Case: TAMILNADU RURAL DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS AND ASSISTANT ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU AND OTHERS

with other entry level services like Assistant Surgeons; and that as a result of upward revision for Assistant Engineers the gap between the level of the Assistant Engineers and the subordinate ranks got widened to a considerable level while the Assistant Engineers and the promotional level for Assistant Engineer were brought almost at the same levels. According to the learned Advocate General, various such anomalies were required to be sorted out which in turn made the State Government to constitute the PGRC. According to the State Government, normally the pay scales afforded to equivalent ranks in the Central Government are higher than the ranks in the State Government but the entry level of Assistant Engineers in the State Government, as a result of the recommendations of the One Man Commission was kept at a level far too higher than their counterparts in the Central Government. 13. The Tabulated Chart which is part of GO No.242 indicates very clearly that the Assistant Engineers who were in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.6500-11100 (column No.3), by virtue of acceptance of the recommendations made by the 6 th Central Pay Commission were kept in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4700/- (column No.4) as a result of GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009, while the next promotional level i.e. of the Assistant Executive Engineers was kept at Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.5400/-. The recommendations of the One Man Commission resulted in upward revision to the extent of Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.5400/- (column No.5) for the Assistanct Engineers. The recommendations of the PGRC resulted in refixation for Assistant Engineers in the scale of Rs.9300-34800 withmarginal increase of grade pay to Rs.5100/- (column No.7) as against what was available pursuant to GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009. 14. The recommendations of the PGRC dealt with the effects of the acceptance of the recommendations by the One Man Commission. Para 3 of the recommendations quoted hereinabove shows that certain aspects of the matter were found to be anomalous. The submissions advanced by the learned Advocate General also show how the difference between the Assistant Engineers and the post immediately lower than that was getting widened, while at the same time, the post of Assistant Engineer and the next level of promotion i.e. the post of Assistant Executive Engineer were brought almost at the same level. These anomalies found by the State Government, had to be addressed. If the State Government, therefore, constituted the PGRC, such decision by itself cannot be found to be illegal or invalid. 15. It has always been accepted by this Court that prescription of pay- scales and the assessment in that behalf is a complex matter which requires expertise. For instance, in Dy. Director General of Geological Survey of India and another v. R. Yadaiah and others (2001) 10 SCC 563 it was observed: Ordinarily, the courts or tribunal should not go into the question of fitment of the officers in a particular group or the pay scales thereof, and leave the matter to the discretion and expertise of the special commission like the Pay Commission. In State of Bihar and others v. Bihar Veterinary Association and others (2008) 11 SCC 60 it was observed :- 13. If the courts start disturbing the recommendations of the pay scale in a particular class of service then it is likely to have cascading effect on all related services which may result into multifarious litigation. The Fitment Committee has undertaken the exercise and recommended the wholesale revision of the pay scale in the State of Bihar and if one class of service is to be picked up and granted higher pay scale as is available in the Central Government then the whole balance will be disturbed and other services are likely to be affected and it will result in complex situation in the State and may lead to ruination of the finances of the State. ….. In Hukumchand Gupta v. ICAR (2012) 12 SCC 666it was stated :- 20. … Prescription of pay scales on particular posts is a very complex exercise. It requires assessment of the nature and quality of the duties performed and the responsibilities shouldered by the incumbents on different posts. Even though, the two posts may be referred to by the same name, it would not lead to the necessary inference that the posts are identical in every manner. These are matters to be assessed by expert bodies like the employer or the Pay Commission. … … 16. It may be stated here that the 6 th Central Pay Commission comprising of experts in the field had recommended certain pay-scales for various posts. The Official Committee which comprised of Principal Secretary to the State of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, as Chairperson with (i) Principal Secretary, Finance Department; (ii) Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department; and (iii)Principal Secretary, School Education Department as Members, had examined the matter and made certain recommendations which were accepted by the Government by GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009. The One Man Commission appointed to consider the anomalies, however, recommended something which was far in excess of what was accepted by GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009 which in turn was in tune with the recommendations of the 6 th Central Pay Commission. It is true that the Government had accepted the recommendations of the One Man Commission but if further anomalies were found which called for action on part of the Government, any exercise to reconsider the matter by the State Government could not be faulted nor could the constitution of the PGRC be said to be invalid or illegal. 17. Further, if there was any infirmity in the exercise of power by the PGRC in not granting adequate notice and hearing to the concerned, such infirmity could certainly be sorted out. That is exactly what the Division Bench undertook while passing the directions quoted hereinabove. We, therefore, see no error in the approach of and the directions issued by the Division Bench of the High Court.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]13. The Tabulated Chart which is part of GO No.242 indicates very clearly that the Assistant Engineers who were in the pre-revised pay scale of Rs.6500-11100 (column No.3), by virtue of acceptance of the recommendations made by the 6 th Central Pay Commission were kept in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4700/- (column No.4) as a result of GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009, while the next promotional level i.e. of the Assistant Executive Engineers was kept at Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.5400/-. The recommendations of the One Man Commission resulted in upward revision to the extent of Rs.15600-39100 with grade pay of Rs.5400/- (column No.5) for the Assistanct Engineers. The recommendations of the PGRC resulted in refixation for Assistant Engineers in the scale of Rs.9300-34800 withmarginal increase of grade pay to Rs.5100/- (column No.7) as against what was available pursuant to GO No.234 dated 01.06.200914. The recommendations of the PGRC dealt with the effects of the acceptance of the recommendations by the One Man Commission. Para 3 of the recommendations quoted hereinabove shows that certain aspects of the matter were found to be anomalous. The submissions advanced by the learned Advocate General also show how the difference between the Assistant Engineers and the post immediately lower than that was getting widened, while at the same time, the post of Assistant Engineer and the next level of promotion i.e. the post of Assistant Executive Engineer were brought almost at the same level. These anomalies found by the State Government, had to be addressed. If the State Government, therefore, constituted the PGRC, such decision by itself cannot be found to be illegal or invalid16. It may be stated here that the 6 th Central Pay Commission comprising of experts in the field had recommended certain pay-scales for various posts. The Official Committee which comprised of Principal Secretary to the State of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, as Chairperson with (i) Principal Secretary, Finance Department; (ii) Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department; and (iii)Principal Secretary, School Education Department as Members, had examined the matter and made certain recommendations which were accepted by the Government by GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009. The One Man Commission appointed to consider the anomalies, however, recommended something which was far in excess of what was accepted by GO No.234 dated 01.06.2009 which in turn was in tune with the recommendations of the 6 th Central Pay Commission. It is true that the Government had accepted the recommendations of the One Man Commission but if further anomalies were found which called for action on part of the Government, any exercise to reconsider the matter by the State Government could not be faulted nor could the constitution of the PGRC be said to be invalid or illegal17. Further, if there was any infirmity in the exercise of power by the PGRC in not granting adequate notice and hearing to the concerned, such infirmity could certainly be sorted out. That is exactly what the Division Bench undertook while passing the directions quoted hereinabove. We, therefore, see no error in the approach of and the directions issued by the Division Bench of the High Court.