REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 913-914 OF 2021
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. … APPELLANTS
VERSUS
MANOJ KUMAR & ORS. …RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
1. Indian Railways is the largest civilian employer in the country
comprising of six production units and eighteen zones, with each zone
having three to six divisions.1
The total number of employees as on
31.03.2005 was stated to be about 14 lakh with the following distribution
of staff strength:
Group In position
A 8285
B 7247
1Indian Railways Annual Report and Accounts 2019-20 pg. 6.
[1]
C 873536
D 521578
Total 1410646*
* As per the Indian Railways Annual Report and Accounts 2019-20, the
current strength is about 12,53,592 as on 31.03.2020.
2. The Sixth Central Pay Commission (“6
th CPC”) report in chapter
7.36 deals with the Ministry of Railways and shows that it has fourteen
departments, including the Railway Board. The report examined the
demands of these different departments seeking higher pay-scales and
allowances for various categories in different departments. We are
concerned in the present matter with claims made by Private Secretaries
(Grade-II) (“PS-II”) employed in the Eastern Central Railways (Field
Office/Zonal Railways),for parity in pay with their counterparts working
in the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service (“CSSS”)/Railway
Board Secretariat Stenographers Service (“RBSSS”)/Central
Administrative Tribunal (“CAT”). We may note at this stage itself that
there have been conflicting judicial views on the claim for such parity
which we will come to later.
[2]
3. We may notice that the 6th CPC referred to the demands made by
common category posts relating to certain cadres in the Ministry of
Railways in para 7.36.95.One of the common category posts is that of
“Typists and Stenographers”. Thereafter, in para 7.36.96, it was observed
that these common categories have been covered by the Commission
elsewhere in the report. It was stated that the recommendations made
therein shall apply in respect of the common category posts in the
Ministry of Railways as well, there being no separate recommendations
made for this category. In the aforesaid conspectus we have to turn to
Chapter 3.1 of the report of the 6th CPC, which deals with “Headquarters
Organisations in Government of India & Office Staff in field offices”.
The disparity between Secretariat and Field offices is set out in clauses
3.1.2 and 3.1.3, which read as under:
“Disparity between Secretariat and field offices
3.1.2 The senior administrative posts in the Secretariat are mainly
filled by officers of All India Services and Central Group A
services on deputation under the Central Staffing Scheme. Some of
the posts in the middle level are also held by officers of the Central
Secretariat Services, Railway Board Secretariat Service in Ministry
of Railways, Defence Forces Headquarters Services in Ministry of
Defence and by Indian Foreign services (B) in Ministry of External
Affairs. Historically, various services in the Secretariat have been
given an edge over analogous posts in the field offices. This was
[3]
done on the ground that office staff in the Secretariat performs
complex duties and are involved in analyzing issues with policy
implications whereas their counter parts in field offices perform
routine work relating to routine matters concerning personnel and
general administration, etc. Another argument that is used to justify
the edge for various posts in Secretariat is that in Secretariat, level
jumping occurs and personnel in the grade of Assistant etc. submit
files directly to decision making levels of Under Secretary, Deputy
Secretary, etc.”
3.1.3Higher pay scales in the Secretariat offices may have been
justified in the past when formulation of proper policies was of
paramount importance. The present position is different. Today, the
weakest link in respect of any Government policy is at the delivery
stage. This phenomenon is not endemic to India. Internationally
also, there is an increasing emphasis on strengthening the delivery
lines and decentralization with greater role being assigned at
delivery points which actually determines the benefit that the
common citizen is going to derive out of any policy initiative of
the Government. The field offices are at the cutting edge of
administration and may, in most cases, determine whether a
particular policy turns out to be a success or a failure in terms of
actual benefit to the consumer. Accordingly, the time has come to
grant parity between similarly placed personnel employed in field
offices and in the Secretariat. This parity will need to be absolute
till the grade of Assistant. Beyond this, it may not be possible
or even justified to grant complete parity because the
hierarchy and career progression will need to be different
taking in view the functional considerations and relativities
across the board.”
(emphasis supplied)
[4]
4. The recommendations in para 3.1.9 have been made for various
posts from the LDC to the Director including Section Officer, with a
caveat that in the case of Sections Officers having pay scale of Rs. 8000-
13500, the scale would only be available to such of these
organizations/services which have had a historical parity with CSS/CSSS.
We, however, note that before setting forth in a tabular form the revised
pay-scales of the different posts, it has been observed in para 3.1.9 that:
“these recommendations shall apply mutatis-mutandis to post of Private
Secretary/equivalent in these services as well.”
5. We may note that the submission of the respondents is that it is this
clause which ought to govern; and that it recommends parity between the
post of Private Secretaries/equivalent and the post of a Section Officer.
We now turn to clause 3.1.14 which deals with recommendations for nonSecretariat Organizations. According to the appellants, the aspects sought
to be raised before us are specifically dealt with under this paragraph; and
thus, the respondent’s claim that their pay-scale ought to be governed by
para 3.1.9 is misplaced. These paragraphs read as under:
“Recommendations
[5]
3.1.9 Accordingly, the Commission recommends upgradation of
the entry scale of Section Officers in all Secretariat Services
(including CSS as well as nonparticipating
ministries/departments/organizations) to Rs.7500-12000
corresponding to the revised pay band PB 2 of Rs.8700-34800
along with grade pay of Rs.4800. Further, on par with the
dispensation already available in CSS, the Section Officers in other
Secretariat Offices, which have always had an established parity
with CSS/CSSS, shall be extended the scale of Rs.8000-13500 in
Group B corresponding to the revised pay band PB 2 of Rs.8700-
34800 along with grade pay of Rs.4800 on completion of four
years service in the lower grade. This will ensure full parity
between all Secretariat Offices. It is clarified that the pay band PB
2 of Rs.8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs.4800 is being
recommended for the post of Section Officer in these services
solely to maintain the existing relativities which were disturbed
when the scale was extended only to the Section Officers in CSS.
The grade carrying grade pay of Rs.4800 in pay band PB-2 is,
otherwise, not to be treated as a regular grade and should not be
extended to any other category of employees. These
recommendations shall apply mutatis-mutandis to post of Private
Secretary/equivalent in these services as well. The structure of
posts in Secretariat Offices would now be as under:-
Post Pre revised pay scale Corresponding
revised pay band and
grade pay
LDC Rs.3050-4590 PB-1 of Rs.4860-
20200 along with
grade pay of Rs.1900
UDC Rs.4000-6000 PB-1 of Rs.4860-
20200 along with
grade pay of Rs.2400
Assistant Rs.6500-10500 PB-2 of Rs.8700-
[6]
34800 along with
grade pay of Rs.4200
Section Officer Rs.7500-12000
Rs.8000-13500*
(on completion of
four years)
PB-2 of Rs.8700-
34800 along with
grade pay of Rs.4800.
PB-2 of Rs.8700-
34800 along with
grade pay of Rs.5400*
(on completion of four
years)
Under Secretary Rs.10000-15200 PB-3 of Rs.15600-
39100 along with
grade pay of Rs.6100
Deputy Secretary Rs.12000-16500 PB-3 of Rs.15600-
39100 along with
grade pay of Rs.6600
Director Rs.14300-18300 PB-3 of Rs.15600-
39100 along with
grade pay of Rs.7600
* This scale shall be available only in such of those
organizations/services which have had a historical parity with
CSS/CSSS. Services like AFHQSS/AFHQSSS/RBSS and
Ministerial/Secretarial posts in Ministries/Departments
organizations like MEA, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, CVC,
UPSC, etc. would therefore be covered.”
“Recommendations for non - Secretariat Organizations
3.1.14 In accordance with the principle established in the earlier
paragraphs, parity between Field and Secretariat Offices is
recommended. This will involve merger of few grades. In the
Stenographers cadre, the posts of Stenographers Grade II and
Grade I in the existing scales of Rs.4500-7000/Rs, 5000-8000 and
Rs.5500-9000 will, therefore, stand merged and be placed in the
higher pay scale of Rs.6500-10500. In the case of ministerial post
in non- Secretariat Offices, the posts of Head Clerks, Assistants,
[7]
Office Superintendent and Administrative Officers Grade III in the
respective pay scales of Rs.5000-8000, Rs.5500-9000 and
Rs.6500-10500 will stand merged. The existing and revised
structure in Field Organization will, therefore, be as follows:-
Designation Present
Pay Scale
Recommended
Pay Scale
Corresponding Pay
Band and Grade Pay
Pay
Band
Grade Pay
LDC 3050-4590 3050-4590 PB-1 1900
UDC 4000-6000 4000-6000 PB-1 2400
Head Clerk/
Assistants/ Steno
GradeII/equivalent
4500-
7000/
5000-8000
6500-10500 PB-2 4200
Office
Superintendent/
Steno Grade
I/equivalent
5500-9000
Superintendent/
Asst. Admn.
Officer/ Private
Secretary/
equivalent
6500-
10500
Administrative
Officer Grade
II /Sr. Private
Secretary/equ.
7500-
12000
7500-12000
entry grade for
fresh recruits)
8000-13500
(on completion
of four years)
PB-2 4800
(5400 after
4 years)
Administrative
Officer Grade I
10000-
15200
10000-15200 PB-2 6100
[8]
A perusal of paragraph 3.1.14 would show that Steno (Grade-II) has
specifically been mentioned under this paragraph and it deals with the
aspect of parity between field and Secretariat offices.
6. We consider it appropriate to settle the aforesaid issue which is on
a plain reading of the recommendations of the 6th CPC as a lot of other
arguments and claims of parity will flow from which clause would
govern.
7. There is no doubt, in our considered view, that though there is an
observation that the recommendations shall apply mutatis mutandis to
Private Secretaries and posts equivalent thereto in the service under para
3.1.9; the subsequent paragraph 3.1.14 has specifically dealt with the
aspect of parity between the field and Secretariat offices, which is really
the subject matter of the claim before us.
8. The plea of the respondents is that para 3.1.9 of the
recommendations of the 6th CPC has been issued pursuant to paras
7.36.95 and 7.36.96. No separate recommendations for Stenographers in
zonal offices of Railways have been made. Para 3.1.9, which relates
specifically to Section Officers also provides that it applies mutatis
mutandis to private secretaries in these services. The premise of this plea
is therefore that para 3.1.14 deals with the recommendations for non-
[9]
Secretariat Organizations other than the Railways, and that they should
be treated as Secretariat organizations. In our view this becomes a
crucial issue. In the spectrum of conflicting views of different Central
Administrative Tribunals, the view of the CAT, Bangalore in Original
Application Nos. 640-649 and 1001-1030 of 2014 seek to favour the case
of the appellants.
9. If we turn to that judgment (V.N. Narayanappa & Ors. v. The
Secretary, Railway Board Etc.) decided on 13.04.2016, the factual
matrix deals with a case of similarly situated Private Secretaries (Grade
II) in the Southern Railways. In considering this plea, the Tribunal took
note of a different view in O.A. No.658/2010 decided on 05.06.2012 by
the Madras Bench of the Tribunal, which the applicants therein sought to
rely upon. That judgment in turn was based on an earlier view of the
Principal Bench of the CAT at Delhi in the case of OA No.164/2009
decided on 19.02.2009 (S.R. Dheer & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.), in
respect of Private Secretaries (Grade-II) of the CAT. At this juncture, it
may be important to note that the respondents herein in their OA before
the CAT Patna, also claimed parity with the aforementioned decision of
the CAT Madras. The Madras Bench of the CAT had noticed that no
recruitment rules had been placed on record by the Government while
[10]
stating that different standards of academic and professional
qualifications, etc. exist. Thus, the view of the Madras Bench of the
Tribunal was based on absence of material and on a reason of parity with
the Principal Bench at Delhi, even though the Principal Bench at Delhi
dealt with the case of CAT Stenographers (Grade II) officers and had
allowed the OA on the basis of historical parity.
10. We may add here that the views of the Madras CAT have not been
interfered with by this Court. Both an SLP challenging the decision and a
subsequent Review Petition met with a summary dismissal and
resultantly, the question to be decided in this case has not been
specifically dealt with by this Court. This has resulted in the
implementation of different orders in different matters, which are really
contradictory in nature.
11. The Bangalore Bench of the CAT in seeking to determine the issue
on merits sought strength from an earlier decision of the Principal Bench
(Delhi) in OA No.2102/2010 in Rabindra Nath Basu & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors. and other connected matters decided on 16.05.2011 dealing
with the case of the Assistant Staff Officers of the Ordnance Factory
Board. The CAT therein opined that the applicants belonged to a non-
[11]
Secretariat organization and would therefore be covered by the pay-scale
prescribed in para 3.1.14 of the 6th CPC.
12. If we notice the discussion in V.N. Narayanappa & Ors.2
,
historical parity is one of the aspects which has been examined. The
factual matrix in the present case is that there was such historical parity
under the first and second Pay Commissions’ recommendations.
However, the third and fourth Pay Commissions did not give parity and
the fifth Pay Commission gave parity to a limited extent. Thus, there is
no continued history of parity insofar the present case is concerned, i.e.,
sometimes parity was given and sometimes not. The history as available
from the brief note submitted by the respondents and is as under:
Central Pay
Commission
RBSS Zonal Railways/Field
Officers
1
st Pay Commission Rs.160-450/- Rs.160-450/-
2
nd Pay Commission Rs.210-530/- Rs.210-530/-
3
rd Pay Commission Rs.650-1200/- Rs.650-960/-
4
th Pay Commission Rs.2000-3500/- Rs.2000-3200/-
5
th Pay Commission Rs.6500-10500/- Rs.6500-10500/-
6
th Pay Commission
(Grade Pay)
Rs.4800 Rs.4200 (Later
Rs.4600/-)
13. We now turn to the aspect of whether the post in the case in hand
can be said to be that of a Secretariat or non-Secretariat organization.
2(supra)
[12]
This aspect, once again, has been dealt with in the judgment in V.N.
Narayanappa & Ors.3
, taking note of Swamy’s Compilation of 6th CPC
Report Part I (pages 141 to 147) and Swamy’s Manual on Office
Procedure 2006 and 2009. In the definition Chapter at entry 53,
Secretariat Offices are said to have been defined as those which are
responsible for formulation of the policies of the Government and also
for the execution and review of those policies. Relying on this definition,
it was opined that the organizations where the applicants in V.N.
Narayanappa & Ors.4 were working, were not Secretariat Organizations,
but were non-Secretariat Organizations or attached offices or subordinate
offices thereto. The meaning of subordinate offices is stated to signify
their function as field establishments or as agencies responsible for the
detailed execution of the policies of Government. They function under
the direction of an attached office or directly under a department. In that
context, it was opined that there exists a distinction in the works,
functions and responsibilities between Secretariat and non-Secretariat
organizations. As such, it was noted that if there are functional
dissimilarities between the cadres, there are bound to be financial
3(supra)
4(supra)
[13]
disparities in pay and allowances. It would be useful to reproduce paras
38 and 39 of the judgment in V.N. Narayanappa & Ors.5
, which read as
under:
“38. As it would be evident from the discussions in the preceding
paras, there is a significant difference in the recruitment rules,
promotional hierarchy etc. between the applicants who are Private
Secretaries Grade-II in the Zonal Railways with that of Private
Secretaries in the Railway Board/Central Secretariat
Services/CSSS or CAT. There also no case of any historical parity
between the applicants and their counterparts in CSSS or CAT or
RBSS. Therefore the applicants cannot claim the benefits of pay
scales allowed to CSSS in the ratio of judgments in OA
No.164/2009 in S.R. Dheer & Ors. v. Union of India wherein the
Private Secretaries in the CAT were granted the benefit on the
basis of establishment of a historical parity with CSS.
39. In this context, we also note the submission made by the
respondents about the consequential implications on various other
categories/groups under the respondents if such benefit is granted
to the applicants even though they do not have any parity with
RBSS and CSSS and are not entitled to the same. The Railways is
a vast organization where there are many cadres/category of
employees having identical pay scales and equal parity with that of
Private Secretaries Grade-II in the Zonal Railways. A list of such
groups has been highlighted in the reply statement. Therefore,
grant of benefit which the applicants are otherwise not entitled to
will also have an effect on the other cadres of Railways as
contended.”
5(supra)
[14]
14. We do believe in the conspectus of the aforesaid discussion that the
correct perspective has been taken in V.N. Narayanappa & Ors.6
insofar
as which clause of the 6th CPC recommendations would be applicable.
We find that once we come to the conclusion that the regional offices of
the Railways are to be treated as non-Secretariat Organizations, then the
specific recommendations in para 3.1.14 relating to such non-Secretariat
Organizations will apply. The observations made in para 3.1.9 which are
qua Secretariat offices giving parity between the Private
Secretary/equivalent to a Section Officer cannot be said to be mutatis
mutandis applicable even to non-Secretariat Organizations. If we were to
opine otherwise and equate everybody there would have been no purpose
in the 6th CPC making separate recommendations for non-Secretariat
Organizations in their wisdom. It is not as if the Commission was
unaware of the plea of disparity between the Secretariat and field offices
as that was dealt with in paras 3.1.2 and 3.1.3 but despite having taken
note of the same some difference was sought to be made between
Secretariat and non-Secretariat offices.
15. The Pay Commission is a specialized body set up with the
objective of resolving anomalies. It is relevant to note that the anomaly in
6(supra)
[15]
question was referred to the Pay Commission at the request of candidates
similarly situated to the respondents and thus, the 6th CPC was aware of
the claim for parity and the requirement of making a recommendation in
that regard. In its wisdom while giving better scales it has still sought to
maintain a separate recommendation for non-Secretariat Organizations.
16. We may also notice another aspect. There is a plea by the
respondents that the recruitment process for the two cadres was common
and persons used to be transferred from one to the other. Some
illustrations have been given of this. In fact, the plea of the respondents
is that there have been times when a common competitive exam was
conducted and sometimes the exams were conducted separately. In this
regard, it has been explained by the learned Additional Solicitor General
on behalf of the appellants that the cadres are separate and the rules
governing them are also separate. The Stenographers under the Railway
Board are governed by the RBSS Rules, 1971, the Central Secretariat
Stenographers are governed by the CSS Rules, 1969 and the CSSS Rules,
2010 and the Stenographers in the Central Administrative Tribunal are
governed by the CATSS Rules, 2013. These are the posts with which the
respondents sought parity. On the other hand, the respondents working in
the Zonal Railways were governed by Rule 107 of the Indian Railway
[16]
Establishment Code. The avenue and channel of promotion of
stenographers in the Railway Board and the Zonal Railways, it has been
stated, are entirely different.
17. Learned counsel for the appellants did accept that there were some
cases of transfer, but those were persons who were brought to the
Railway Board for exigency of work – it was not as if they were absorbed
in the Railway Board. There were also cases where transfers took place
from the Railway Board to the Zonal Railway offices, but that was on the
specific request of such officers and considered on a case-to-case basis
and they had to take then seniority at the bottom of the list.
18. Para 3.1.3 which dealt with the disparity between the Secretariat
and field offices has canvassed a case for parity between similarly placed
persons employed in field offices and the Secretariat; in view of the field
offices being at the cutting edge of administration. However, it came to
the conclusion that parity would need to be absolute till the grade of
Assistant. It was clearly stipulated that beyond that “it may not be
possible or even justified to grant complete parity because the hierarchy
and career progression will need to be different taking in view the
functional considerations and relativities across the board.” If this
principle is observed, the benefit cannot accrue to the respondents and we
[17]
cannot accept the plea that as a result of parity being given up to the level
of Assistant (which would put them in the grade of Rs.4200 (later
Rs.4600)), the respondents, being one post higher, would automatically
have to get one higher grade.
19. We are fortified in the view we are seeking to adopt in interpreting
the aforesaid paragraphs of the Pay Commission by the observations in
Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das,
7 where it was opined that the
principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied merely on basis
of designation. While dealing with the 5th Pay Commission
recommendations with respect to functional requirements, it was held
that there was no question of any equivalence on that basis. The said
case dealt with Stenographers of the Geological Survey of India. While
observing that as a general statement it was correct to state that the basic
nature of work of a Stenographer remained by and large the same
whether they were working for an officer in the Secretariat or for an
officer in a subordinate office; it was held that Courts ought not to
interfere if the Commission itself had considered all aspects and after due
consideration opined that absolute equality ought not to be given.
7(2003) 11 SCC 658.
[18]
20. In the end we would like to reiterate that the aspect of disparity
between the Secretariat and the field offices was a matter taken note of by
the Commission itself while making the recommendations. Yet to some
extent, a separate recommendation was made qua Secretariat
Organizations and non-Secretariat Organizations. Once these
recommendations are separately made, to direct absolute parity would be
to make the separate recommendations qua non-Secretariat Organizations
otiose. If one may say, there would have been no requirement to make
these separate recommendations if everyone was to be treated on parity
on every aspect.
21. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we find the impugned judgment,
which in turn relies upon other orders passed by different Tribunals and
Courts unsustainable, and is accordingly set aside.
22. The appeals are accordingly allowed.
23. We hope this puts to rest this controversy which has been agitated
before different forums without receiving a final reasoned view of this
Court.
...……………………………J.
[Sanjay Kishan Kaul]
[19]
...……………………………J.
[Hrishikesh Roy]
New Delhi.
August 31, 2021.
[20]
