Smti Tame Yape & Ors

Heard Mr. D. Panging, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. R. Takam, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General for the State respondents.

Challenge made in this writ petition is to the Order dated 06.09.2024, passed by the Chief Secretary-cum-Chairman, High Level Standing Committee (Pay Anomaly), whereby the claim of the petitioners, who are serving as Administrative Officer under various Directorates of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, for grant of pay and allowances at par with the Under Secretaries serving in the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat has been rejected. The petitioners seek a direction upon the respondent authorities to upgrade their scale of pay at par with that of the Under Secretaries of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariator other analogous posts under the Government of Arunachal Pradeshwith effect from 01.01.2006, along with all consequential benefits.

The petitioners are presently serving as Administrative Officers in various Directorates under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. The petitioners had entered the Arunachal Pradesh Ministerial Service at different grades and, in due course, were promoted to the post of Administrative Officers. The petitioners claim that the ministerial establishments in the various Directorates, District Administration and the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat comprise substantially similar hierarchical posts, namely, Lower Division Clerk, Upper Division Clerk, Assistant, Superintendent and Administrative Officer. It is stated that, initially, the posts of Superintendent in the Civil Secretariat as well as in other departments were governed by the common Group-C Recruitment Rules, 1982 and carried the same scale of pay. Subsequently, separate Recruitment Rules were framed for the Secretariat ministerial service, being the Arunachal Pradesh Secretariat Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1989, and for the Superintendent cadre in other departments, being the General Arunachal Pradesh Superintendent Group-B Non-Gazetted (Ministerial) Common Recruitment Rules, 2011.However, despite such separate Rules, the method of appointment to the post of Superintendent continued to be substantially similar, namely, by promotion from the grade of Assistant after completion of five years of regular service.

The Government of Arunachal Pradesh also framed Recruitment Rules for the post of Administrative Officer in various departments, being the Arunachal Pradesh (Group-B Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1982, under which the post was to be filled up by promotion from the grade of Superintendent having three years' continuous service in the grade, which was subsequently amended vide notification dated 16.07.2005 by prescribing five years of regular service in the grade. However, in spite the promotional post from the post of Superintendent, the Administrative Officers have been continued in a same pay structure with that of the feeder grade which is not commensurate with their position in the service hierarchy.

By an order dated 14.01.1998, issued by the Chief Secretary to the Government of Arunachal Pradesh,the Superintendents, Assistants and Upper Division Clerks serving in the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat were granted th the revised scales of pay pursuant to the recommendations of the 5 Central Pay Commission with effect from 01.04.1998and the post of Superintendent in the Civil Secretariat was re-designated as Section Officer. However, the pay scale of Administrative Officers was not revised correspondingly, despite the fact that the post of Administrative Officer is the promotional post from the grade of Superintendent. Accordingly, the Government of Arunachal Pradesh constituted a Cabinet Sub-Committee to look into the issue and pursuant to the recommendation of a Cabinet Sub-Committee, the Secretary (Finance), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, issued Office Memorandum dated 28.08.2002 extending the pay and allowances of the ministerial employees of other departments, from UDC to Superintendent, at par with their counterparts in the Civil Secretariat. Consequently, the Superintendents in the Directorates started getting the same pay scale as that of the Administrative Officers. th Thereafter, following implementation of the 6 Central Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.2006, the Superintendents and Section Officers of the Civil Secretariat were placed in the pay scale of 6500-10500 with Grade Pay of Rs. 4600, whereas the Administrative Officers were placed in the revised scale of 7450-11500-PB-2-4600 Grade Pay.

However, by an order dated 31.03.2010, issued by the Commissioner (General Administration), in pursuance of an Office memorandum dated 30.08.2008, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the scale of pay of Section Officers/SRA of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat was enhanced to higher pay scale of 8000-13500 PB 3-5400 Grade Pay on completion of four years of service. The pay scale of Administrative Officers was not correspondingly revised and they continued in the earlier scale of payof 7450-11500-PB-2-4600 Grade Pay, thereby the Section Officers of the Civil Secretariat were granted higher pay band and grade pay despite the fact that the post of Administrative Officer is the promotional post from the analogous post of Superintendent of the Directorates.The disparity further continued after implementation of the 7 Central Pay Commission with effect from 01.01.2016, when the Administrative Officersserving in the other departments were granted a minimum basic pay of Rs. 44,900 by placing at Level 7, whereas the Section Officers of the Civil Secretariat were granted minimum basic pay of Rs. 47,600 by placing at Level 8, which increased to Rs. 53,100 at Level 9 on completion of four years of regular service.

Aggrieved by the aforesaid disparity, four Superintendents and five Administrative Officers had approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being WP(C) No. 146/2017, seeking parity in pay with the Section Officers and Under Secretaries, respectively, of the Civil Secretariat. This Court, by judgment and order dated 24.08.2022, directed the High Level Standing Committee on Pay Anomalies, headed by the Chief Secretary, to examine whether the employees working in departments/directorates other than the Secretariat Administration Department were entitled to the same scale of pay or whether there existed overwhelming, good and acceptable reasons for retaining the disparity. The Committee was further directed to take note of the observation of this Court that there did not otherwise appear to be any difference in the nature of work performed by the employees of the other departments and those of the Secretariat Administration Department, unless some tangible, acceptable and reasonable difference was found to exist.

Pursuant thereto, the High Level Standing Committee on Pay Anomaly held a meeting on 04.07.2024 and thereafter, the impugned order dated 06.09.2024 was issued by the Chief Secretary-cum-Chairman, High Level Standing Committee (Pay Anomaly), rejecting the claim of the petitioners. The Committee mainly relied upon the alleged differences in the nature of work, transferability, Recruitment Rules, mode of recruitment and promotional avenues of the Directorate/District Ministerial Cadre vis-à-vis the Secretariat Service Cadre. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the said order on the ground that the Committee failed to undertake the exercise directed by this Court in its judgment dated 24.08.2022 and also failed to consider the effect of the Office Memorandum dated 28.08.2002and the fact that the post of Administrative Officer is a promotional post from the grade of Superintendent.

Mr. D. Panging, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the impugned order dated 06.09.2024 has been passed mechanically and without properly examining the question which was required to be considered pursuant to the judgment and order dated 24.08.2022. He submits that the Committee was required to identify a tangible, acceptable and reasonable distinction in the nature of duties and responsibilities of the employees serving in the Directorates vis-à-vis those serving in the Civil Secretariat which could justify the continuing disparity in their pay. Instead, the Committee has merely referred to the fact that the two cadres function under different establishments, that the Civil Secretariat staff work at the highest level of the Government establishment hierarchy, that they are governed by different Recruitment Rules, have different modes of recruitment and promotional avenues and are subject to different posting conditions. He submits that, such distinctions, by themselves, do not establish any rational basis for the continuing disparity in pay.

Learned Senior Counsel further submits that the Committee has failed to consider the Office Memorandum dated 28.08.2002 issued by the Secretary (Finance), Government of Arunachal Pradesh, whereby the ministerial employees of the other departments, from UDC to Superintendent, were granted pay and allowances at par with their counterparts in the Civil Secretariat. He submits that the post of Superintendent in the Directorates is the feeder post for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer, however, the Administrative Officers have been arbitrarily continued in the same pay level as that of their feeder post.

Mr. Panging, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the Committee has also failed to consider the effect of the relevant Recruitment Rules governing the post of Administrative Officer, under which the post is required to be filled up by promotion from the grade of Superintendent. The petitioners, having been promoted from the grade of Superintendent to the post of Administrative Officer, cannot legitimately be continued in the same scale of pay as the feeder post when the corresponding analogous post under the Government has been placed in a higher scale. He submits that the action of the respondents is arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Learned Senior Counsel also places reliance upon Rule 22(1)(a)(1) of the Fundamental Rules and submits that where a Government servant is promoted to a post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance than those attached to the post held by him, his pay is required to be regulated in the manner prescribed therein. He submits that, in the present case, the Administrative Officers, having been promoted from the grade of Superintendent, cannot be denied an appropriate higher scale by continuing them at the same level as the feeder post.

In support of his submission, Mr. Panging, learned Senior Counsel, has relied on the following judgments:

On the other hand, Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General, for the State respondents, submits that the ministerial staff of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat and those serving in the Directorates/Districts constitute separate cadres governed by distinct Recruitment Rules and, therefore, no comparison can legitimately be drawn between the two. The Civil Secretariat is the highest office of the Government where policy decisions are formulated and, having regard to the nature and importance of the functions discharged therein, the Secretariat Service has been provided with separate Recruitment Rules, including mandatory level training. He submits that the Assistant Section Officers, who constitute the feeder grade for Section Officers, are recruited through different modes, including direct recruitment through the Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, Limited Departmental Competitive Examination and promotion, whereas the ministerial staff of the Directorates/Districts are recruited at the level of UDCs and LDCs and thereafter promoted through the respective hierarchy.

Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the framing or amendment of Recruitment Rules, re-designation of posts and upgrading of posts are matters of policy within the prerogative of the Government, which may take such decisions from time to time having regard to the exigencies of administration and the requirement of efficient functioning of the Government. The Government has consciously provided separate treatment to the staff and officers functioning at the highest level of the Government establishment. The fact that the two cadres may have enjoyed similar status or pay in the past cannot constitute a basis for determining their present status, particularly when the Recruitment Rules governing the Secretariat cadre have subsequently been amended or separately framed.

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the subsequent enhancement of the pay of the Section Officers/SRAs in the Civil Secretariat was made in accordance with the Government of India Office Memorandum dated 30.08.2008, the corresponding notification and the Office Memorandum dated 05.01.2009 issued by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, and that the State Government follows the Central Secretariat and Central Pay Commission pattern with such modifications as may be considered necessary. He submits that the Section Officers are Group-B Gazetted Officers and the Under Secretaries are Group-A Officers and, therefore, their posts cannot be treated as analogous to the posts of Administrative Officers in the Directorates.

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the distinction is not merely formal but relates to the nature and level of functions discharged by the two cadres. The staff and officers of the Secretariat assist in formulation of Government policies and in taking various administrative decisions, whereas the staff and officers of the Directorates and District Administration mainly implement the policies and orders so formulated. Whenever any clarification or interpretation of Government policies, rules or notifications is required, the same is undertaken at the Secretariat level. Therefore, the two sets of employees, functioning at different levels of the Government establishment and governed by different Recruitment Rules, cannot be treated as identical.

Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the High Level Standing Committee, pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, had examined the relevant aspects, including the difference in the level and nature of work, Recruitment Rules and designations, and had rightly concluded that the Directorate/District Ministerial Cadre and the Secretariat Service Cadre are not similarly situated. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity.

Having submitted above, Mr. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General, fairly conceded that the post of Administrative Officers cannot be allowed to continue with same scale of pay with the post of Superintendent in view of the fact that the post of Administrative Officer is a promotional post from the feeder grade of Superintendent. Therefore, this aspect deserves to be considered by the authorities.

In support of his submissions, Mr. R. H. Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General, has placed reliance on the following judgments:

passed in WP(C) No. 12205/2019 (Delhi High Court)

While rejoining, Mr. Panging, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submits that the respondents' contention that the ministerial staff of the Civil Secretariat and those serving in other departments constitute separate cadres governed by distinct Recruitment Rules does not, by itself, justify the disparity in pay. The relevant consideration is the actual nature of duties, responsibilities and functional roles discharged by the employees, which, in the present case, are considerably similar. He submits that merely describing the Civil Secretariat as the “highest office” of the Government cannot constitute a rational basis for denying parity in pay.

Learned Senior Counsel submits that, in any event, the petitioners are not merely seeking parity with the Under Secretaries of the Civil Secretariat but are also seeking appropriate fixation of their pay having regard to the fact that the post of Administrative Officer is a promotional post from the grade of Superintendent. He submits that in any case, the respondents cannot legitimately continue the petitioners at the same pay level as the feeder post while a corresponding analogous post under the Government carries a higher scale. Therefore,the petitioners are entitled to appropriate revision of their pay scale in terms of the analogous post under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh.

Due consideration has been extended to the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

Essentially, the issues which arise for consideration in the present writ petition are, firstly, whether the petitioners, who are serving as Administrative Officers under various Directorates of the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, are entitled to parity in pay and allowances with the Under Secretaries serving in the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat and, secondly, whether the petitioners are entitled to appropriate enhancement of their pay scale at par with other analogous posts under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, having regard to the post of Administrative Officer being promotional post and its position in the service hierarchy.

Record indicates that the ministerial establishments in the Secretariat and in the other departments had a common origin and that, at different points of time, the posts of Superintendent and the corresponding Secretariat post enjoyed the same or comparable scales of pay. It is also not in dispute that the post of Administrative Officer in the various departments is a promotional post from the grade of Superintendent under the relevant Recruitment Rules. The subsequent enhancement of the pay of the Secretariat posts, however, resulted in the petitioners being placed at Level 7, which is also the level attached to their feeder post of Superintendent.

The earlier judgment and order dated 24.08.2022, passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 146/2017, did not itself direct grant of parity in pay. Instead, having noticed the grievance relating to the disparity in pay, this Court directed the High Level Standing Committee on Pay Anomalies, headed by the Chief Secretary, to examine whether the employees working in departments/directorates other than the Secretariat Administration Department were entitled to the same scale of pay as the employees of the Secretariat Administration Department or whether there existed overwhelming, good and acceptable reasons for retaining the disparity. Pursuant thereto, the Committee considered the nature of work, Recruitment Rules, mode of recruitment, transferability and promotional avenues of the Directorate/District Ministerial Cadre vis-à-vis the Secretariat Service Cadre.

Insofar as the claim of the petitioners for parity with the Under Secretaries of the Civil Secretariat is concerned, this Court is unable to accept the same. The petitioners have not established that the Administrative Officers serving in the Directorates and the Under Secretaries serving in the Civil Secretariat are comparable in all material respects. The two cadres are governed by different service structures and Recruitment Rules, have different modes of recruitment and promotional avenues and function at different levels of the Government establishment. The petitioners have, therefore, failed to establish such equivalence as would justify a direction from this Court for grant of pay parity with the Under Secretaries.

It is a settled proposition of law that equation of posts and determination of pay scale/salary is a complex matter, which should ordinarily be left to the expert body and the Court cannot interfere lightly. Grant of pay parity by the Court may result in a cascading effect and have adverse consequences, particularly if the limitations governing the applicability of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work are not kept in view. The equation of posts and determination of pay scale is primarily a function of the executive and not of the judiciary. Therefore, ordinarily, the Court will not enter upon the task of job evaluation. Reliance in this context may be placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, Finance Department & Ors. Vs. West Bengal Registration Service Association & Ors., reported in 1993 Supp(1) SCC 153, and Rajesh PravinchandraRajyaguru Vs. Gujarat Water Supply & Sewerage Board & Ors., reported in (2021) 19 SCC 128.

Having opined hereinabove, it is taken note that the petitioners have placed a distinct grievance which relates to their position in the service hierarchy. The post of Administrative Officer is admittedly a promotional post from the grade of Superintendent. The petitioners have been promoted to the said post, yet they have continued to receive the same pay level as that attached to the feeder post of Superintendent. The respondents, while relying upon the distinction between the Secretariat Service and the Directorate/District Ministerial Cadre, have not satisfactorily addressed this particular aspect of the petitioners' grievance.

The High Level Standing Committee, while considering the claim of the petitioners, mainly examined the distinctions between the Secretariat and Directorate/District cadres. However, the question as to whether the Administrative Officers, being the promotional post from the feeder grade of Superintendent, ought to be continued at the same pay level as that of the feeder post, particularly when an analogous post under the Government carries a higher scale, has not been adequately considered. The issue is distinct from the claim of parity with the Under Secretaries and does not require this Court to undertake an exercise of equation of the Administrative Officer with the Under Secretary.

In the considered view of this Court, the fact that the petitioners cannot claim parity with the Under Secretaries absolutely does not justify their being continued in a pay scale which is the same as that of the feeder post from which they have been promoted. The service structure and the promotional nature of the post of Administrative Officer are relevant considerations which ought to receive due consideration while determining the appropriate scale of pay.

The reference made by the petitioners to Rule 22(1)(a)(1) of the Fundamental Rules also reinforces the requirement of considering the pay fixation consequences flowing from promotion to a post carrying duties and responsibilities of greater importance. However, this Court is not called upon to undertake the actual exercise of fixation of pay or to determine the precise scale independently. Such exercise has to be undertaken by the competent authority in accordance with the applicable rules and the existing pay structure of analogous posts under the Government.

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have failed to establish their entitlement to parity in pay with the Under Secretaries of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat. To that extent, the challenge to the impugned order stands rejected.

At the same time, the grievance of the petitioners that the post of Administrative Officer, being a promotional post from the feeder grade of Superintendent, has been continued at the same pay level as the feeder post, without due consideration of the scale attached to the corresponding analogous post under the Government, deserves consideration. The impugned order does not disclose adequate consideration of this distinct aspect of the matter.

Accordingly, while the prayer for grant of pay parity with the Under Secretaries of the Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat is rejected, the impugned Order dated 06.09.2024, passed by the Chief Secretary-cum-Chairman, High Level Standing Committee (Pay Anomaly), is set aside to the limited extent of the petitioners' claim for appropriate enhancement/revision of the pay scale of the post of Administrative Officer.

The respondent authorities are accordingly directed to consider and extend to the petitioners the pay scale applicable to the analogous post under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, having regard to the position of the post of Administrative Officer in the service hierarchy and its being promotional post from the grade of Superintendent.

The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the competent respondent authorities within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

The writ petition stands partly allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to cost(s).