“Pay Parity cannot be claimed as an Indefeasible Enforceable Right, except where the Competent Authority has taken a Conscious Decision to Equate Two Posts,” SC

In a recent judgment, titled State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. vs. Virendra Bahadur Katheria and Ors., the Supreme Court (SC) held that pay parity cannot be claimed as an indefeasible enforceable right, except where the Competent Authority has taken a conscious decision to equate two posts notwithstanding their different nomenclature or distinct qualifications. The bench constituting Justice Surya Kant and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a case originating from a dispute over pay scales in the Basic Education Department of Uttar Pradesh. The controversy centers around the alleged discrepancy in the pay scales of SDI/ABSA (Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools/ Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikaris) and DBSA (Deputy Basic Shiksha Adhikaris) of the Basic Education Department, State of Uttar Pradesh vis-à-vis the Headmasters of Junior High Schools. The genesis of this disparity can be traced back to the Government Order dated July 20, 2001, issued based on the recommendations of the Fifth Central Pay Commission, according to which the pay scales of State Government teachers, including Headmasters, were brought on par with Central Government teachers, with effect from July 01, 2001. 

As per the 2001 order, the basic pay scale of Headmasters stood revised from 4625-125-7000 to 6500-200-10500, with a further revision of their Selection Grade from 4800-150-7650 to 7500-250-12000. There was, however, no alteration in the pay scales of SDI/ABSA and DBSA, and resultantly, their pay scales became lesser than those granted to the Headmasters. The SC on July 15, 2024, was hearing a civil appeal against the April 04, 2023 order of the Division bench of the Allahabad High Court whereby an intra-court appeal preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter, ‘State’) challenging the Single Judge’s judgment dated February 02, 2018, was dismissed on the ground of delay. Consequently, the judgment of the Single Judge, which effectively directed to grant the pay scale of 7500-12000 to SDI/ABSA and the DBSA, with effect from the year 2001, stood affirmed.

After hearing the matter from both parties, the Supreme Court bench said, “It needs no emphasis that prescription of pay scale for a post entails Policy decision based upon the recommendations of an expert body like Pay Commission. All that the State is obligated to ensure is that the pay structure of a promotional or higher post is not lower than the feeder cadre. Similarly, pay parity cannot be claimed as an indefeasible enforceable right save and except where the Competent Authority has taken a conscious decision to equate two posts notwithstanding their different nomenclature or distinct qualifications. Incidental grant of same pay scale to two or more posts, without any express equation amongst such posts, cannot be termed as an anomaly in a pay scale of a nature which can be said to have infringed the right to equality under Article 16 of our Constitution.” It added, “There was no pay parity in the instant case between Headmasters on one hand or the SDI/ABSA etc. on the other. It was a mere coincidence that the group of these posts carried the same pay scale for a long time, till the State Government decided to grant a higher revised pay scale to the Headmasters. This led to an anomalous situation as the Headmasters were amongst the feeder cadre categories for appointment by selection against 10% posts of SDI/ABSA.”

Moreover, the SC observed, “It is a matter of common knowledge that the cases entailing discord over pay parity, are frequently subjected to prolonged litigation. These squabbles often lead to parties enduring significant challenges and hardships over extended periods as they await adjudication. Regrettably, the delay in resolving such matters usually renders them infructuous by the time a decision is reached.” Therefore, the top court partly allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench in its entirety and that of the Single Judge of the High Court in part.