Summary
Sub Fire Officers of the Punjab State Electricity Board claimed the higher pay scales granted to clerical and audit posts placed in the same pay group. The Supreme Court held that common grouping did not establish equivalence of qualifications, recruitment, duties or responsibilities. It allowed the Board’s appeal while protecting excess salary already paid pursuant to the Supreme Court’s interim order from recovery.
Issues
- Whether inclusion in a common pay group alone established entitlement to parity of pay.
- Whether the claimants established the necessary equivalence and discrimination.
- Whether amounts paid under the interim order could be recovered.
Held
- Pay equivalence involves comparative evaluation of recruitment, qualifications, work and responsibilities and ordinarily belongs to expert assessment. Judicial intervention remains available for unreasonable, arbitrary or extraneous decisions; common salary or grouping alone is insufficient. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 16, 17)
- The claimants produced neither adequate pleadings nor material establishing equivalence with clerical and audit posts. Their functions and recruitment differed, and the original claim for parity with State Government employees had rightly been rejected. (¶¶ 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 25, 27)
- The recommendation based on a supposedly small financial burden did not establish functional equivalence or account for other posts subsequently included in the group. Financial implications of pay revision were relevant. (¶¶ 23, 24)
- The High Court’s parity direction was set aside. Amounts above the payable salary already disbursed pursuant to the Supreme Court’s interim order were protected from recovery from the respondents and other Sub Fire Officers. (¶¶ 27, 28)
Result
Board’s appeal allowed; impugned High Court judgment set aside. Excess salary paid under the Supreme Court interim order not to be recovered.