were required to be sorted out which in

turn made the State Government to constitute the PGRC.  According to the

State Government, normally the pay scales afforded to equivalent ranks in

the Central Government are higher than the ranks in the State Government

but the entry level of Assistant Engineers in the State Government, as a

result of the recommendations of the One Man Commission was kept at a

level far too higher than their counterparts in the Central Government.

13. The Tabulated Chart which is part of GO No.242 indicates very

clearly that the Assistant Engineers who were in the pre-revised pay scale

of  Rs.6500-11100  (column  No.3),  by  virtue  of  acceptance  of  the

recommendations made by the 6th Central Pay Commission were kept in

the  pay  scale  of  Rs.9300-34800  with  grade  pay  of  Rs.4700/-  (column

No.4)  as  a  result  of  GO  No.234  dated  01.06.2009,  while  the  next

promotional  level  i.e.  of  the Assistant  Executive Engineers  was kept at

Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.5400/-.  The recommendations of

the One Man Commission resulted in  upward revision to  the extent  of

Rs.15600-39100  with  grade  pay  of  Rs.5400/-  (column  No.5)  for  the

Assistanct  Engineers.   The  recommendations  of  the  PGRC  resulted  in

refixation  for  Assistant  Engineers  in  the  scale  of  Rs.9300-34800  with

Civil Appeal No.10029 of 2017 etc. Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers and Assistant Engineers Association   vs.  Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

16

marginal increase of grade pay to Rs.5100/- (column No.7) as against what

was available pursuant to GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009.   

14. The recommendations of the PGRC dealt with the effects of the

acceptance of the recommendations by the One Man Commission.  Para 3

of the recommendations quoted hereinabove shows that certain aspects of

the matter were found to be anomalous.  The submissions advanced by the

learned  Advocate  General  also  show  how  the  difference  between  the

Assistant Engineers and the post immediately lower than that was getting

widened, while at the same time, the post of Assistant Engineer and the

next level of promotion i.e. the post of Assistant Executive Engineer were

brought almost  at  the same level.   These anomalies found by the State

Government, had to be addressed.   If the State Government, therefore,

constituted the PGRC, such decision by itself cannot be found to be illegal

or invalid.   

15. It has always been accepted by this Court that prescription of pay-

scales and the assessment in that behalf is a complex matter which requires

expertise.  For instance, in Dy. Director General of Geological Survey of

India and another v.  R. Yadaiah and others1 it was observed:

1  (2001) 10 SCC 563

Civil Appeal No.10029 of 2017 etc. Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers and Assistant Engineers Association   vs.  Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

17

“Ordinarily,  the courts  or tribunal should not go into the question of fitment of the officers in a particular group or the pay scales thereof, and leave the matter to the discretion and  expertise  of  the  special  commission  like  the  Pay Commission.”

In State of Bihar and others v. Bihar Veterinary Association and

others2 it was observed :-

“13. If the courts start disturbing the recommendations of the pay scale in a particular class of service then it is likely to have cascading effect on all related services which may result into multifarious litigation. The Fitment Committee has  undertaken  the  exercise  and  recommended  the wholesale revision of the pay scale in the State of Bihar and if one class of service is to be picked up and granted higher pay scale as is available in the Central Government then the whole  balance  will  be  disturbed  and  other  services  are likely to be affected and it will result in complex situation in the State and may lead to ruination of the finances of the State.  …..”

In Hukumchand Gupta v. ICAR3 it was stated :-  

“20.  …  Prescription of pay scales on particular posts is a very complex exercise. It requires assessment of the nature and quality of the duties performed and the responsibilities shouldered  by  the  incumbents  on  different  posts.  Even though, the two posts may be referred to by the same name, it would not lead to the necessary inference that the posts are  identical  in  every  manner.  These  are  matters  to  be assessed  by  expert  bodies  like  the  employer  or  the  Pay Commission.  … …”

2  (2008) 11 SCC 60 3  (2012) 12 SCC 666

Civil Appeal No.10029 of 2017 etc. Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers and Assistant Engineers Association   vs.  Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

18

16. It  may  be  stated  here  that  the  6th Central  Pay  Commission

comprising of experts in the field had recommended certain pay-scales

for various posts.  The Official Committee which comprised of Principal

Secretary to the State of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, as Chairperson

with (i) Principal Secretary, Finance Department; (ii) Principal Secretary,

Personnel  and  Administrative  Reforms  Department;  and  (iii)Principal

Secretary, School Education Department as Members, had examined the

matter and made certain recommendations  which were accepted by the

Government  by  GO  No.234  dated  01.06.2009.   The  One  Man

Commission  appointed  to  consider  the  anomalies,  however,

recommended something which was far in excess of what was accepted

by GO No.234  dated  01.06.2009  which in  turn  was  in  tune  with  the

recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission.  It is true that the

Government  had  accepted  the  recommendations  of  the  One  Man

Commission but if further anomalies were found which called for action

on part of the Government, any exercise to reconsider the matter by the

State Government could not be faulted nor could the constitution of the

PGRC be said to be invalid or illegal.

Civil Appeal No.10029 of 2017 etc. Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers and Assistant Engineers Association   vs.  Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

19

17. Further, if there was any infirmity in the exercise of power by the

PGRC in not granting adequate notice and hearing to the concerned, such

infirmity could certainly be sorted out.   That is exactly what the Division

Bench undertook while passing the directions quoted hereinabove.  We,

therefore, see no error in the approach of and the directions issued by the

Division Bench of the High Court.

18. But,  it  has been more than five years  since the  directions were

issued by the Division Bench of the High Court and as a result of the

interim orders passed by this Court, the PGRC could not be set up.  In the

circumstances,  certain  modifications  in  the  directions  issued  by  the

Division Bench in para 5 of its order are called for and we proceed to

direct:-

(A) Direction No.(i) as issued by the Division Bench is

reiterated  except  that  Mr.  Justice  A.S.

Venkatachalamoorthy  having  now  expressed  his

unwillingness, Mr. Justice D. Murugesan, formerly

Chief Justice, High Court of Delhi is appointed as

Chairman  of  the  Pay  Grievance  Redressal

Committee.

Civil Appeal No.10029 of 2017 etc. Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers and Assistant Engineers Association   vs.  Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

20

(B) Direction No.(ii) as issued by the Division Bench

is accepted and it is added that the Chairman of the

PGRC will be at liberty to co-opt any two experts

as he deems appropriate as members of the PGRC,

who shall  be paid such honorarium by the  State

Government, as the Chairman deems appropriate.

(C) Direction  Nos.(iii)  and (v)  to  (vii)  issued by the

Division Bench are  accepted and do not  call  for

any change.

(D) Instead  of  Rs.1.5  lakhs  per  month,  we  fix  the

honorarium of the Chairman of the PGRC at Rs.3.5

lakhs per  month but  the other  parts  of  Direction

No.(viii) are maintained.

(E) Direction No.(ix) issued by the Division Bench is

accepted and does not call for any change.

(F) It is further directed:-

a) Within  a  week  from  today,  the  State

Government  shall  issue  appropriate  orders

constituting the PGRC as stated above.

Civil Appeal No.10029 of 2017 etc. Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers and Assistant Engineers Association   vs.  Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

21

b) Within  a  week  thereafter,  the  State

Government  shall  make  appropriate  and

adequate  arrangements  and  provide  office

space befitting the status of the Chairperson

and  other  Members  and  also  provide

adequate  staff,  secretarial  assistance  and

other facilities.

c) Within two weeks of the constitution of the

PGRC  all  the  concerned

individuals/associations  shall  file  their

representations.   No  representation  filed

beyond  the  period  of  two  weeks  shall

ordinarily be accepted by the PGRC.

d) Direction  No.  (iv)  issued  by  the  Division

Bench shall stand modified to the aforesaid

extent.

e) These  directions  are  in  addition  to  and  in

further  elaboration  of  direction  No.  (vii)

issued by the Division Bench.

Civil Appeal No.10029 of 2017 etc. Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers and Assistant Engineers Association   vs.  Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

22

19. It  is  clarified  that  regardless of  the decision  to  be  taken by the

PGRC,  any amount  paid  by way of  financial  benefit  extended to and

enjoyed by the concerned employees shall not be recovered i.e. to say that

in case the decision in pursuance of the recommendations of the PGRC

results in reduction in pay-scales or emoluments as were granted pursuant

to  GOs  dated  26.08.2010,  such  reduction  shall  be  prospective  in

application from the day the recommendations of the PGRC come into

effect.

20. It must be stated that the recommendations of the 7th Central Pay

Commission  have  since  been  made  and  the  issue  regarding

implementation  of  such  recommendations  is  presently  under  active

consideration.    The  present  matters  which  pertain  to  the

recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission therefore need to be

resolved at the earliest.  In the circumstances, we request the PGRC to

conclude the entire exercise within four months from today.

By way of clarification, it is added that the affected categories shall

not be permitted to migrate to 7th Central Pay Commission scales on the

basis of the higher scales till such time as the final decision is taken.

Civil Appeal No.10029 of 2017 etc. Tamil Nadu Rural Development Engineers and Assistant Engineers Association   vs.  Government of Tamil Nadu and Others

23

21. Lastly, it is clarified that the observations in the present order have

been  made  purely  from  the  stand  point  of  consideration  whether  the

decision of the State Government in constituting the PGRC was correct or

not and not by way of reflection on merits of the matter.  The matter shall

be considered by the PGRC and the State Government purely on merits

and uninfluenced by any of the observations made by us.   

22. With the aforesaid directions these appeals are disposed of without

any order as to costs.  

……………………….J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)

……………………….J. (Indu Malhotra)

New Delhi; November 28, 2019.