In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 30.04.2009 Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.SATHYANARAYANAN W.P.No.29965 of 2008 1.Shri.AR.Ansar 2.RS.Marathe 3.J.Rajesh 4.K.Pradeesh 5.J.Rajan 6.MK.Krishna Kumar 7.Sajith Kumar 8.P.Murali Manohar 9.A.Sathish Kumar 10.Biju Philipose 11.Naresh Kumar 12.Milind S.Kunnure 13.K.D.Taid 14.Narender Singh 15.Rajesh Kumar … Petitioners Versus 1.Union of India, Service through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Defence, Room No.101, South Block, New Delhi – 110 001. 2.The Union of India, Service through the Secretary, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Room No.134, North Block, New Delhi -110 001. 3.The Chairman for VI Central Pay Commission, Implementation Cell, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110 001. 4.The Director General Coast Guard, Coast Guard Headquarters, National Stadium Complex, New Delhi-110 001. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5.The Commandar, Coast Guard Region (East), Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. … Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent to fix the scale of pay of the petitioners as Yantriks at Rs.1,400-2,600 with effect from their respective dates of appointment, and scale of pay of Rs.5,000 – 8,000 with effect from 01.01.1996 and Rs.5,500 – 9,000 with effect from 10.10.1997 and to place them in Pay Band-2 with grade pay of Rs.4,200/- with effect from 01.01.2006 on par with the scales of pay applicable to Central Police Organisations like the Central Para Military Force (CPMF) and Border Security Force (BSF). For Petitioners .. Mr.S.Kumarasamy,Senior Counsel for M/s Anitha More. For Respondents .. Mr.B.Santha Kumar for R1-R5-SPCG ******* O R D E R The petitioners who are in service of Indian Coast Guard RHQ (East), had filed this writ petition praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to fix the scale of pay with effect from particular dates and to place them in Pay Band- 2 with Grade Pay of Rs.4,200/- with effect from 01.01.2006 on par with the scales of pay applicable to Central Para Military Force (CPMF) and Border Security Force (BSF). 2. The petitioners came to be appointed in the service of Coast Guard in different capacities. As per the Amended Recruitment Rules dated 7.4.1982, the scale of pay of Rs.950-1500, which came to be revised as per the recommendations of the IV Central Pay Commission. The educational qualification as per the old recruitment rules dated 20.7.1979 was 10th +2 (Science and Maths). As per the Amended Recruitment Rules, 1982, the essential educational qualification came to be revised as Matriculation + Diploma in Engineering. In spite of educational qualification came to be changed as stated above, the corresponding pay scales remain unchanged. Hence, on 12.5.1997 a detailed representation was sent to the respondents 1 to 3 through proper channel to upgrade the scale of the petitioners as per the recommendations made by V Central Pay Commission. However, the representation was not considered. 3. During January 1988, Supplementary Recruitment Orders were issued under which, the post of Yantrik was made a promotional post for which, the posts of Pradhan Navic and Uttam Navic (General Duty) were made the feeder categories. In spite of it, as per VI https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Central Pay Commission recommendations, the post of Uttam Navic and Pradhan Navic have been placed in the scale of pay of Rs.4,000-6,000 and Rs.4,500-7,000 with grade pay of Rs.2,400/- and Rs.2,800/- respectively in Pay Band-1. The promotional post of Yantrik in which feeder categories Uttam Navic and Pradhan Navic has also been placed in the pay scale of Rs.4,000-6,000 with grade pay of Rs.2,400/- in Pay Band-1. 4. The IV and V Central Pay Commissions were also recommended that the Scale of pay of all Coast Guard Personnel should correspond to the CPMF and BSF as the duties performed by them are similar in nature. In spite of such recommendations, the Central Government has not implemented the same. The petitioners aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the appropriate authorities, had filed writ petition in the Circuit Bench of Calcutta High Court at Port Blair in W.P(AN) No.45 of 2001 praying for equal pay on par with Sub-Inspectors/Inspectors in the technical Wing of BSF. The Circuit Bench of Calcutta High Court vide judgment dated 4.12.2001, has disposed of the writ petition by requesting the Secretary, Ministry of Defence to decide about the feasibility of implementing the request made by the petitioners within three months from the date of receipt of the order. 5. The first respondent in compliance of the above said order, had considered the representations submitted by the petitioners and others and found that it is not feasible to effect any changes in the existing scale of pay of Yantriks in the Coast Guard. 6. The petitioners once again invoked the jurisdiction of Circuit Bench of Calcutta High Court at Port Blair by filing W.P(AN) No. 160 of 2002, wherein the challenge was made to the order dated 28.8.2002 passed by the first respondent. The Circuit Bench of Calcutta High Court vide order dated 14.7.2003, has disposed of the writ petition by requesting the first respondent to reconsider their stand in accordance with the directions given in the order dated 4.12.2001 made in W.P(AN)No. 45 of 2001. It has been indicated in the said order that the first respondent has to find out whether the scale of pay payable to Yantriks, has been properly and correctly fixed at the time when the qualification of Yantriks was impressed upon and if it is found that it is not correctly fixed, appropriate fixing of scale is to be done. Time limit of three months was prescribed to complete the said exercise. The first respondent after considering the order of Circuit Bench of Calcutta High Court, dated 14.7.2003, has rejected the request by the order dated 9.10.2003. 7. The petitioners aggrieved by the certain observations made in the order dated 14.7.2003 in W.P(AN) No.160 of 2002, preferred an appeal in MAT No.16/2003, before the Division Bench of High Court of Calcutta. While dismissing the said appeal the Division Bench https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ directed the official respondents not to take into consideration the adverse observations made by the learned Judge. The Division Bench has also granted liberty to the petitioners to make an additional representation to the first respondent. 8. Therefore, the petitioners once again submitted a detailed representation dated 28.6.2004 to the first respondent and it was once again rejected on 25.10.2004. The petitioners had invoked the jurisdiction of High Court of Delhi by filing W.P(C)No.4720 of 2006 to implement recommendations of the V Central Pay Commission and the said writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn on 5.4.2006 by granting liberty to the writ petitioners to file a fresh writ petition in the Calcutta High Court. 9. In the interregnum, the fourth respondent has sent a detailed suggestion dated 15.2.2007 to the Chairman VI Central Pay Commission, wherein it was pointed out that the Scale of pay of Technical Cadre was not revised even though their educational qualifications were revised by way of amended Recruitment Rules, 1982. It was further recommended by the 4th respondent that the scale of pay of the Coast Guard employees/personnel is to be fixed on par with CPMF/BSF. 10. Thereafter, the VI Central Pay Commission was constituted and aggrieved by the recommendations made by the VI Central Pay Commission, the petitioners once again approached the Circuit Bench of Calcutta High Court at Port Blair by filing W.P(AN) No.121 of 2008 praying for the issuance of writ of mandamus to fix the scale of Yantriks at Rs.5,000-8,000 with effect from 01.01.1996 and Rs.5,500-9,000 with effect from 10.10.1997 on par with Central Police Organisations i.e. CPMF and BSF. By means of an interim order, the respondents were directed not to give effect to the recommendations made by the VI Central Pay Commission regarding fixation of the scale of pay of Yantriks. However, the said writ petition was dismissed on 24.11.2008 on the ground that the Circuit Bench not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the claim of the petitioners, as the petitioners are presently posted at Chennai and Mumbai. Hence, the petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court and filed this writ petition for redressal of their grievance. 11. The grievance of the petitioners are that in respect of similarity in educational qualification under Yantriks and Sub- Inspectors/Junior Engineer II in BSF as well as similarity of works in similar organisations the request made by the petitioners are treated with arbitrariness and also they are discriminated. The petitioners are suffering, as they are stagnating in the same scale of pay for quite number of years even though persons who are https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ similarly placed and employed in CPMF and BSF have been granted higher scale of pay in pay Band-2 with grade pay of Rs.4,500/-. 12. The petitioners further contended that in spite of recommendations made by their employees namely the fourth respondent/ Coast Guard, the same has not been properly considered and as a result, they continue to suffer very much. Hence, the petitioners pray for appropriate relief by filing this writ petition. 13. Respondents 1,2,4 and 5 had filed common counter. In the counter, it is contended that by granting different pay scales to civilian employees observing the petitioners, it cannot be said that there has been any discrimination or injustice caused to the petitioners. After the implementation of the VI Central Pay Commission Report, the Coast Guard Organisation has once again taken the issue of pay scales of Yantriks as an anomaly and also sent a letter in AR/242 dated 16.5.2008 and PA/0401/5/VI Pay Cell dated 01.10.2008 and the same is still under the consideration of the Government of India. The Government of India has also constituted a Fast Track Committee vide Office Memo No.1/1/2008-IC(Pt) dated 29.9.2008 to look into the issues raised by Coast Guard Organisation regarding pay scales of Yantriks along with Master Craftsmen Pharmacists and the recommendation of the said committee which would be submitted in a time bound manner, will then be considered by them. Therefore, according to the respondents 1, 2, 4 and 5, the present writ petition is premature as their grievances are under consideration with the Fast Track Committee constituted by the Government of India and their recommendations if any are yet to be finalised, as the employees Coast Guard Organisation taken up that issue. 14. Heard the submissions of Mr.S.Ramasamy, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.V.Santhakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 15. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has heavily placed reliance upon the following judgments:- 1. 2006(9) SCC 406 – K.T.Veerappa and others -vs- State of Karnataka and others; 2. 2008(7) SCC 375 – Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corpn. and others -vs- G.S.Uppal and others; 3. 2008(1) SCC 586- Union of India -vs- Dineshan K.K In 2006(9) SCC 406 - K.T.Veerappa and others -vs- State of Karnataka and others, the issue arose was with regard to the non implementation of the pay scales recommended by the Pay Commission for the employees of non-teaching staffs of University of Mysore. It has been held as follows:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "It is true that fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties is the function of the executive and the scope of judicial review of administrative decision in this regard is very limited. However, it is also equally well settled that the courts should interfere with administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors." In the said case, the Government has conceded that the revision of pay scales extended to the employees of State Government time and again will also be extended to the University employees. 16. In 2008(7) SCC 375- Haryana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corpn. and others -vs- G.S.Uppal and others, the question arose was as to whether a State owned Corporation which is incurring loss has bound to effect revised higher pay scales which is being paid to State Government employees. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by placing reliance upon the decision cited (supra) has held that on an earlier occasion the pay scales of the employees of the Corporation were treated and equated on par with those in Government and there is no justification of denying the same by putting forth reason that the Corporation is incurring loss. 17. In 2008(1) SCC 586- Union of India -vs- Dineshan K.K., the question arose was whether the Radio Mechanics in Assam Rifles were entitled to parity in pay scale with other Central Para Military Force (CPMF). In the said case, the Central Government filed a counter admitting that there was apparent disparity and anomaly in the pay scales of Radio Mechanics even though the IV Pay Commission has stated that the duties performed by them are identical to that of other Para Military Force. 18. While adjudicating the said issue the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has taken into consideration its earlier pronouncements has held as follows:- "The doctrine of equal pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a court of law. Inter alia, observing that equal pay must be for equal work of equal value and that the principle of equal pay for equal work has no mathematical application in every case, it has been held that Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who are left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. Enumerating https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a number of factors which may not warrant application of the principle of equal pay for equal work, it has been held that since the said principle requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job, normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body and the court should not interfere till it is satisfied that the necessary material on the basis whereof the claim is made is available on record with necessary proof and that there is equal work of equal quality and all other relevant factors are fulfilled." The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the said decision ultimately quashed the impugned decision of the Government and decided the matter in favour of the Radio Mechanics in Assam Rifles and granted them pay parity. 19. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the ratio laid down in those decisions are squarely applicable to the facts of this case as the employer of the petitioners namely Coast Guard has repeatedly pointed out the above said anomaly and even prior to the finalisation of report by the VI Central Pay Commission, it has forwarded the final memorandum dated 15.2.2007 specifically pointing out among other things that pay scales of technical cadre enrolled personnel like the petitioners were not revised when the educational qualification was upgraded and revised in the year 1992 and it was promised that the grievance will be taken up with the VI Central Pay Commission Report. The fourth respondent Coast Guard made fervent appeal for revision of pay scale to personnel attached to technical branch of Coast Guard on par with any Diploma entry candidate of the Government of India or the CPMF. However, the said issue was once again not considered by the VI Central Pay Commission recommendations and consequently the petitioners are continue to suffer the same fate. 20. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners would further contend since the reasons adduced earlier by the first respondent are irrational and arbitrary, positive directions is to be issued to the respondents 1 and 2 to effect pay parity to the post of Yantriks with that of similarly placed personnel in the service CPMF/BSF. 21. Per contra, Mr.Santhakumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that granting of different pay scales to civilian employees and vis-a-vis technical personnel cannot be attacked as there was no discrimination. The anomalies pointed out by the Coast Guard after implementation of VI Central Pay Commission is under the active consideration of the Central Government and implementation Cell was also constituted by the Ministry of Finance https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ with effect from 1.4.2008 to specifically look into the case of anomalies. A Fast Track Committee was also constituted on 29.9.2008 to look into the issues raised by the Coast Guard Organisation in respect of the post of Yantriks along with Master Craftsmen and Pharmacists and the recommendation of the said committee is awaited. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that this writ petition is premature. 22. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and also considered the materials available on record including the typed set of documents. A careful analysis of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the above said decision would reveal that equal pay for equal work is a doctrine well established as service jurisprudence and the equal pay would depend upon not only on the nature or volume of work but also quality of work as regards reliability and responsibility as well and different pay scales may be prescribed on the basis of such reliability and responsibility. It is also the settled position of law, power of judicial review with regard to the parity in employment and matters of fixation of pay and the scope of judicial review is limited and the Courts would interfere if pay fixation is unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors. 23. In Secretary Finance Department vs. West Bengal Registration Service Association reported in 1993 Supp(1) SCC 153 = 1993 SCC (Labour and Service) 157, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held as follows: "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 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 study of the external comparisons and internal relativities on account https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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 broad banding 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 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, (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 vertical relativities have to be carefully balanced keeping in mind the hierarchical 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for a given post and court's interference is absolutely necessary to undo the injustice." 24. The Circuit Bench of Calcutta High Court on more than one occasion found that when the qualification for selection to the post of Yantriks was revised there was no improvement in the pay scale payable to them and Pradhan Navic and Uttam Navic (GD) can become Yantriks provided he successfully completes the mechanical course conducted by the Coast Guard itself. Therefore, it directed the first respondent to take into consideration the said vital aspect and the said issue accordingly. The first respondent on consideration of the same, has rejected the requests primarily on the ground that any further changes in the pay scales would have ripple effect on promotional categories of Uttam Yantrik and Pradhan Yantrik , Sahayak Engineer, Uttam Sahayak Engineer and as well as in the pay scale structures of comparable categories in the Indian Navy and their grievances will be taken up by the next Central Pay Commission. Unfortunately, according to the petitioners, the VI Central Pay Commission has also not taken into consideration the strong recommendations made by the Coast Guard for effecting revisional scales of pay as that of the persons who are similarly placed in the organisations like CPMF/BSF. Therefore, the Coast Guard once again submitted a detailed representation regarding the pay anomaly in respect of the post of Yantriks and as per the averments made in the counter affidavit, the said request is under the active consideration of Fast Track Committee constituted by the Government of India vide O.M.1/1/2008-IC(Pt) dated 29.9.2008. 25. The grievance expressed by the petitioners prima facie appears to be genuine and not properly taken into consideration. However, the said issue involves complex questions and therefore, this Court is not in a position to adjudicate the same in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the grievance expressed by the petitioners which find support in terms of the anomalies pointed out by their employee namely the fourth respondent, can be set right. Therefore, this Court would request the respondents 1 to 3 to expedite the said process and communicate the result as expeditiously as possible. 26. In the