UNION OF INDIA Vs. M. NAGARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second respondent in the writ petition is the appellant. The writ petition was filed by respondents 1 to 3 challenging Ext.P10, an order passed by the appellant rejecting the request of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC) to upgrade the pay scale of the post of Auditor -Gr.I from Rs.4500 - 7000 and Rs.5000 -8000. The facts involved in the above case discloses that petitioners 1 and 2 were holding the post of Auditor Gr.I/Assistant Accountant and the 3rd petitioner was holding the post of Auditor Gr.II. According to them, the pay scales were being fixed over a period of time as per the recommendation of the successive Pay Revision Commission and when the pay scales in respect of the posts which were carrying the same scale of pay as of the petitioner had been increased they were not given any corresponding increase in their pay scales. This disparity was pointed out to the 1st respondent which appointed a Committee to consider the same and though it was found that the grievance of the petitioners were genuine and the 1st respondent had recommended the matter to the Central Government to give such persons upward revision of scale of pay, the same was rejected by Ext.P10 order. The 1st respondent supported the cause of the petitioners. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the appellant to pass fresh orders implementing the recommendations made by the 1st respondent in the matter of revision of scale of pay of the petitioners.

(2.) THE appellant challenges the above judgment inter alia contending that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to decide the correctness or otherwise of complex facts which weighed with the Central Pay Commission. The pay structure had been fixed by the Central Pay Commission after carefully taking into consideration the vertical and horizontal relativities and any change in the pay structure would adversely affect the said exercise. It is further contended that the petitioners have failed to discharge the burden to bring out sufficient materials to upset the expert views with respect to fixation of pay scales. The learned counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and another v. West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors Association and Others [ : (2010) 5 SCC 225], S.C.Chandra and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others [ : (2007) 8 SCC 279] and State of Haryana v. Ram Chander & Another [ : AIR 1997 SC 2468] in support of his contentions.

(3.) IT is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that court cannot interfere with the fixation of pay scale by KVIC on the basis of recommendations made by the 6th Pay Commission. According to the counsel, going by the judgment in State of West Bengal (Supra), persons claiming parity would have to establish that they are entitled to such parity and merely because earlier they were in the same pay scale they cannot claim continuance for pay parity even after the pay revision of the wages of Pay Commission recommendation. In the judgment it is held that :