Case: S.H.BAIG Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

2. Recruitment to the posts of Ministerial employees i.e. Head Clerk, Assistant Clerk, Accountant, Assistant Accountant, Record Keeper, Daftari, etc. was governed by the M.P . Police Regulations, which were framed under the Police Act, 1861. Inspectors,rs, etc. were appointed as per the provisions governed by Part III of M.P . Police Regulations. On 5 th November, 1967, the State Government created new Police Ranks (Ministerial) in the State Police Force under Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861. The Ministerial employees who opted to be enrolled under the Police Act, 1861 would continue to draw emoluments in their existingor as may be revised from time to time. They were given Uniform Grant and Uniform Maintenance Allowance in accordance with the scale prescribed for the corresponding regular posts (Executive). They would, however, not be entitled to House Rent or Rent Free Accommodation and Conveyance Allowance admissible to Officers of corresponding Ranks in the Executive branch. There was a difference inbetween the Ministerial and Executive branches of the Police from the beginning, which can be seen from the M.P . PayRevision Rules, 1961, popularly known asThe difference betweenwas continued even as per thein 1973. On 14 th October, 1982, the Chaudhary Pay Commission submitted its Report in which it recommended as followsare unable to make recommendation of the pay scales equivalent to Police Executive Force to the ministerial employees of police department. They will have to satisfy with the pay scales received by the colleagues working in other departments.The M.P . Revision of Pay Rules, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the 1983 Rules) were brought into force on the basis of the Chaudhary Commission w.e.f. 1 stRule 7 provides for fixation of initial pay of the Revised Scale which reads ason of initial pay in the revised.. ..(b) .. ..(iv)Ad hoc increase sanctioned to certain categories of Government servants in Police, Home Guard, Jail and Excise Department, except the ad hoc increase allowed to Ministerial Staff of Police Department.(2) An amount equal to 20% of the basic pay (inclusive of stagnation allowance, if any) shall first be calculated. In case this amount exceeds Rs.150 it should be reduced to Rs.150.From such amount of interim relief, or in the case of certain categories of Government servants in the Engineering Department, the amount of the ad hoc increase sanctioned to them, shall be deducted and the balance be added to the emoluments arrived at as in(1). If in any case, the balance is less than Rs.10/ll be added to the emoluments.Mr. P .N. Tripathi who was initially appointed to a Ministerial post and was working as a Deputy Superintendant of Police (DSP) in the office of the Director General of Police (DGP), Madhya Pradesh filed O.A. No. 165 of 1994 in the Administrative Tribunal, Bhopal Bench seeking revisedand the quashing of an order passed for recovery of excess amounts paid to him. The Tribunal held that P .N. Tripathi was entitled to get the ad hoc increase of pay of Rs.70/for fixation of pay as per Rule 7(1)(b)(iv) of the M.P . Revision of Pay Rules, 1983. The Tribunal, however, observed that the special pay was not to be merged in the revisedMr. Krishna Gopal Duraphe filed O.A. No.45 of 1998 seeking ad hoc increase of Rs.70/in the basic pay as per the M.P . Revised Pay Rules, 1983. Mr. Duraphe retired as a Deputy Superintendant of Police (DSP). He was denied the benefit of addition of ad hoc increase of Rs.70/to his basic pay. Following the judgment incase, the Tribunal allowed O.A. No.45 of 1998 filed by Mr. Duraphe and directed theix his pay in the revised payscale as per T able 31 of the M.P . Revision of1983 by including Rs.70/for calculation of initial pay as per Rule 7. After the judgment incase on 1 st January, 2000, a decision was taken by the Government of Madhya Pradesh to give the benefit of Rs.70/as ad hoc increment in the Chaudharyw.e.f. 1 st April, 1981 to all the employees working in the Executive (Ministerial) Force.5. Miscellaneous Application No.218 of 2001 was filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh seeking review of the Order dated 1 st April, 2000 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.45 of 1998. The Government of Madhya Pradesh was aggrieved by the operative portion of the Order passed on 1 st April, 2000 in O.A. No.45 of 1998 directingpay to be fixed in revised pay scale as per T able No.31 of the M.P . Revision of Pay Scales Rules, 1983. It was contended on behalf of the State that the T able No.31 is relatable to an Executive Post. According to the Government, the judgment of the Tribunal dated 1 st January, 2000 needed to be reviewed because several persons of the Ministerial cadre at the lower levels i.e. Inspector (M)/ Peon, Head Constables (M), Daftari, ASI (M)/ LDC,(M)/ UDC, Subedar (M)/ Auditor Stenographer were seeking the same relief. According to the Government, the Ministerial employees though declared as police officers, continued to remain in the same cadre performing ministerial work with separatewhich are lower than that of the Executive Force. The Government insisted that there was no intention of granting payscales to Ministerial employees on par with the Executive Force. The Tribunal held that it never intended or ordered a higherto be given to the Ministerial employees, that too, from 1 st April, 1981. The relief claimed by Mr. Duraphe was for an ad hoc increase of Rs.70/to be added to his basic pay while fixing the pay in the revised scale of pay w.e.f. 1 st April, 1981. The Tribunal made it clear that the question of grant of a scale higher than the corresponding revised scale which was given to the Executive Force was not a subject matter of the dispute either incase or the judgment in O.A. No.45 of 1998 dated 1 st January, 2000.The only point that was adjudicated in both the above cases was grant of ad hoc increase of Rs.70/for the purpose of initialThe apparent error committed by the Tribunal while directing Mr. Duraphe to be givenin accordance with T able 31 which pertains to Inspector of the Executive Force, was corrected.6. By a letter dated 22 nd February, 2001, the Government of Madhya Pradesh informed the Director General of Police that the earlier order by which the benefit ofnd Rs.70/ad hoc increment in the Chaudhary Pay Scales given to the Executive (M) employees was deferred till further orders. On 25 th March, 2006, the Government of Madhya Pradesh informed the Director General of Police that the members of the Ministerial employees shall be entitled for adding the ad hoc increment ofnd Rs.70/. However, theof such employees shall not be increased. In other words, they will not be entitled to claim the benefit of being placed in a higher pay scale which was given only to the Executive Force. Excess payment made due to the faulty fixation of higherin favour of Ministerial employees was sought to be recovered by a proceeding dated 22 nd July, 2006. The Orders dated 25 th March, 2006 and 22 nd July, 2006 were challenged by the Ministerial employees in the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.7. The Writ Petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on 18 th July, 2007. It was held that the new Police Ranks (Ministerial) created for the Ministerial staff of the Police Department by Memorandum dated 5 th November, 1967 did not entitle the Ministerial employees to claim parity of pay with the members of the Executive Force in the Police Department. The High Court referred to a specific condition in the said Memorandum that even after enrolment under the Police Act, 1861, the Ministerial employees of the Police Department would continue to draw emoluments in the existing scale in which they were working prior to 1 st April, 1981 or as may be revised from to time. The High Court observed that theeministerial employees were entitled to the payment of ad hoc increase to be added to the basic pay but they cannot claim the higherwhich was granted to the Executive Force. Reliance was placed by the High Court on the 1983 Rules according to which the claim of the Appellants for being placed in the next higher pay scale was not possible. The Order passed by the Tribunal in the Review Application filed by the State Government in Gopal Krishnacase was relied upon by the High Court to reject the relief claimed by the Appellants. The High Court referred to several cases filed by the Ministerial employees in the State Administrative Tribunal seeking relief of parity of pay with the members of the Executive Force in the Police Department which were transferred to the High Court on abolition of the Tribunal. Finally, the High Court held that the Appellants were entitled for fitment in the correspondingof their existingas per Rule 7 of the 1983 Rules. According to the Rules, the members of the Executive Force in the Police Department were entitled to the next higherof the corresponding revisedThe Ministerial employees were not entitled to the said benefit, according to the High Court. Recovery of excess amounts paid due to wrong fixation on the revision of pay scales was upheld by the High Court.

Reasoning:
We do not agree with the Appellants. It is no doubt true that police ranks were given to the Ministerial staff in the departments with certainemoluments of the Ministerial staff in the Police Departments were not revised. It was categorically mentioned in the Memorandum dated 5 th November, 1967 that the Ministerial employees will continue to draw the same emoluments even after the enrolment under the Police Act, 1861. Therefore, merely because police ranks were given to Ministerial employees, they cannot claim parity ofis clear that the ad hoc increase allowed to the Ministerial staff of the Police Department cannot be taken into account for the purpose of revision of pay in view of the express exclusion in Rule 7 (1)(b)(iv). The Executive employees were given the benefit of the next higherto the corresponding revisedin the Rules which benefit was not given to the Ministerial (E) staff. Neither the Rules nor the pay fixation of the Appellants under the Rules was challenged. The interpretation of the Rules of 1983 sought to be placed by the Police does not appeal to us. The recommendation made by the Chaudhary Pay Commission which was reflected clearly in the Rules disentitles the Appellants from claiming the benefit of being given one scale higher than the corresponding revised11. The Appellants relied upon the judgments of the Tribunal in the cases of Tripathi and Duraphe. The Order dated 17 th November, 2001 in the Review Application filed by the Government incase makes it clear that there was no relief claimed by either Mr. Tripathi or Mr. Duraphe for being placed in the higherThe relief sought by both of them was to include the ad hoc increment to the basic pay. While reviewing its Order dated 1 st January, 2000 in O.A. No.45 of 1998, the Tribunal observed that an unintended benefit flowed from an apparent error committed by the Tribunal. We are afraid that the Appellants cannot place any reliance on the judgments of the Tribunal in the cases of Tripathi and Duraphe.12. Parity ofcannot be given to the Appellants even on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The Appellants contend that some of the Ministerial employees were assigned work in the Executive Police Force. Some persons in the Ministerial (E) branch have been appointed to the Police Force as Deputy Superintendent of Police also. The Ministerial (E) staff is also assigned duties of Executive Police Force during elections. The Government maintains that the members of the Ministerial (E) branch do not discharge executive functions. It is well settled law that even if persons are holding same rank/ designation and having similar powers, duties and responsibilities they can be placed in different scales of pay and cannot claim the benefit of the principle of equal pay for equal work. [See: Randhir Singh v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 618     and State of Punjab v. Jagjit Singh Ors. (2017) 1 SCC 148   ] In this case the qualifications for appointment, mode of recruitment, training, the duties and responsibilities not being similar, the Appellants are not entitled for the relief of equal pay.13. We are in agreement with the High Court that the method of recruitment, qualifications for appointment, duties and responsibilities of the Ministerial and Executive staff being different, Ministerial employees are not entitled to claim parity ofwith the Executive Force. We affirm the judgment of the High Court regarding the recoveries sought to be made between 01.01.2000 to 17.11.2001.