Kamal Narayan Arya & Ors. v. UOI & Ors.

11. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the revised pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- has been adopted in all other departments of Government of India with effect from 01.01.1996. However, in the case of the petitioners, the same has been implemented only with effect from 18.12.2002. Therefore, the actions of the respondents to the extent of date of implementation is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, malafide and unconstitutional.

12. It is submitted that the petitioners are being deprived of their bonafide claim for extension of benefits of revised pay scale with effect from 01.01.1996 without any fault. If there was an anomaly while revising the pay scale of the petitioners in the 5th CPC, the petitioners cannot be penalised for no fault. The petitioners should not suffer due to the mistake of the department.

13. In support of his submissions, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs Bhupinder Singh and Others[1].

14. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that the revised pay scale has rightly been granted to the petitioners with effect from 18.12.2002, when the order in that regard was passed by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India. It is submitted that petitioners are employees of respondent no. 3, which is an autonomous body under the administrative and financial control of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India. Thus, it is contended that the government had the authority to fix a cut off date for the purposes of grant of the revised pay scales.

15. In support of their contentions, learned counsels appearing on behalf of respondents have relied upon the judgment in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs Amar Nath Goyal and Others[2].

16. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and have perused the documents on record.

17. The petitioners are employees of respondent no. 3, i.e. Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyay Institute of Physically Handicapped, New Delhi. The said Institute is an autonomous body under the administrative and financial control of Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India. As regards autonomous bodies, position is very clear that recommendations of Pay Commission are not applicable automatically. The governing bodies of the respective autonomous bodies adopt the recommendations of the Pay Commissions and apply the same to such autonomous bodies as per their own resolution. The employees of autonomous bodies are not employees of the Central Government, therefore, they cannot claim entitlement to the same service benefits as that of the government employees as a matter of right. It has been held time and again by the Courts that grant of benefits of higher pay scale to the employees of Central/State Government stand on a different footing from grant of pay scales to employees of autonomous bodies or other instrumentalities of the state.

18. Supreme Court in the case of Suryanarayan Sahu and Others Vs Council of Scientific and Industrial Research[3], dealt with the claim of employees of Council of Scientific and Industrial Research

(CSIR), an autonomous body. It was held in categorical terms that CSIR being an autonomous was not bound to adopt all the recommendations of the Central Pay Commission. Supreme Court upheld the decision of the CSIR to revise pay scale of its employees broadly on the pattern of 3rd CPC, but with slight deviations, and from a different date from the date adopted by the Central Government. Thus, it was held as follows:-

19. Similarly, in the case of State of Maharashtra and Others Vs Bhagwan and Others[4], Supreme Court has held that employees of Autonomous bodies cannot claim, as a matter of right, same service benefits at par with the government employees merely because such Autonomous bodies might have adopted government service rules and merely because such institution is funded by State/Central Government. It was further held that Courts should refrain from interfering with policy decision which might have cascading effect having financial implications. Thus, it has been held as follows:-

“25. In T.M. Sampath v. Ministry of Water Resources, (2015) 5 SCC 333: (2015) 2 SCC (L&S) 146], the employees of National Water Development Agency (NWDA), an autonomous body under the aegis and control of the Ministry of Water Resources claimed the pensionary benefits on a par with the Central Government employees. Refusing to allow such pensionary benefits to the employees of NWDA on a par with the Central Government employees, in paras 16 and 17, it was observed and held as under: (SCC pp. 345-46) “16. On the issue of parity between the employees of NWDA and Central Government employees, even if it is assumed that the 1982 Rules did not exist or were not applicable on the date of the OM i.e. 1-5-1987, the relevant date of parity, the principle of parity cannot be applicable to the employees of NWDA. NWDA cannot be treated as an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution merely on the basis that its funds are granted by the Central Government. In Zee Telefilms Ltd. v. Union of India, (2005) 4 SCC 649], it was held by this Court that the autonomous bodies having some nexus with the Government by itself would not bring them within the sweep of the expression “State” and each case must be determined on its own merits. Thus, the plea of the employees of NWDA to be treated on a par with their counterparts in the Central Government under sub-rule (6)(iv) of Rule 209 of the General Financial Rules, merely on the basis of funding is not applicable.

17. Even if it is presumed that NWDA is “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution, the appellants have failed to prove that they are on a par with their counterparts, with whom they claim parity. As held by this Court in State (UT of Chandigarh) v. Krishan Bhandari, (1996) 11 SCC 348: 1997 SCC (L&S) 391], the claim to equality can be claimed when there is discrimination by the State between two persons who are similarly situated. The said discrimination cannot be invoked in cases where discrimination sought to be shown is between acts of two different authorities functioning as State under Article 12. Thus, the employees of NWDA cannot be said to be “Central Government employees” as stated in the OM for its applicability.”

26. As per the law laid down by this Court in a catena of decisions, the employees of the autonomous bodies cannot claim, as a matter of right, the same service benefits on a par with the government employees. Merely because such autonomous bodies might have adopted the Government Service Rules and/or in the Governing Council there may be a representative of the Government and/or merely because such institution is funded by the State/Central Government, employees of such autonomous bodies cannot, as a matter of right, claim parity with the State/Central Government employees. This is more particularly, when the employees of such autonomous bodies are governed by their own Service Rules and service conditions. The State Government and the autonomous Board/body cannot be put on a par.

27. In Punjab State Coop. Milk Producers Federation Ltd. v. Balbir Kumar Walia, (2021) 8 SCC 784: (2021) 2 SCC (L&S) 838], in para 32, it is observed as under: (SCC p. 805)

28. As per the settled proposition of law, the Court should refrain from interfering with the policy decision, which might have a cascading effect and having financial implications. Whether to grant certain benefits to the employees or not should be left to the expert body and undertakings and the court cannot interfere lightly. Granting of certain benefits may result in a cascading effect having adverse financial consequences.”

20. In another case, dealing with the case of Delhi Development Authority (DDA), it has been held by Supreme Court that DDA being an Autonomous Statutory body, any revision of pay structure or other terms and conditions of Central Government employees cannot automatically apply to DDA, but need to be adopted by it, with appropriate adaptation. Thus, in the case of Vice Chairman, Delhi Development Authority Vs Narender Kumar and Others[5], it was held as follows:-

21. Further, fixation of cut-off dates for grant of benefits has been held to be not arbitrary, irrational or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It has been held that fixing of a cut off date is an executive function based on several factors. In the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs Amar Nath Goyal and Others[6], it was thus held as follows:-

22. Similarly, in the case of Himachal Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs Himachal Road Transport Corporation

Retired Employees Union[7], it has been held as follows:- “19. In State of A.P. v. N. Subbarayudu, (2008) 14 SCC 702: (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 172], by noticing that a rigid view was taken in D.S. Nakara [D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305: 1983 SCC (L&S) 145: AIR 1983 SC 130], this Court has considerably watered down the same and has held that fixing the cut-off date is an executive function based on several factors like economic conditions, financial constraints, administrative and other circumstances. This Court further held that even if no reason is forthcoming from executive, for fixation of a particular date, it should not be interfered with by the Court, unless cut-off date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result.”

23. Considering the detailed discussion hereinabove, the decision as taken by the respondent no. 3 Institute to implement the recommendations of the 5th CPC with effect from 18.12.2002 cannot be considered to be arbitrary or discriminatory in any manner. The respondent no. 3 being an Autonomous Body has every authority to take its independent decision for adopting and implementing the recommendations of the pay commission in respect of its employees.

24. Accordingly, the present writ petition is found without any merits and is dismissed.

JUDGE JULY 03, 2023 c