UNION OF INDIA Vs. A. RAYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellants has strenuously canvassed the position that a classification between the matriculate and non-matriculate in the matter of pay fixation is permissible. Our reference is also invited to the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in State of Mysore v. P. Narasinga Rao, reported in AIR 1968 SC 349.

(2.) We have no quarrel with the above proposition. The question before us is not of classification between the matriculate and non-matriculate. We are only invited to go into the correctness of the Judgment passed by the High Court. Both the Tribunal and the High Court have taken a view that the Anomaly Committee, have made a recommendation to treat the Police Constables in Andaman and Nicobar Islands at par with Delhi. The Anomaly Committee itself has been set up by the Government. No doubt, the decision of the Anomaly Committee is not per se binding on the Government, as correctly canvassed by the learned counsel, placing reliance on the judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Arjun Jyoti Kundu and Ors., reported in 2007(4) S.C.T. 389 : (2007) 7 SCC 472. But the question is whether this Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court on the implementation of the report of the Anomaly Committee in the matter of extension of same pay scale of Delhi Police Constables to the constables of Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

(3.) In our considered view, we do not find any justifiable ground to exercise our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The appeal, accordingly, stands dismissed.