The Supreme Court has dismissed a challenge by retired judicial officers serving as Presiding Officers of Central Government Industrial Tribunals-cum-Labour Courts (CGIT-cum-LCs), holding that they cannot claim the same pay scales granted to members of other central tribunals under the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations.
A bench comprising Justice SVN Bhatti and Justice NV Anjaria held that officers re-employed after retirement can legitimately be treated as a distinct class for determining their pay. The Court found no constitutional infirmity in linking the remuneration of CGIT-cum-LC Presiding Officers with that of the District Judiciary.
The dispute arose after the petitioners, who were serving at CGIT-cum-LCs in New Delhi and Hyderabad, argued that their posts were comparable to those in tribunals such as the Central Administrative Tribunal, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and Debt Recovery Tribunal. They contended that several such tribunals had received the benefit of Sixth Pay Commission scales, while CGIT Presiding Officers were placed on a different structure based on recommendations concerning the District Judiciary.
The petitioners argued that the distinction amounted to unequal treatment and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The Union government opposed the demand, pointing out that the petitioners were not regular serving government employees but retired judicial officers who had subsequently been re-employed. Their pay fixation was therefore governed by the Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986.
The government also relied on recommendations of expert bodies, including the Shetty Commission and the Justice E. Padmanabhan Committee, which had influenced the pay structure applicable to CGIT-cum-LC Presiding Officers.
The Supreme Court accepted this reasoning.
The bench observed that re-employed officers do not remain part of the same homogeneous class as regular government employees once they return to service after retirement. Their separate classification for pay purposes, therefore, could not by itself be regarded as discriminatory.
The Court further held that the decision to align the pay of CGIT-cum-LC Presiding Officers with District Judiciary officers was based on an intelligible and rational distinction. The arrangement, with an exception for Presiding Officers of National Tribunals functioning at Mumbai and Kolkata, was not found to be arbitrary.
Rejecting the argument that CGIT-cum-LCs should automatically receive the same treatment as other central tribunals, the Court noted that the tribunals and labour courts concerned function within the State framework and that their Presiding Officers could reasonably be placed alongside the District Judiciary for pay purposes.
The judgment also stressed the limited role of courts in disputes concerning government pay structures.
According to the Court, determining appropriate pay scales involves assessment by the executive and specialised pay commissions or committees. Judicial review in such matters remains narrow, particularly where there is no evidence of mala fide action.
The bench relied on the principle that courts are generally not equipped to undertake detailed comparisons of competing pay structures merely on the basis of pleadings and affidavits. Such questions are ordinarily better left to expert bodies.
The Court ultimately concluded that retired officers who are re-employed constitute a separate category for pay fixation. Their demand for Sixth Pay Commission scales on the ground of fundamental equality rights therefore had no legal foundation.
Finding no violation of Articles 14 or 16, the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition.
