In a significant judgment delivered on July 15, 2024, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that different posts coincidentally having the same pay scale does not create an indefeasible right to pay parity. The verdict was pronounced by a division bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice K.V. Viswanathan in State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. versus Virendra Bahadur Katheria and Ors.
Background:
The case originated from a long-standing dispute over pay scales in the Basic Education Department of Uttar Pradesh. The controversy centered around the alleged discrepancy in pay scales of Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools/Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikaris (SDI/ABSA) and Deputy Basic Shiksha Adhikaris (DBSA) vis-ร -vis the Headmasters of Junior High Schools. The genesis of this disparity can be traced back to a Government Order dated 20.07.2001, which revised the pay scales of Headmasters but not those of SDI/ABSA and DBSA.
Key Legal Issues:
1. Whether SDI/ABSA and DBSA are entitled to the higher pay scale of 7500-12000 with effect from 01.07.2001 or from 01.12.2008?
2. Application of the doctrine of merger and res judicata in light of previous court orders.
3. The State’s authority to implement administrative decisions in light of court judgments.
4. Condonation of delay in filing intra-court appeals by the State.
Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in part and issued several directions invoking its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. Key points of the judgment include:
1. The Court approved the 2011 Government Order in its entirety, which granted the pay scale of 7500-12000 to SDI/ABSA and DBSA notionally from 01.01.2006 and actually from 01.12.2008.
2. The Court held that any payments made to the respondents more than what they are entitled to from 01.12.2008 shall not be recovered from them.
3. The Court directed that arrears of pay or pension, if not already paid, shall be paid within four months with 7% interest per annum.
4. The Court clarified that the benefits are restricted to the employees of the State Education Department and should not be taken as a precedent by employees of other departments.
Important Observations:
The Court made several significant observations:
1. On pay parity: “Incidental grant of same pay scale to two or more posts, without any express equation amongst such posts, cannot be termed as an anomaly in a pay scale of a nature which can be said to have infringed the right to equality under Article 16 of our Constitution.”
2. On State’s prerogative: “The creation, merger, de-merger or amalgamation of cadres within a service to bring efficacy or in the administrative exigencies, is the State’s prerogative.”
3. On judicial interference: “The Court in exercise of its power of judicial review would sparingly interfere in such a policy decision, unless it is found to have brazenly offended Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.”
The case was argued by the Additional Solicitor General of India and Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttar Pradesh, while Mr. Dushyant Dave, Senior Counsel, represented the respondents. Ms. Shubhangi Tuli appeared for the caveator.
This judgment brings closure to a protracted litigation spanning over two decades and provides clarity on the issue of pay parity in government services. It also highlights the Supreme Court’s approach in balancing the interests of employees and the State’s administrative prerogatives.
