Summary
Internal Auditors sought the higher pay scale given to Head Clerks, relying on their earlier pay parity and common Group XII classification. The Supreme Court rejected the claim after considering differences in recruitment, duties, promotional channels and benefits, and the Pay Anomaly Committees’ reasons. It set aside the High Court judgments, which had incorrectly treated the dispute as covered by the Sub Fire Officers case.
Issues
- Whether historical pay parity and a common pay group required continued parity despite differences between posts.
- Whether recruitment, promotional benefits and the expert committee’s reasons justified different scales.
- Whether retrospective revision prejudiced those who had opted for the Internal Auditor channel.
Held
- Claimants must establish the relevant equivalence and discriminatory treatment. Common group placement or earlier identical scales alone do not prove equivalence; pay evaluation ordinarily belongs to expert bodies. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25)
- Head Clerks and Internal Auditors differed in recruitment, functions, responsibilities and promotional channels. The Pay Anomaly Committees gave reasons for different revised scales, and no functional identity was established to displace their assessment. (¶¶ 17, 18, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31)
- Those choosing the Internal Auditor channel after the revision and direct recruits accepting the advertised scale could not demand Head Clerk parity on these facts. The more extensive promotional avenues, higher promotional scales and time-bound benefits also bore on the choice. (¶¶ 32, 33, 36, 37, 38)
- For employees who opted during the retrospective period, the committee had addressed the grievance by recommending an option to become Head Clerks subject to vacancies, with corresponding seniority. This was not an unconditional direction granting immediate appointment or higher pay. (¶¶ 29, 34, 35)
- The High Court erroneously treated the case as covered by the Sub Fire Officers dispute and overlooked the distinguishing evidence and expert consideration. Its judgment and review order were set aside. (¶¶ 40, 41, 42)
Result
Corporation’s appeals allowed; High Court judgment and review order set aside. No costs.