RESPONDENT: WEST BENGAL REGISTRATION SERVICE ASSOCIATION ANDORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT20/02/1992 AHMADI, A.M. (J) AHMADI, A.M. (J) PUNCHHI, M.M. CITATION: 1992 AIR 1203 1992 SCR (1) 897 1993 SCC Supl. (1) 153 JT 1992 (2) 27 1992 SCALE (1)437 ACT: Service LawDetermination of pay scale. Powers of CourtDetermination of pay scales and equation of posts is executive functionBut Court can interfere if employees are treated arbitrarilyNecessary and relevant factors for determination of pay scale discussedRelevance of educational qualification in determination of pay scaleWhat is. West Bengal Registration ServicePost of SubRegistrar Conferment of gazetted statusGovernment notification Inclusion of registration service in State Service Entitlement of SubRegistrars to pay scale equivalent to State Level OfficersHeld pay scale must reflect nature of duties and responsibilitiesMere conferment of gazetted status and inclusion in State Service does not justify higher scaleSubRegistrars and Munsiffs held not equal as their duties are different in natureGrant of scale of Sub Registrar not equivalent to that payable to State Level Officers held not arbitrarySupreme Court's direction to State Government to determine appropriate pay scale for Sub Registrars and posts above them. HEADNOTE: The West Bengal Registration Service comprised the post of SubRegistrars and other posts above the level of sub Registrars. By a resolution dated May 22, 1952 the post of SubRegistrar was directed to be regarded as gazetted w.e.f. 1st April, 1952. Thereafter by a Notification dated 17th July, 1953 the Registration Service was, with effect from the date of its constitution i.e. 30th January, 1953 included in the West Bengal State Service. The respondents alleged that notwithstanding the commitment made by the 1953 Notification that they would be accorded all the privileges admissible to officers belonging to State Service, their pay scale was not revised equivalent to the minimum pay scale admissible to State Service Officers. Even when pursuant to the recommendations of the Pay Com 898 mittee the payscales were revised they were placed on a scale which was lower than the minimum scale payable to State Service Employees. Further though the First State Pay Commission recommended a Scale of Rs. 425825 for Sub Registrars yet the recommendation did not find favour with State Government and their pay scale was fixed at Rs. 300 600. Also pursuant to the recommendations of the Second State Pay Commission their pay scale was revised to Rs. 425 1050 i.e. scale No. 11, although the minimum scale fixed fog the State Service Officers was Rs. 6601600 i.e. Scale No. 17. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the State Govt. the respondents filed a writ petition Calcutta under Article 226 of the constitution for a mandamus to award scale No. 17 of Rs. 6601600 as admissible to State Service Officers . During the pendency of the writ petition the Third State Pay Commission submitted its report. This Commission also rejected their claim of pay scale of Rs. 6601600, the minimum scale for State service, on the ground that their duties and responsibilities did not justify the higher pay scale. By its judgment dated 28th June, 1989, a Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition and awarded revised scale No. 17 by holding that the Government had acted arbitrarily and in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in not awarding scale No. 17 to the Sub Registrars. The High Court based its decision on the facts that (i) the post of SubRegistrar was a gazetted post belonging to the State Service; (ii) the first State Pay Commission recommended a higher pay scale which was turned down by Finance; and (iii) the revised educational qualification for SubRegistrar, a law degree, was the same as required for Munsiffs. Subsequently the respondents filed an application for interim relief seeking permission to exercise option for the corresponding s