Majmudar, J. - (1.) These two civil appeals on special leave have been moved by the Union of India and its officers challenging the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench at Cuttack by which each of the respondents in these appeals was given a higher pay-scale. We shall first deal with Civil Appeal No. 10608 of 1995.
(2.) The respondent herein was working as a Laboratory Assistant under Dandakaranya Development Authority. He was granted pay-scale of Rs. 260-400. After the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission, the Central Government promulgated Central Civil Service Revised Pay Rules, 1986. As per these pay rules, respondents pay scale got a hike. This revised pay-scale with effect from 1-1-1986 worked upto 950-1500. According to the respondent he was entitled to a still higher pay-scale and as that was not granted to him, he moved the Tribunal by Original Application. The Tribunal after hearing the contesting parties took the view that the respondent was not entitled to any higher pay-scale only on the ground of equal pay for equal work. That a higher pay-scale given to Laboratory Assistant both in the Ministry of Defence and Railways could not automatically be given to the respondent as he was a mere Matriculate having only 5 weeks training in the Central Laboratory of Indor, while those Laboratory Assistants in the aforesaid Ministers of Defence and Railways were having better educational qualifications. On the aforesaid finding reached by the Tribunal on facts, the O.A. should have been dismissed. Instead, the Tribunal perhaps thinking that because the petitioner had moved the Tribunal, he should not go empty handed and must be given some relief from somewhere, took the view that because the Auxiliary Nurses and Midwife who were also earlier getting two scales of pay of Rs. 260-350/- and Rs. 260-400/- were given a revised pay-scale of Rs. 975-1540/- under the same Pay Rules, the respondent should also be granted the said pay scale of Rs. 975-1540/- instead of Rs. 950-1500/-. In our view the aforesaid reasoning, adopted by the Tribunal is totally misconceived and cannot be sustained. When we turn to the Central Civil Services Revised Pay Rules, 1986, we find in the First Schedule to the said Rules framed in the light of Rules 3 and 4, item 6 of Part A dealing with all posts carrying present pay-scales and pay-scales of Rs. 260-400/- which were revised to Rs. 950-1500/-. The respondent admittedly got the benefit of those revised pay-scales. But the Tribunal though it fit to award to the respondent still higher pay-scale which was made available under the Rules to the Auxiliary Nurses and Midwife. Their pay-scale is mentioned in Part B of the Schedule at item No. 4 in paragraph IX dealing with Paramedical Staff. The Auxiliary Nurses and Midwife who were getting the pay scale of Rs. 260-350/- and Rs. 260-400/- were given a uniform higher pay-scale of Rs. 975-1540/-. The Tribunal compared the earlier pay-scales of Auxiliary Nurses and Midwife with the earlier pay-scales of the respondent and thought it fit to grant the same hike in the pay-scale which was made available under the Revised Pay Rules to Auxiliary Nurses and Midwife to respondent also. In our view that exercise was totally unauthorised as it amounted to taking a policy-decision which was within the domain of the authorities themselves who are the authors of the Revised Pay-Scales. The Tribunal having come to the conclusion that on merits the respondent had no case on the ground of equal pay for equal work, the O. A. ought to have been dismissed. Our attention was also drawn by the learned Senior counsel for the appellant to a decision of this Court reported in (1989) 1 SCC 121 (State of U. P. v. J. P. Chaurasia). In that judgment the following observations are made :- "The first question regarding entitlement to the pay scale admissible to Section Officers should not detain us longer. The answer to the question depends upon several factors. It does not just depend upon either the nature of work or volume of work done by Bench Secretaries. Primarily it requires among others, evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts. More often functions of two posts may appear to be the same or similar, but there may be difference in degrees in the performance. The quantity of work may be the same, but quality may be different that cannot be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parties. The equation of posts or equation of pay must be left to the Executive Government. It must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission. They would be the best judges to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts. If there is any such determination by a Commission or Committee, the Court should normally accept it. The Court should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration."
(3.) Consequently, it must be held that the Tribunal had committed patent error of law in passing the impugned order. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the Tribunal are quashed and set aside and the original application filed by the respondent is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.;