- (1.) All these appeals pursuant to the special leave granted are filed by the Union of India, the Comptroller. and Auditor-General and the Principal Accountant-General. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the benefit under Office Memo (OM) dated 12/06/1987 issued by the government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure should be extended to the members of the Accounts Wing of the Indian Audit and Accounts Department ("ia and AD" for short) with effect from 1/01/1986 as in the case of Audit Wing or whether it should be from 1/04/1987 as indicated in the said Office Memo Several of the employees belonging to the Accounts Wing filed petitions and the Bangalore bench of central Administrative tribunal ("cat" for short) held that they are entitled to the benefit with effect from 1/01/1986. Subsequent to the said judgment some of the employees in the Accounts Wing in Tamil Nadu filed petitions before the Madras bench of the CAT claiming that benefit should be extended with effect from 1/01/1986. The Madras bench was not prepared to agree with the view taken by the Bangalore bench and the matter was referred to the Chairman of the CAT who constituted a full bench presided over by himself. The full bench agreed with the view taken by the Bangalore bench and answered the reference accordingly. Following the decision of the full bench, the Madras bench passed the final orders. All these appeals are filed against several orders passed by the Madras bench as well as the Bangalore bench. It is contended on behalf of the Union of India that the Office Memo dated 12/06/1987 is based on the recommendations of the Fourth central Pay Commission which consists of two parts. The first part recommends corresponding scales of pay for the existing posts in the Accounts Wing giving effect from 1/01/1986. The other part is contained in para 11.38. Pursuant to those recommendations the government decided to implement the same with effect from 1/04/1987. It is also contended that the full bench failed to appreciate correctly that the second part of the recommendation of the Pay Commission clearly indicated that the number of posts to be placed in these scales were to be identified by the government and the government could therefore decide and then give effect at a later date. The learned counsel on behalf of the respondent employees contended that the Pay Commission recommended that there should be parity in the pay scales of the staff in the IA and AD and other Accounts organisations and since all of them discharge the similar duties the benefit should be extended to all of them uniformly with effect from 1/01/1986. To appreciate these contentions it becomes necessary to refer to the history of the case briefly and ,tjp the relevant documents including the recommendations of the Pay Commission.
(2.) Ia and AD headed by the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India (C and AG) recommended some time in 1983 to government of India to bifurcate IA and AD into two separate and distinct wings, one to exclusively deal with 'audit' and the other to deal with 'accounts' withtheir own separate personnel. The government of India after considering all aspects approved the proposal in December 1983. Thereafter C and AG formulated a scheme on 19/12/1983 for bifurcation of the IA and AD into two separate and distinct wings from 1/03/1984 providing for all incidental and auxiliary matters thereto. Before the restructuring of the cadres, the staff working in the IA and AD were asked to exercise their option to serve in either of the two wings. Some exercised the option. There was a grievance that the various equivalent cadres in Audit and Accounts wings were not paid the same scales of pay and the persons allotted to the Audit wing were drawing more pay than the persons in the Accounts wing. The Fourth Pay Commission which was looking into various aspects of the matter recommended in its report that there should be parity of scales of pay between the two wings. The government took the necessary decision on the basis of the recommendations and the same were published in the gazette on 13/09/1986. The government accepted the recommendations relating to the scales of pay and decided to give effect from 1/01/1986 in respect of the recommendations of scales of pay for Group 'd' employees. Thereafter Ministry of Finance, Department of Expenditure accordingly issued Office Memo dated 12/06/1987 regarding the posts to be placed in higher scales of pay and it was mentioned that these orders would take effect from 1/04/1987. The grievance of these employees is that these recommendations should take effect from 1/01/1986. The Fourth Pay Commission in para 11.38 of its Report made the following recommendations: "We have considered the matter. There has all along been parity between the staff in the IA and AD and accounts staff of other departments, which has been disturbed by restructuring the IA and AD into two separate cadres, viz. audit cadre and accounts and establishment cadre and giving higher pay scales to a major portion of the staff on the audit side. The audit and accounts functions are complementary to each other and are generally performed in many government offices in an integrated manner which is necessary for their effective functioning. The staff in these offices perform functions of internal check and audit suited to the requirements of each organisation which are equally important. There is direct recruitment in the scale of Rs. 330. 00-560. 00 in all the audit and accounts cadres through Staff Selection Commission/railway Recruitment Board from amongst university graduates. We are therefore of the view that there should be broad parity in the pay scales of the staff in IA and AD and other accounts organisations. Accordingly we recommend that the posts in the pay scale of Rs. 425. 00-700. 00 in the organised accounts cadres may be given the scale of Rs. 1,400. 00-2,600. 00. In the Railways this will apply to the post of sub-head in both the ordinary and 5 selection grades. We also recommend that this should be treated in future as a functional grade requiring promotion as per normal procedure. The proposed scale of Rs. 2,000. 00-3,200. 00 of S. officer may also be treated as a functional grade. With the proposed scales, there will be no selection for any of the posts. As regards the number of posts in the functional scales of Rs. 1,400. 00-2,600. 00 and Rs. 2,000. 00-3,200. 00, we note that about 53 per cent of the total posts of junior/senior auditor and 66 per cent of the total posts of ordinary and selection grade of S. officer in IA and AD are in the respective higher scales. government may decide the number of posts to be placed in the scales of (i) Rs. 1,400. 00-2,600. 00 and (ii) Rs. 2,000. 00-3,200. 00 in the other organised accounts cadres taking this factor into consider-ation. All other accounts posts may be given the scales recommended in Ch. 8. "from this it emerges that the Pay Commission made two recommendations, i. e. : "(I) there should be broad parity in the pay scales of staff in the IA and AD and other Accounts organisations; (Ii) the scales of pay of Rs. 1,400. 00-2,000. 00 and Rs. 2,000. 00-3,200. 00 should be treated as functional (grades) requiring promotion as per normal procedure. The number of posts to be placed in these scales to be decided by the government. "so far as the first part of the recommendations is concerned, it has been implemented and there is no dispute about the same. The second part of the recommendations relates to the treatment of the scales of pay of Rs. 1,400. 00-2,000. 00 and Rs. 2,000. 00-3,200. 00 as functional grades requiring promotion as per normal procedure and also the number of posts to be placed in these scales of pay. The Pay Commission also observed that in respect of other recommendations the government will have to take specific decisions to give effect from a suitable date keeping in view all the relevant aspects. Accordingly the government had to examine and decide the number of posts to be placed in these scales of pay and a final decision was taken in the year 1987 and promotions were to be made as per normal procedure. Therefore the government issued Office Memo that the appointments to the extent of number of posts should be made with effect from 1/04/1987. The full bench having noted that the offices belonging to both wings do the same type of work, concluded that the principle of equal pay and equal work is fully applicable in the case of the personnel belonging to the Accounts wing. The full bench interpreted the recommendations of the Pay Commission as to mean that both the wings would not only get the revised scales of pay but they would also get from the same date. It ultimately held that there is no apparent reason to give different dates of implementation to the members of the Accountswing and that the Office Memo dated 12/06/1987 is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and it accordingly confirmed the view taken by the Bangalore bench.
(3.) It may not be necessary to refer to various decisions of this court on the scope of Article 14 particularly on the question of discrimination. Suffice if we refer to few of them which are cited quite often. It is well settled that equality before the law means that among equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that like should be treated alike. However, the principle does not take away from the State the power of classifying persons for legitimate purposes. In Ameerunnissa Begum v. Mahboob Begum it was held thus: "A legislature which has to deal with diverse problems arising out of an infinite variety of human relations must, of necessity, have the power of making special laws to attain particular objects; and for that purpose it must have large powers of selection or classification of persons and things upon which such laws are to operate. "in State of W. B. v. Anwarali Sarkar it was held thus: "The classification must not be arbitrary but must be rational, that is to say, it must not only be based on some qualities or characteristics which are to be found in all the persons grouped together and not in others who are left out but those qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. In order to pass the test, two conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (1 that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes those that are grouped together from others and (2 that that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. The differentia which is the basis of the classification and the object of the Act are distinct things and what is necessary is that there must be a nexus between them. "in E. P. Royappa v. State of T. N. , Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India this court has held that Article 14 strikes at the arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. In D. S. Nakara v. Union of India the above three decisions are referred to and the ratio laid down is as under "Thus the fundamental principle's that Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of 7 legislation which classification must satisfy the twin tests of classification being founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. ";