Educational qualifications justify reasonable classification under Article 14
Legal Article: UNION OF INDIA V. INDIAN NAVY CIVILIAN DESIGN OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ANR.
Name: – SHYAM KUMAR
COLLAGE: ASIAN LAW COLLEGE AFFILIATED FROM CHAUDHARY CHARAN SINGH UNIVERSITY
Abstract:
One of such important features in human evolution specially in legal field is the right to have access to information and knowledge in development of legal field in new law as well as in latest land mark judgement passed by judiciary. And it is well known that Article 14 of the constitution is a Fundamental right and it is available to all citizens with certain reasonable restriction. Recently a Landmark Judgement passed by SUPREME COURT IN REGARD Educational qualifications justify reasonable classification under Article 14 WITH REGARD INDIAN NAVY CIVILIAN DESIGN OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ANR. This article aims to give brief about case which include facts, issue, judgement, conclusion, arguments of the both parties. This article contains the arguments of both parties.
INTRODUCTION:
To meet the functional requirements of the Indian Navy regarding specific assignments of the naval dockyards, technical directors of naval headquarters and training establishments the cadre of design officers in the Indian Navy was created in the year 1965.
2. The drawing staff in the Navy was put into two diverse disciplines. The first was in the construction, electrical, engineering and armament discipline. Group-B gazetted posts in the disciplines of construction, electrical and engineering were created and the officers were designated as junior design officers (JDO). The second division was armament in which W.P.(C) No.1006/2008 Page 2 of 16 posts designated as civilian technical officers (CTO Design) were created.
3. Since inception, for purposes of direct recruitment, the educational qualification required for the post of JDO was a degree in naval architecture. Period of probation was one year before confirmation. For CTO (Design), educational qualification was a second-class degree in mechanical engineering/electrical engineering. Period of probation was one year before confirmation. For induction by way of promotion to the post of JDO, eligibility was a chief draughtsman with two years regular service in grade I or draughtsman grade I with five years regular service in the grade who qualified departmental qualifying examination. For induction by way of promotion to the post of CTO, eligibility was Chief Draughtsman (armament) with three years‟ regular service in the grade along with the requisite experience in design and development of armament stores, gauges and jigs fixture etc.
Brief facts with arguments of both parties
The Supreme Court, through the division bench of Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi, J.J., exercised their appellate jurisdiction and overturned the decisions made by the Delhi High Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal (‘Tribunal’). They declared that both judicial bodies had made a significant mistake by interfering with the recommended pay scales by the Fifth Central Pay Commission, specifically in regards to the pay scale of Junior Design Officers (‘JDOs’) and its equivalence to the pay scale of Civilian Technical Officers (‘Design’) (‘CTOs’). In this particular case, the Union of India (‘appellant’) challenged the order made by the Delhi High Court, which dismissed the appellant’s petition and upheld the Tribunal’s decision.
The Legal Trajectory Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association (‘respondent’) had contested the appellant’s rejection of their representation for an upgrade in the pay scale to Rs7500-12000 for JDOs, equivalent to CTOs, following the implementation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission. Dissatisfied with the outcome, the respondent appealed to the Tribunal, which overturned the appellant’s decision and directed the grant of the mentioned pay scale, on par with ‘Group B’ gazette posts of CTOs, along with all associated benefits. The appellant then challenged the Tribunal’s decision in the Delhi High Court, which dismissed the appellant’s petition and upheld the Tribunal’s order.
ISSUES:
The question at hand is whether the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in treating the positions of JDOs and CTOs as equal and in setting the pay scales of JDOs to be equivalent to that of CTOs. This decision seems to disregard the legal position established by this Court in numerous cases, which states that the Courts should not intervene in the intricate matters of assessing the nature of duties and responsibilities of positions, as well as determining the appropriate pay scales. These tasks are better suited for expert bodies such as the Pay Commission.
COURT OBSERVATION/ANALYSIS
The court acknowledged that the power of judicial review held by the High Courts in regards to the classification of positions and determination of salary scales was not a new issue. The court declared that it has consistently been established in numerous decisions that the equalization of positions and salaries is a complex matter that is best left to an expert body, unless there is substantial evidence on record to prove that a serious mistake has been made in setting the salary scale for a specific position, and that the intervention of the court is absolutely necessary to rectify the injustice. The court emphasized that the equalization of positions and determination of salary scales is primarily the responsibility of the executive branch, not the judiciary.
Therefore, the court should not engage in the task of job evaluation, which is generally entrusted to expert bodies such as pay commissions that conduct thorough evaluations taking into account various factors such as the nature of work, duties, accountability, responsibilities, powers conferred on –
individuals holding a particular position,
promotional opportunities,
statutory rules governing conditions of service,
and horizontal and vertical comparability with similar positions.
The court recognized that although the nature of work in two positions may sometimes appear to be similar, if the classification of positions and determination of salary scales have a reasonable connection to the objective of achieving efficiency in administration, the pay commissions would be justified in recommending and the state would be justified in prescribing different salary scales for seemingly similar positions.
The court further stated that providing a higher salary scale to prevent stagnation or frustration due to lack of promotional opportunities or longer duration of promotional avenues is also a valid reason for pay differentiation.
The Court expressed a widely accepted viewpoint that there can be multiple grades within a specific service. Consequently, it believed that the classification of positions and the determination of salary structure fell exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Executive branch. The Court emphasized that neither the Courts nor the Tribunals should question the wisdom of the Executive in establishing a particular pay structure and grade for a specific service. In the present case, the Court examined the roles and responsibilities of both CTOs and JDOs and found that they were distinct, with different promotional opportunities and criteria. The Court concluded that there were no errors in the fixation of pay scales for JDOs and CTOs that would warrant the intervention of the Tribunal. The bench also highlighted the limited powers of judicial review in matters involving financial implications. “The Courts generally do not have the authority to review decisions related to finance unless there is a clear case of gross arbitrariness or unfairness,” the Court observed.
JUDGEMENTS:
(1.) The Union of India, as the appellant, has lodged an appeal against the judgment and order dated 2/8/2010 issued by the High Court of Delhi in WP(C)No. 1006 of 2008. The High Court had dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant and upheld the judgment and order dated 8/6/2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) in O.A. No. 2228 of 2006.
(2.) The Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association, as the respondent, had filed O.A. No. 2223/2006 before the Tribunal to challenge the appellant’s decision of rejecting their representation for the grant of pay scale of Rs. 7500.0012000 to the Junior Design Officers, which was allowed to the Civilian Technical Officers (Design) following the implementation of the Fifth Central Pay Commission. According to the respondent-association, the cadre of Design officers in the Indian Navy was established in 1965 to fulfill the Navy’s functional requirements for specific assignments in Naval dockyards, Training, Directorate of Naval Design, Establishments and other Technical Directorates of Naval Headquarters. The drawing staff in the Navy consisted of individuals from various disciplines such as Construction, Electrical, Engineering, and Armament. For the disciplines of Construction, Electrical, and Engineering, the Group ‘B’ gazetted posts were designated as Junior Design Officers (JDOs), while for Armament disciplines, the Group ‘B’ gazetted posts were designated as Civilian Technical Officers (CTOs) (Design). The Recruitment Rules for JDOs were amended by SRO 246 dated 21/11/2002, whereas the Recruitment Rules for the post of CTOs (Design) were notified by SRO 132 dated 12/5/1982.
3. According to the respondent-Association, prior to the Fifth Central Pay Commission, all disciplines and grades had the same pay scales. However, after the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, the pay scale for CTOs was set at Rs.7500.0012000, while the pay scale for JDOs was set at Rs.7450.0011500. The respondent-Association argued that since the pay scales for the feeder cadre remained the same in all disciplines, the JDOs should also be granted the revised pay scale of Rs.7500.0012000, similar to the CTOs. They made this representation to the appellant, but the Ministry of Finance rejected their proposal for pay scale upgradation. As a result, the respondent-Association filed O.A. No. 1730 of 2003 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, in its order dated 1/11/2004, disposed of the O.A. and directed the appellant to consider the parity of pay scale between JDOs and CTOs by evaluating their duties and responsibilities, and to provide a detailed speaking order.
Conclusion:
In an appeal filed by the Union of India, the High Court of Delhi’s judgment was challenged. The High Court had dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Union and upheld the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The Tribunal had issued an order to increase the pay scale of Junior Design Officers (JDOs) to match that of Civilian Technical Officers (CTOs). The question raised before the Supreme Court was whether the Tribunal’s decision to equate the positions of JDOs with CTOs, which was accepted by the High Court, was justified or not. Additionally, it was questioned whether it was justified to fix equivalent pay scales for these positions, considering that it is generally understood that courts should not interfere in matters that are best suited for expert bodies.
On February 22, 2023, the division bench held that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” cannot be mechanically applied in every case. It depends on the qualities and characteristics of the individuals and can be treated as a reasonable classification under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The Apex Court overturned the orders of the High Court of Delhi and the Central Administrative Tribunal. It observed that the powers of judicial review in financial matters are very limited, and both the High Court and the Tribunal made a serious error by interfering when the pay scales had been recommended by the Pay Commission.
Reference:
- JURIS THE-LAWS
- www.scconline.com/blog
