Can the SC Commission Order Payment of Arrears? Supreme Court Says Its Role Is Recommendatory, Not Adjudicatory

Case at a Glance

The Supreme Court has held that the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) cannot pass binding adjudicatory orders in service matters. Setting aside a Bombay High Court judgment, it declared the NCSC’s directions to the Mumbai Port Authority to pay arrears to a demoted employee within a fixed time contrary to the Constitution and non-est, explaining that under Article 338 the Commission records findings and asks the Government to act.

Respondent no. 3 joined the Port as a typist-cum-computer clerk in 1997 and was promoted to Stenographer Grade-I under a 2002 office memorandum. After the Bombay High Court quashed that memorandum in 2016, a December 2018 circular required SC/ST promotions to follow the 1997 memorandum. On 11 September 2020 she was demoted from Grade I to Grade II, notionally from 19 April 2007 to 30 November 2016.

On her complaint, the NCSC by order dated 23 October 2024 directed adherence to DoPT reservation guidelines, her promotion according to reservation rules, payment of arrears within 30 days and an action-taken report within 45 days. On 19 August 2025 a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed the Port’s writ petition, holding that the NCSC had acted within its powers.

The Key Question Before the Court

Can the NCSC, exercising powers under Article 338, issue binding orders in a service dispute, such as directing payment of arrears within a fixed period?

Investigation and Recommendation, Not Adjudication

The Court read Article 338(5) on the Commission’s duties with Article 338(8), which gives it the powers of a civil court only for listed procedural matters such as summoning witnesses, requiring documents and receiving affidavits. Those powers do not include a power to make orders. In the Court’s words, the “NCSC can record a factual finding and then ask the concerned Government, either the Centre or the State to act thereupon.”

It rejected the argument that ‘safeguards’ in Article 338(5)(b) implies an enforcement power, reading ‘rights and safeguards’ together. It relied on All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees’ Welfare Assn. v. Union of India, (1996) 10 SC CK 0079, Collector v. Ajit Jogi, (2011) 10 SC CK 0013 and Bhabani Prasad Jena v. Orissa State Commission for Women, (2010) 08 SC CK 0072, observing that such bodies “are not meant to be bodies taking over adjudicatory functions.”

What the Court Actually Held

• The appeal was allowed and the Bombay High Court judgment was set aside.
• The NCSC’s directions on payment of arrears were declared contrary to the Constitution and non-est in law.
• The NCSC’s function under Article 338 is recommendatory and advisory, not adjudicatory.
• Its civil-court powers under Article 338(8) are limited to procedural tools for investigation.

Why This Judgment Matters

• It defines the limits of constitutional commissions in service disputes.
• It tells employers how to treat NCSC directions on pay and promotion.
• It points aggrieved employees to the proper adjudicatory forums.

What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?

For Employees

• The NCSC can investigate and recommend, but binding relief on arrears must come from a court or tribunal.
• Use the Commission’s findings as material in proceedings before the proper forum.

For Employers and Government Bodies

• Respond to NCSC inquiries and recommendations, but directions to pay arrears are not binding orders.
• Keep in mind that the judgment’s operative part expressly addresses only the arrears directions.

Key Takeaways

Frequently Asked Questions

No. It can investigate, record findings and ask the Centre or State to act; it cannot itself adjudicate and order payment.

The operative part addresses only the arrears directions; the text does not separately state the fate of the other directions.

Among others, All India Indian Overseas Bank SC and ST Employees’ Welfare Assn., which held the Commission’s investigative powers do not make it a civil court.

Conclusion