Case: Fertilizer Corpn. Of India  Vs. Sarat Chandra Rath

of the revised pay scale of Rs. 1580-2842 (instead of the old scale of Rs. 915- 1520) and were also paid arrears for the said period on the revised basis. For the period subsequent to the date of their placement in the officers scale the said respondents actually continued in the officers unrevised pay scale of Rs. 960-1610 till they were given the benefit of the revised pay scale of Rs. 2200-3600 with effect from 1st September, 1987 as a result of the aforesaid order dated 18th April, 1991. On the other hand pre 1st January, 1987 Junior Foremen (W) who were already in the officers scale of Rs. 960-1610 as on 31st December, 1986 continued to remain in the same scale as on 1st January, 1987. They were not given the advantage and were only placed in the revised workmens pay scale of Rs. 1580-2842 which was made available to writ petitioners for the period 1st January, 1987 to 31st August 1987. However, when the revised pay scale of Rs. 2200-3600 for the officers was made available vide order dated 18th April, 1991, the same became applicable to them. It was in order to off set this disadvantage that by para 5.1 of the impugned circular a fitment allowance of Rs. 400/- was allowed to such pre 1st January, 1987 Junior Foremen (W). 21. From the aforesaid it is clear that the two categories of Junior Foremen (W) were dealt with by two different sets of rules because as on 1st January, 1987 they were not similarly situate. Whereas the respondents herein were Assistant Foremen, those who were placed in the officers grade prior to 1st January, 1987 were regarded as officers. There could thus be no comparison betweren these two categories of persons. These two categories were unequal and respondents could not, in law, make any grievance if different principles were adopted in the fixation of their respective pay scales.22. The effect of the High Court judgment is that the fixation of pay of post 1st January, 1987 Junior Foremen (W) like the respondents in the revised officers pay scale has been done on the basis of their revised grade of Rs. 1580-2842. On the other hand the fixation of pay of pre 1st January, 1987 Junior Foremen (W) has been done on the basis of their unrevised officers grade of Rs. 960-1610 after giving them a fitment of Rs. 400/-. The direction to grant the additional fitment benefit of Rs. 400/- to the post 1st January, 1987 Junior Foremen (W), whose pay has been revised on the basis of the grade of Rs. 1580-2842, would result in an undue and unjust double advantage being given to the respondents herein. There would, in effect, be a reverse discrimination inasmuch as if the judgment of the High Court is given effect to then the respondents would get more emoluments than their seniors who were placed in the officers scale prior to 1st January, 1987. It has been rightly contended on behalf of the appellants that the High Courts judgment will result in the treatment of unequals as equals, which was clearly not contemplated.23. Apart from the fact that these two classes of employees are different and are governed by different rules, it is open to the State or the appellants to change the conditions of service unilaterally. As observed in the State of West Bengal and others v. Ratan Behari Dey and others, 1994(1) SCT 96(SC) : (1993) 4 SCC 63 at page 65 `` the employer has the undoubted power to revise the salaries and/or the pay scales as also terminal benefits/pensionary benefits. The power to specify a date from which the revision of pays scales or terminal benefits/pensionary benefits, as the case may be, shall take effect is a concomitant of the said power. So long as such date is specified in a reasonable manner, i.e., without bringing about a discrimination between similarly situated persons, no interference is called for by the court in that behalf. In the present case the rules regarding fixation of pay of the officers and of the workers were different. With effect from 1st January, 1987, therefore, fresh fixation had to take place. Workers and officers belong to two different and distinct classes. The respondents who were not officers as on 1st January,1987 could not 1st January, 1987 could not claim parity with the persons who were in the category of officers on that date. That being so the appellants could fix the pay scale of a worker on his appointment after 1st January, 1987 in the officer class on a principle different than the one which was adopted in revising the pay of an officer who was in position as on 1st January, 1987. Whereas with regard to the respondents it would be a case of initial fixation of their salaries on their placement in the officers grade, in the case of pre 1st January, 1987 Junior Foremen it would be a matter of revision of their salaries in the same grade. It was open to the appellants to follow different principles in these two cases. 24. There is also considerable force in the contention of Sh. V.R. Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the appellants, that the High Court ought not to have granted reliefs to the respondents which they had not even prayed for inasmuch as relief prayed for in the writ petition was only with regard to the adjustment of the personal pay against the incremental benefits. But as the case had been argued at length on the points decided by the High Court, we need not advert further on this aspect.25. From the aforesaid discussion it follows that para 5.3 of the Office Memorandum dated 18th April, 1991, which contained the principle on the basis of which the pay of the respondents was fixed in the lowest scale of the officers grade, is not invalid and the High Court fell in error in striking it down.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]19. From the facts enumerated hereinabove it is quite evident that the question of discrimination or violation of Article 14 of the Constitution does not really arise in the present case.20. From the facts stated hereinabove it cannot be disputed that respondents 1 to 23 as on 1st January, 1987 had not acquired the officers grade and were working as Assistant Foremen.From the aforesaid it is clear that the two categories of Junior Foremen (W) were dealt with by two different sets of rules because as on 1st January, 1987 they were not similarly situate. Whereas the respondents herein were Assistant Foremen, those who were placed in the officers grade prior to 1st January, 1987 were regarded as officers. There could thus be no comparison betweren these two categories of persons. These two categories were unequal and respondents could not, in law, make any grievance if different principles were adopted in the fixation of their respective pay scales.22. The effect of the High Court judgment is that the fixation of pay of post 1st January, 1987 Junior Foremen (W) like the respondents in the revised officers pay scale has been done on the basis of their revised grade of Rs. 1580-2842. On the other hand the fixation of pay of pre 1st January, 1987 Junior Foremen (W) has been done on the basis of their unrevised officers grade of Rs. 960-1610 after giving them a fitment of Rs. 400/-. The direction to grant the additional fitment benefit of Rs. 400/- to the post 1st January, 1987 Junior Foremen (W), whose pay has been revised on the basis of the grade of Rs. 1580-2842, would result in an undue and unjust double advantage being given to the respondents herein. There would, in effect, be a reverse discrimination inasmuch as if the judgment of the High Court is given effect to then the respondents would get more emoluments than their seniors who were placed in the officers scale prior to 1st January, 1987. It has been rightly contended on behalf of the appellants that the High Courts judgment will result in the treatment of unequals as equals, which was clearly not contemplated.23. Apart from the fact that these two classes of employees are different and are governed by different rules, it is open to the State or the appellants to change the conditions of service unilaterally.There is also considerable force in the contention of Sh. V.R. Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for the appellants, that the High Court ought not to have granted reliefs to the respondents which they had not even prayed for inasmuch as relief prayed for in the writ petition was only with regard to the adjustment of the personal pay against the incremental benefits. But as the case had been argued at length on the points decided by the High Court, we need not advert further on this aspect.25. From the aforesaid discussion it follows that para 5.3 of the Office Memorandum dated 18th April, 1991, which contained the principle on the basis of which the pay of the respondents was fixed in the lowest scale of the officers grade, is not invalid and the High Court fell in error in striking it