Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.31 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Union Of India & Ors vs Dineshan K.K on 4 January, 2008
28] In Union of India vs. Dineshan K. K. (2008) 1
SCC 586, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has accepted the
position that pay fixation is essentially an executive
function, ordinarily, undertaken by an expert body like the
pay commission, whose recommendations are entitled to a
great weight, though not binding on the Government.
Normally, the recommendations of an expert body like a
pay commission, are not justiciable since the Court is not
equipped to take upon itself the task of job evaluation,
which is a complex exercise.
State Of U.P. & Ors vs U.P. Sales Tax Officers Gr.Ii Assn on 16 April, 2003
page 20 of 35
::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2018 02:00:53 :::
JUDGMENT-WP-1983-03-1655-04-
29] In State of U.P & Ors. vs. U. P. Sales Tax
Officers Grade II Association (2003) 6 SCC 250, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there can be no denial
of the legal position that the decision of expert bodies like
the pay commission is not ordinarily subject to judicial
review obviously because pay fixation is an exercise
requiring going into various aspects of the posts held in
various services of the nature of duties of the employees.
State Of West Bengal vs Subhas Kumar Chatterjee & Ors on 17 August, 2010
30] In State of West Bengal vs. Subhas Kumar
Chatterjee & Ors. (2010) 11 SCC 694, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has recalled that it has time and again
cautioned that the court should avoid giving a declaration
granting a particular scale of pay and compel the
government to implement the same. Equation of posts
and equation of salaries is a matter which is best left to an
expert body. Fixation of pay and determination of party in
duties and responsibilities is a complex matter which is for
the executive to discharge. Even the recommendations of
the Pay Commissions are subject to acceptance or rejection,
the courts cannot compel the State to accept the
page 21 of 35
::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2018 02:00:53 :::
JUDGMENT-WP-1983-03-1655-04-
recommendations of the Pay Commissions though it is an
expert body. The State in its wisdom and in furtherance of
its valid policy may or may not accept the
recommendations of the Pay Commissions.
Secretary, Finance Department And Ors vs West Bengal Registration Service ... on 20 February, 1992
31] In Secretary, Finance Department & Ors. vs.
West Bengal Registration Service Association & Ors.
1993 Supp. (1) SCC 153, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has
held that it is well settled that equation of posts and
determination of pay scales is the primary function of the
executive and not the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily
courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is
generally left to expert bodies like the Pay Commissions,
etc. But that is not to say that the Court has no jurisdiction
and the aggrieved employees have no remedy if they are
unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction. Courts
must, however, realise that job evaluation is both a difficult
and time consuming task which even expert bodies having
the assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found
difficult to undertake sometimes on account of want of
relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of
different groups of employees. This would call for a constant
page 22 of 35
::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2018 02:00:54 :::
JUDGMENT-WP-1983-03-1655-04-
study of the external comparisons and internal relativities
on account of the changing nature of job requirements. The
factors which may have to be kept in view for job evaluation
may include (i) the work programme of his department (ii)
the nature of contribution expected of him (iii) the extent of
his responsibility and accountability in the discharge of his
diverse duties and functions (iv) the extent and nature of
freedoms/limitations available or imposed on him in the
discharge of his duties (v) the extent of powers vested in
him (vi) the extent of his dependence on superiors for the
exercise of his powers (vii) the need to co-ordinate with
other departments, etc. We have also referred to the history
of the service and the effort of various bodies to reduce the
total number of pay scales to a reasonable number. Such
reduction in the number of pay scales has to be achieved by
resorting to broadbanding of posts by placing different posts
having comparable job charts in a common scale.
Substantial reduction in the number of pay scales must
inevitably lead to clubbing of posts and grades which were
earlier different and unequal. While doing so care must be
taken to ensure that such rationalisation of the pay
structure does not throw up anomalies. Ordinarily a pay
page 23 of 35
::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2018 02:00:54 :::
JUDGMENT-WP-1983-03-1655-04-
structure is evolved keeping in mind several factors, e.g., (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, (vii) the horizontal and vertical relativities
with similar jobs, (viii) public dealings, (ix) satisfaction level,
Government Of Andhra Pradesh vs P. Hari Hara Prasad & Ors on 10 October, 2002
40] In Government of A.P. & Anr. vs. P. Hari Hara
Prasad & Ors. (2002) 7 SCC 707, the issue was of parity
in pay scales between employees of subordinate courts and
employees of the State Secretariat. The High Court, had in
fact ordered parity in scales but the Hon'ble Supreme Court
reversed the High Court by holding that ordinarily it is not
permissible for the High Court while exercising writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 to go into the nature of duties
of employees and on that basis direct grant of pay scales
which are applicable to employees of different services.
Therefore, the issue of writ of mandamus directing parity of
pay scales on the assumption that the posts were identical
and two sets of employees performed the same nature of
duties was not sustained in so far as the employees of
subordinate courts are concerned.
State Of Maharashtra & Anr vs Indian Hotel & Retaurants Assn.& Ors on 16 July, 2013
41] In State of Maharashtra vs. Association of Court
Stenographers, P.A. P.S. (2002) 2 SCC 141 the
page 30 of 35
::: Uploaded on - 09/04/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2018 02:00:54 :::
JUDGMENT-WP-1983-03-1655-04-
question of grant of parity of pay to the employees of the
courts came up for consideration before a Three Judge
Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Employees' Welfare ... vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 24 July, 1989
Referring to the
earlier decision in Supreme Court Employees' Welfare
Association vs. Union of India (1989) 4 SCC 187, it
was held therein that the judgment of the High Court in
exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 issuing writ of
mandamus directing a particular scale to be given to the
Courts Stenographers, Personal Assistants and Personal
Secretaries attached to the Hon'ble Judges of the High
Court cannot be sustained. It was further held that it is no
doubt true that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work is
an equitable principle but it would not be appropriate for
the High Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction
under Article 226 to examine the nature of work
discharged by the staff attached to the Hon'ble Judges of
the Courts and direct grant of any particular pay scales to
such employees.