Civil Appeal Nos 2023 2024  2025 of 1990
With IA Nos 7 9 of 1991
From the Judgment and Order dated 28689  16390 of the Calcutta High Court in Appeal No 498 of 1988
AK Mitra PK Chatterjee Jaydip Kar and Ms Radha Rangaswamy for the Appellants
Narayan Shetty Gopal Subramaniam Atin Benerjee and DP Mukherjee for the respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AHMADI J
These three appeals by special leave arise out of the Judgments  Order dated 28the June 1989 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta and from the subsequent orders dated March 16 1990 and March 30 1990 made in pursuance thereof
The brief facts 902 giving rise to these three appeals may be stated as under
The West Bengal Registration Service comprising the Sub Registrar s post was administered by the Judicial Department of the State
Under the West Bengal Revision of Pay  Allowances Rules 1951 hereinafter called the ROPA Rules  the scale of pay for the said post was fixed at Rs 100 250
By a resolution dated May 22 1952 the said post of Sub Registrar was directed to be regarded as Gazetted with effect from April 1 1952 and thereafter by notification dated July 17 1953 the governor in exercise of powers conferred by Rule 188 of the Civil Service Classification Control  Appeal Rules read with Articles 313 and 372 of the Adoption of Laws Order 1950 and all other related powers declared that the West Bengal Registration Service comprising 1 Registrar of Assurances Calcutta ii Inspector of Registration Offices iii Departmental District Sub Registrars iv Sub Registrar of Assurances Calcutta v District Sub Registrars and vi Sub Registrars shall with effect from January 30 1953 the date of constitution of the said service be deemed to be included in the State Service
The respondents who belong to the said service contend that after the issuance of the said notifiction a commitment was made by the State Government that sub Registrars would be accorded all the privileges admissible to officers belonging to the State Service
Notwithstanding the said commitment the respondents contend that their pay scale was not revised to Rs200 400 which was the lowest pay scale admissible to State service officers
Thereafter pursuant to the recommendation of the Pay Committee the pay scale underwent an upward revision but the Sub Registrars were placed in the revised scale of Rs 200 400 which corresponded to the old scale of Rs 100 250 even though the minimum scale for State service employees was raised to Rs 250 550 under the ROPA Rules 1961
The First State Pay Commission was then constituted in 1967
That body examined the grievance of this service and observed that it was an extremely ill paid service
After evaluating the job requirements recruitment standard and responsibilities attached to the post belonging to the said service it recommended a scale of Rs 425 825 for Sub Registrars and corresponding higher scales for the posts the highest being Rs 850 1600 for Registrar of Assurances Calcutta and inspectors of Registration Officers
It appears that this recommendation did not find favour with the State Government
This is obvious from the fact that under the ROPA Rules 1970 the pay scale for the post of Sub Registrar was fixed at Rs 300 600 only
Pursuant 903 to the recommendations of Second State Pay Commission the pay scale for the post was revised to Rs 425 1050 under RUPA Rules 1981
This was Scale No 11
According to the respondents they ought to have been placed in scale No 17 which carried a pay scale of Rs 660 1600 but contend the respondents grave injustice was done to them because of the biased and negative attitude of the Finance Department of the State Government
It was contended that since the basic minimum pay scale for State Service officers was fixed at Rs 660 1600 there was no valid reason to deny the same to the Sub Registrars and to deny higher pay scales to officers above the level of Sub Registrars in the West Bengal Registration Service
Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the State Government the respondents therefore filed a Writ Petition No 1993 of 1987 in the High Court of Calcutta under Article 226 of the Constitution for a Mandamus to award to the Sub Registrars the pay scale No 17 of Rs 660 1600 with all other privileges admissible to State service officers
In the said writ petition the learned Single Judge of the High Court passed certain interim orders against which an appeal No 498 of 1988 was preferred before a Division Bench of the High Court
At the hearing of the said appeal the Division Bench felt that it would be proper to dispose of the writ petition itself on merits and accordingly it heard the writ petition by consent of parties instead of disposing of the appeal against the interim order and leaving the hearing of the writ petition to the learned Single Judge
The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed that the Sub Registrars should be placed in the pay scale of Rs 660 1600 with effect from April 1 1981 and their pay scales should be fixed nationally on that basis without paying the difference in salary up to January 1 1986
The arrears of salary for the subsequent period was however directed to be paid within 8 weeks from the date of the judgment
Certain other directions were also given but it is not necessary to notice them
It may here be mentioned that during the pendency of the writ petition the Third State Pay Commission constituted by the State Government had submitted its report sometime in December 1988
Before the said body it was represented on behalf of the Sub Registrars that they should have been placed in the pay scale of Rs 600 1600 instead of Rs 425 1050 as that was the basic minimum scale for State service and the scale for higher posts in the West Bengal Registration Service should be correspondingly raised
The Commission spurned this request as in its opinion the duties and responsibilities of the Sub Registrars did not justify 904 the higher pay scale
Pursuant to the recommendations of the Pay commission the ROPA Rules 1990 came to be issued whereunder the Sub Registrars were placed in the revised scale No 11 of Rs 1390 2970
The High Court took notice of the recommendations of the Pay Commission as well as the ROPA Rules 1990 while disposing of the writ petition by its judgment dated 28th June 1989
After the High Court s Judgment awarding Scale No 17 to the Sub Registrars the respondents took out an application for interim relief seeking permission to exercise option for the corresponding Scale No 17 of Rs 2200 4000 and for granting an option to officers above the level of Sub Registrars for placement in the corresponding Scales Nos 18 and 19 with effect from April 1 1981
The Division Bench of the High Court passed an ad interim order dated March 16 1990 permitting the Sub Registrars to opt for the revised Scale No 17
The Civil Appeal No 2023 of 1990 is against the main judgment of the High Court dated June 28 1989
Civil Appeal No 2024 of 1990 is against the interim order dated March 16 1990 by which the Sub Registrars were permitted to opt for the revised Scale No 17
On March 19 1990 the respondents took out an application for clarification of the order dated March 16 1990
The High Court while disposing of this application permitted the officers belonging to the posts above the level of Sub Registrars to opt for corresponding Scales Nos 18 and 19
Civil Appeal No 2025 of 1990 is against that order
Since the subsequent two appeals Nos
2024 and 2025 of 1990 also flow from the main judgment dated June 28 1989 which has given rise to Civil Appeal No 2023 of 1990 we have thought it proper to dispose of all the three appeals by this common judgment
The history of the West Bengal Registration Service has been traced by the High Court right from 1826 but it is unnecessary to re state the same
Suffice it to say that except the top post of the Registrar of Assurances Calcutta the remaining cadres in the said service belonged to the Subordinate Services of the State
Generally speaking the West Bengal Services were divided into i Provincial Service and ii Subordinate Services leaving out certain special categories of posts
Subordinate Services comprised certain minor administrative executive and ministerial posts to which appointment could be made by the Local Government or by an authority subordinate thereto specially empowered
The other cadres and posts belonged to the Provincial Service
By a notification dated Novem 905 ber 25 1949 recruitment rules were framed which provided that recruitment of Sub Registrars shall be made though West Bengal Civil Service examination
The minimum educational qualification for Sub Registrars was prescribed as graduate of a recognised University 
Subsequently by a resolution dated May 22 1952 it was provided that Sub Registrars shall be regarded as Gazetted Officers with effect from April 1 1952
Soon thereafter by a notifiction dated July 17 1953 the West Bengal Registration Service was included in the State Service
Thus according to the respondents the position that emerged after the notification of 1953 can be summed up as under  i The West Bengal Registration Service was expressly declared to be in the West Bengal State Service the former Provincial Service ii The recruitment rules of the State Service were identical to the recruitment rules of the other State Services
iii Gazetted status and concomitant privileges of State Services were conferred on the Sub Registrars belonging to the West Bengal Registration Service and iv The powers relating to the recruitment conditions of service and disciplinary matters in regard to members belonging to the West Bengal Service including the Sub Registrars were to be exercised by the State Government
By a notification dated July 6 1966 the West Bengal Registration Service was declared as the West Bengal Junior Registration service and subsequently by a notification dated October 17 1966 rules were framed under Article 309 of the Constitution which superseded all previous rules on the subject and provided that appointment to the post of Sub Registrar shall be made by the Government through the West Bengal Civil Service Executive and Allied Services Examination
The educational qualification for appointment to the post of Sub Registrar was stated to be a graduate of a recognised University and the age criteria was fixed as not below 21 years and not exceeding 24 years
The system of classification of Government employees into Gazetted and Non Gazetted and Classes I II III  IV adopted hitherto was done away with by the notification dated September 25 1978 and Government employees were placed in Groups A 906 BC and D according to pay and scale of pay
The new grouping of services was not expected to cause any immediate disturbance in the existing framework of job charts responsibilities and facilities
Rule 5 4 of the West Bengal Service Rules 1971 Part I was amended and read as under  54 West Bengal State Services means those services and posts under the Administrative control of the Government which have been classified as Group A Group B Group C and Group D A note at the foot thereof provided as under  Note 1a Subject to the provisions of paragraph b services or posts under Group a Group B Group C and Group D shall consist of the services or posts specified respectively against them in the table below  section No Classification of Classification of the Post and Services Services and posts 1
Group A  All Government employees drawing a pay or a scale of pay with the maximum above Rs 1170
Group B  All Government Employees drawing a pay or a scale of pay with a maximum of Rs 1170 or below but above Rs 700
Group C  All Government employees drawing a pay or a scale of pay with a maximum of Rs 700 or below but above Rs 415 4
Group D  All Government employees drawing a pay or a scale of pay with a maximum or Rs 415 or below
a Government may be special order include any other class or posts carrying any pay or scale of pay in a class of service 907 consisting of posts or services carrying a higher pay or scale of pay
b If a service consists of posts with more than one time scale or if there be a Selection Grade pay attached to a service or post post carrying the different time scales or the Selection Grade pay may be classified in different services according to the pay or the maximum scale of pay of the post
Provided further that the aforesaid classification of posts and services shall not interfere with other existing framework of duties functions responsibilities and facilities of Government employees on the basis of the existing classification
 This classification had an impact on the recommendations made by the Pay Commission which were finally approved under the ROPA Rules 1981
This in brief is the history of the West Bengal Registration Service
The grievance of the respondents was that even after the Sub Registrars were placed in the Gazetted category and their service was declared to be included in the State Service and entry into service was through a competitive examination with the minimum qualification for appointment being graduation the pay scale for sub Registrars was fixed at Rs 100 250 notwithstanding the Government notification of 1953 providing that the said officers belonging to the Registration Service will enjoy the benefits and privileges admissible to State Service officers
On the representation made by the officers of the Registration Service
the then Chief Minister granted the relief of Rs 50 at the minimum and maximum of the pay scale thereby virtually enhancing the pay scale from Rs 100 250 to Rs 150 300
Thus after the report of the Pay Committee when the scale of pay of Sub Registrar was revised to Rs 200 400 in effect the pay at the minimum got reduced by Rs 10 as the Sub Registrars were drawing Rs 5 as DA and Rs 5 as CCA besides Rs 50 granted pursuant to the orders of the then Chief Minister
This was totally overlooked by the Finance Department while drawing up the ROPA Rules 1961
Subsequent representations for upward revision of the scale were ignored by the Finance Department till the First State Pay Commission came to be constituted
That body observed as under  This is an extremely ill paid service
The work that the 908 Registration Officers have to do is not negligible in importance
The work involves the interpretation of documents and the assessment of stamp duties and registration fees with reference to the value of the subject matter involved
The scale of pay should be improved
The following scales are recommended  a Registrar of Assurances and Inspectors of Registration Offices Rs 850 50 1000 60 1600
b District Registrars and Sub Registrars of Assurance Calcutta Rs 475 35 825 EB 50 1325
c District Sub Registrars Rs 450 15 600 EB 25 825
d Sub Registrars Rs 425 10 475 15 700
The majority members however recommended the higher scale of Rs 450 15 600 25 825 for Sub Registrars
 Notwithstanding the said recommendation the pay scale for Sub Registrars was fixed at Rs 300 600 under ROPA Rules 1961
The respondents contend that the injustice done to them in ignoring the above extracted recommendation of the Pay Commission resulted in their being placed in the equivalent Scale No 11 throughout by the subsequent pay Commissions also
A strong letter of protest written by the Head of the Department also did not yield the desired result thereby necessitating the filing of a writ petition in which the impugned order came to be passed
It is in this background that we must examine the correctness or otherwise of the impugned judgment and the subsequent impugned interim orders made by the High Court
The partition of Bengal in the wake of independence necessitated grant of relief to millions of persons who were uprooted and their rehabilitation
This brought into existence new departments and organizations increasing the number and categories of employees required to handle the enormous task
The history of pay revision in the State of West Bengal would show that under the ROPA Rules 1950 the total number of pay scales was reduced from 500 to 78 but by the time the Pay Committee was appointed in 1959 the number had once again gone up to 143 but was reduced to 39 by the Pay Committee
The number of pay scales again proliferated from 39 to 81 but the First State Pay Commission brought it 909 down to 34
The second State Pay Commission appointed in 1977 found 36 standard scales 19 new intermediate selection grade scales and 20 non standard pay scales besides a few pay scales introduced on different dates for non Governments employees
That body reduced the number of pay scales to 29
The Third State Pay Commission found the total number of pay scales to be 29 primary pay scales and brought it down to 24 pay scales
The situation thus created on account of the increase in the stratification of administrative hierarchy and the consequential fragmentation of duties and responsibilities on the one hand and the reduction in the number of pay scales on the other necessitated higher initial pay and attaching of special pay to a increasing number of posts to avoid anomalies in the pay structure thereby throwing an increased financial burden on the State Government
The minimum pay fixed for State employees has always been higher than that prescribed for Central Government employees
When the pay structure was related to the index average 200 1960  100 the minimum pay of Central Government employees was Rs 196 per month while that of the State Government employees was Rs 220 a weightage of Rs 24 recommended by the Second State Pay Commission on account of dietary habits of State employees
At the index average of 608 the minimum pay for Central Government employees has been fixed by the Fourth Central Pay Commission at Rs 750 per month whereas the Third State Pay Commission has fixed the same at Rs 800 per month
The maximum pay for State Government employees has been fixed in the scale of Rs 5900 200 7300
For the old scale 11 Rs 425 1050 the new scale prescribed is Rs 1360 2800
The revised equivalent for the old scale No 17 Rs660 1600 is Rs 2200 4000
With regard to the demand for higher pay scales for officers belonging to the Registration Service the Pay Commission observed It has been represented to us that the scale of pay for the post of Sub Registrar should have been Rs 660 1600 which is the basic scale for the State Services and that the scales of pay for the higher posts in the Registration Directorate as mentioned earlier should have been correspondingly higher
In view of the duties and responsibilities of the posts we are of the opinion that upgradation of the scales of pay of these posts will not be justified
The posts should carry the proposed scales of pay and special pay corresponding to their existing scales and special pay
 910 As pointed out earlier the High Court took notice of the revised scales fixed by this body and by subsequent orders directed that the Sub Registrars should be placed in revised scale No 17 ie
Rs 2200 4000 and the officers above them should be placed in the revised scales Nos 18 and 19
In taking the view that the Registration Service was underpaid the High Court was greatly impressed by the fact that the Sub Registrars were conferred gazetted status and the entire service was designated as State Service and being the head of office and the drawing and disbursing officer as well he exercised administrative and financial power and now that the recruitment rule had been brought on par with the educational qualification as prescribed for Munsiffs the pay scales of Sub Registrars ought to be the same and cannot be less than that of Munsiffs
Strong reliance was also placed by the High Court on the observations of the First State Pay Commission extracted earlier in support of its conclusion that the State Government had arbitrarily brushed aside the demand to the Sub Registrars for higher wages
Holding that the position of a Sub Registrar was equivalent to others in State Services the High Court ruled that they were victims of hostile discrimination and the Government decision not to accept the weighty recommendations of the Pay Commission was wholly arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
In that view that it took it allowed the Writ Petition and awarded scale No 17 Rs 660 1600 now revised to Rs 2200 4000 to them and scales Nos 18 and 19 to higher level officers in the same department
It is against these orders that the present appeals are preferred
From the resume of facts set out hereinabove it clearly emerges that prior to 1953 the post of Sub Registrars belonged to the Subordinate Service but by the notification dated July 17 1953 it was placed in the State Service wef January 30 1953
Being the head of office a drawing and disbursing officer with certain administrative and financial powers and also required to perform certain quasi judicial functions such as interpreting recitals contained in the documents and provisions of concerned statutes and rules counsel for the respondents contended that till 1981 when the educational qualification for entry into that post was graduation of any discipline the Sub Registrars were entitled to be treated above members belonging to Junior Service and pay scale so determined but the State authority failed to do so
Counsel further contended that after 1981 the additional qualification of a degree in law was added to the eligibility criterion and thus the same was brought on par with Munsiffs and hence 911 they should have been equated with Munsiffs in the matter of pay scale since officers in all services recruited from practicing advocates were given the same scale
Accepting this line of reasoning the Division Bench of the High Court concluded that the Government had acted arbitrarily and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in not awarding scale No 17 Rs 660 1600 earmarked for State Services by the Second State Pay Commission which the Government had accepted and implemented to the Sub Registrars
It is thus manifest that the decision of the High Court was based on the facts i the post of the Sub Registrar was a gazetted post belonging to the State Service ii the First State Pay Commission had recommended a higher scale which was still lower than the one demanded by the Sub Registrars for Sub Registrars observing that it was an extremely ill paid service a recommendation which was turned down by the Finance Department and iii the eligibility criterion for entry into service was graduation up to 1981 and thereafter the requirement of a law degree was added to it thus bringing the required educational criterion to that of a Munsiff
The appellant contend that the High Court committed a serious error in revising the pay scale of Sub Registrars in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in total ignorance of the settled legal position that pay fixation is essentially an executive function ordinarily undertaken by an expert body like a Pay Commission whose recommendations are entitled to great weight though not binding on the Government and ar not justiciable in a court of law since the court of law is not well equipped to take upon itself the task of job evaluation which is a complex exercise
In support of this contention a catena of decisions beginning with the case of Parbat Kiran Maithani  Ors
vs Union of India  Anr  and ending with the case of State of UP  Ors
vs JP Chaurasia  Ors  at 29 was relied on
The appellants also contest the contention that the Sub Registrars are a part of the constituted State Service which is awarded scale No 17
They contend that there is no such service as Constituted State Service  and therefore the question of granting them scale No 17 never arose
On the contrary they point out that the employees are categorised as belonging to Group A Group B Group C and Group D and are placed in one group or the other on the basis of evaluation of their work and the recruitment policy adopted by the Government
By placing the Sub Registrars in scale No 17 the High Court has given them a jump which is likely to give a severe 912 jolt to the pay structure and would destroy the verticle heirarchial relativities carefully built up by the Pay Commission
The appellants therefore contend that the High Court had acted in haste in placing the Sub Registrars in Scale No 17 without realising its impact on the pay structure
For examination purposes the State Public Service Commission has placed the Sub Registrars in Group D whereas those in scale No 17 fall in Group A Those belonging to Group A are required to sit for six papers whereas those belonging to Group D are required to answer four papers only
While those belonging to Group A are allowed to take one or more optional papers not exceeding three and have to appear for a compulsory personality test of 200 marks those belonging to Group D are allowed only one optional paper and have not to appear for the personality test
Thus the examination for Group A employees is far more stringent than for those belonging to Group D employees and therefore contend the appellants they are not comparable and cannot be placed in the same pay scale invoking the equality clause in Article 14 of the Constitution
Lastly it is said that the financial burden which will fall on the State Government on the implementation of the impugned judgment will be in the vicinity of Rs 145 crores which is not justified since the High Court has failed to appreciate the issues in their proper perspectives
We find considerable force in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants
We do not consider it necessary to traverse the case law on which reliance has been placed by counsel for the appellants as 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 Commission 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 requistite 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 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 913 responsibility and accountability in the discharge of his diverse duties and functions iv the extent and nature of freedomslimitations available or imposed on him in the discharges 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 structure is evolved keeping in mind several factors eg i method of recruitment ii level at which recruitment is made iii the hierarchy of service in a given cadre iv minimum educationaltechnical qualification required v avenues of promotion vi the nature of duties and responsibilities vii the horizontal and verticle relativities with similar jobs viii public dealings ix satisfaction level x employer s capacity to pay etc
We have referred to these matters in some detail only to emphasise that several factors have to be kept in view while evolving a pay structure and the horizontal and verticle relativities have to be carefully balanced keeping in mind the hierarchial arrangements avenues for promotion etc
Such a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well
It is presumably for this reason that the Judicial Secretary who had strongly recommended a substantial hike in the salary of the Sub Registrars to the Second State Pay Commission found it difficult to concede the demand made by the registration service before him in his capacity as the Chairman of the Third State Pay Commission
There can therefore be no doubt that equation of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a given post and Court s interference is absolutely necessary to undo the injustice
There can be no dispute that by Government Resolution No 226 dated 22nd May 1952 gazetted status was conferred on Sub Registrars wef 1st April 1952
So also there is no dispute that by notification dated 914 17th July 1953 the Registration Service was with effect from the date of its constitution ie 30th January 1953 included in the West Bengal State Services
Subsequently by a notification dated 10th October 1953 all the entries in column I of the Schedule under the heading Registration Department  of the Bengal Subordinate Service Discipline  Appeal Rules 1936 were omitted along with the corresponding entries in columns 2 to 5 thereof
Thus contend the respondents the West Bengal Registration Service including the Sub Registrars was brought on par with other Constituted State Services  with effect from 30th January 1953
Chapter 18 of the Third State Pay Commission would show that the Constituted Service may comprise of tiers such as Subordinate Service Junior Service and State Service with or without corresponding higher or senior service
Paragraph 185 of that chapter shows There are 4 tiers of constituted service in some of the Government Departments viz Higher or Senior Service State service Junior Service and Subordinate Service 
Paragraph 186 recites that the State Services are generally in scale No 17 Rs 660 1600
The Junior Services are generally in scales Nos 11 to 16 and the pay scales for Subordinate Services range from scale No 4 to scale No 13
It would therefore appear that the contention of the respondents that the State Service employees were generally placed in scale No 17 is prima facie accurate
Yet that body turned down the plea of the Sub Registrars to be placed in scale No 17 on the ground that the duties and responsibilities of the post did not justify upgradation of the scale as is evident from the observation extracted earlier
This clearly shows that the Commission determined the pay scale for Sub Registrars keeping in view their duties and responsibilities
Therefore merely because the Sub Registrars were conferred gazetted status and the Registration Service was included in State Service did not entitle the Sub Registrars to be placed in the higher scale if their duties and responsibilities did not justify the same
One of the basic principles for pay fixation is that the salary must reflect the nature of duties and responsibilities attached to the post meaning thereby that the scale must be commensurate with the task to be performed and the responsibility to be undertaken by the holder of the post
Merely because of conferment of gazetted status or placement in State Service no qualitative change was brought about in the job performance of the Sub Registrars and their superiors
Before November 1949 appointments to the posts of Sub Registrars was made by nomination of candidates who were undergraduates or even 915 of lower academic qualification
By the notification dated 25th November 1949 made under section 2112b of the Government of India Act 1935 the recruitment rules framed in supersession of all previous rules the minimum educational requirement for Sub Registrars was raised to graduation
The revised recruitment rules for Sub Registrars framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution dated 17th October 1966 also prescribed the minimum educational requirement as graduate of a recognised university
By the subsequent notification dated 4th November 1981 issued under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution the recruitment rules of 17th October 1966 were amended whereby rules 3 and 4 were replaced
The newly inserted rule provided for recruitment to the posts of Sub Registrars on the basis of West Bengal Civil Service Executive and Allied Service Examination conducted by the State Public Service Commission and the selection was to be made in consultation with that body
For direct recruitment the educational qualification was raised to a degree in law from a recognised UniversityInstitute or equivalent qualification and experience of 3 years at the Bar
Since this revised educational requirement is the same as required for Munsiffs the High Court has thought it proper to place them in the scale of the latter ie scale No 17 Rs 660 1600
But in doing so the High Court has with respect failed to evaluate the difference in the nature of duties and responsibilities of a Munsiff and a Sub Registrar
The duties and responsibilities of a Munsiff and a Judicial Magistrate are far more onerous than those of a Sub Registrar
The Sub Registrar s duties are relatively simple namely to receive examine and register the document whereas the duties of a Judicial Officer at the floor level are to hear cases examine witnesses interpret and construe different laws hear oral arguments and deliver reasoned judgments
He has to keep abreast with a host of laws unlike a Sub Registrar who is expected to study only a couple of laws connected with the registration of documents like the Registration Act the Stamp Act etc
The responsibilities of a Judicial Officer are also far greater than those of Sub Registrars
Therefore to compare the Sub Registrars with Judicial Magistrates Munsiffs is to compare unequals
It would therefore be wholly arbitrary to place them in the same pay scale
In our view therefore the High Court with respect committed a serious error in law in holding that the Government s action in not granting the same pay scale to Sub Registrars was violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
In fact to put them on par is wholly unjustified
916 It was then submitted that the Third State Pay Commission had failed to notice the upward revision of the educational requirement for direct recruitment as Sub Registrars
It was rightly pointed out that one of the inputs for pay determination is educational requirement for the post
The higher the educational qualification the better would be the quality of service rendered and the end result would in the ultimate be far more satisfactory
That indeed cannot be disputed
But educational qualification is only one of the many factors which has relevance to pay fixation
The complexity of the job to be performed and the responsibilities attached thereto are entitled to great weight in determining the appropriate pay scale for the job
Prima facie there appears substance in the grievance of the Sub Registrars that while the minimum educational qualification for direct entry into the post has been periodically raised the level of pay scale for the post has not undergone any change whatsoever
We think the State Government ought to re examine the question of the appropriate pay scale for Sub Registrars in the light of the above and if it decides to upgrade the pay scale it may also consider if the pay scales of their superiors in the hierarchy need an upward revision
In the result we allow these appeals and set aside the judgement and orders of the High Court impugned herein but make no order as to costs throughout
We however direct the State Government to re examine the question of the appropriate pay scale for Sub Registrars within three months by a speaking order after giving a hearing to the representative of the respondent association and communicate the decision so taken to the association
If the State Government decides on the upward revision of the salary of the Sub Registrars it will simultaneously consider the question of upward revision of the pay scales of higher posts in the department
IA Nos
7 9 of 1991 will also stand disposed of
TNA Appeals allowed


Summary:
The appellant obtained by transfer an Import Licence for the import of admissible Items as per Para 220 2 3 4 and 6 of the Import Policy 1990 93 Vol
I and placed an order on a foreign firm for the supply of cloves No 1 quality
On arrival of the goods in the Indian Port the appellant filed Bill of Entry for the clearance of the goods for home consumption and claimed clearance of the goods against the additional licence on the ground that the cloves were covered under Item 169 of Appendix 6 List 8 Part I of the Import and Export Policy being DrugsDrug intermediate not elsewhere specified
 The Department relying on Para 167 which dealt with the import of spices took the view that the cloves could be imported only against specific licence relating to cloves
Hence the appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court for a direction to the respondent to clear the goods against the Bill of Entry filed by the appellant
The High Court held that cloves could not fall within the expression DrugsDrug intermediate not elsewhere specified and the import of the cloves without specific licence was not permissible and that the licence relied upon by the appellant was not valid for the import of cloves
In the appeal before this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellant importer that in popular sense and trade parlance clove was also used as drug intermediate and that in the Import Policies of 1982 83 to 1985 86 cloves were specified as crude drug and the cloves and clove oil were used for treatment of dyspepsia flatulence etc and tooth problems and therefore the High Court committed an error in holding that clove 998 was not a DrugDrug intermediate and that it did not fall within Item 169
Dismissing the appeal of the Importer this Court HELD  11 Para 167 under Chapter XIII of the Import Policy of April 1990 93 clearly provides the heading Import of Spices and under this heading of spices it further makes a mention that import of Cloves CinnamonCassia Nutmeg and Mace will be allowed against licences
Thus it is clear beyond any doubt that cloves have been included under the heading Spices and the import of cloves is only permissible against specific licences obtained in the manner provided in Para 167
In the face of this provision dealing with the import of spices which specifically includes cloves the general provision of Item 169 mentioning DrugsDrug intermediates cannot be applied
1002D E 12 In the instant case the appellant had obtained the licence in November 1990 and has imported the cloves in May 1991 and as such the import of cloves in question shall be governed by the provisions contained in the Import Policy of April 1990 93 and not by any meaning given to cloves in any earlier Policy
Therefore when para 167 provides of obtaining specific licence for cloves there is no necessity of finding its meaning from earlier Policies or its use as medicine
There is a clear provision under Para 167 as regards import of spices and it would govern the import of cloves
That apart the High Court was right in holding that in the common parlance as well as in trade and commerce clove is treated as spice and not drug
It is a matter of common knowledge that the cloves are sold in a Kirana  shop and not in the shop of a chemist or druggist
1002C F G