http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 793 of 1998

PETITIONER:

State of Mizoram & Another

RESPONDENT:

Mizoram Engineering Service Association & Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/05/2004

BENCH:

Brijesh Kumar & Arun Kumar.

JUDGMENT:

JUDGMENT

ARUN KUMAR, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28th

February, 1997 passed by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High

Court. By the Impugned judgment the Division Bench dismissed

the appeal against the judgment dated 17th May, 1996 passed by

the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge had allowed

a writ petition filed by respondent herein challenging a notification

No.G.12011/3/87 F.Est dated 3rd February, 1989 whereby certain

categories of engineers in the State Engineering Service had been

excluded for purposes of revision of pay scales accepted by the

State vide Notification No.G.12011/3/87F.Est dated 19th January,

1989. The Mizoram Engineering Service Association (respondent)

has been demanding higher pay scales for its members. The

background is that prior to 1971 what is now known as the State

of Mizoram was a district called the Lushai Hills District within the

State of Assam. From 1971 to 1986 Mizoram was a Union

Territory under the North Eastern Areas Reorganisation Act, 1971.

It attained full state-hood on 20th February, 1987. In 1974 when

the State was a Union Territory, the Government of India

constituted a Departmental Pay Committee to suggest scales of

pay and allowances for employees of Mizoram on the pattern of

Central Government employees vide Ministry of Home Affairs letter

No.1.3.1973.MP dated 4th November, 1974. On the

recommendation of the said Departmental Pay Committee, the

Government of India revised the scales of pay and allowances for

the employees of the State of Mizoram w.e.f. 1.1.1973. On a

demand made by Superintending and Executive Engineers of the

respondent Association for equalizing their respective scales of

pay with their counterparts in the Central Public Works

Department, the Government of India vide letter dated 16.10.1983

intimated to the Secretary to the Mizoram Administration, Public

Works Department conveying the sanction of President of India for

revision of pay scales of the Engineers (Group 'A' posts) in tune

with the pay scales enjoyed by the engineers in the CPWD.

The Government of India accepted the Fourth Central Pay

Commission Report regarding revision of pay scales for Group A,

B, C, D & E posts in the Central Civil Services w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The

recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission accepted

by the Government of India became applicable for the civil services

in Mizoram also. The Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules,

1986 came into force w.e.f. 1.1.1986 and they were made

applicable to the employees forming part of the civil services in

Mizoram. Certain representations were made on behalf of

employees for removal of anomalies resulting from the Fourth

Central Pay Commission Report. In 1987 an Anomalies

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5

Committee was appointed to look into the alleged anomalies and

make suitable recommendations. The recommendations of the

Anomalies Committee created further anomalies rather than

resolving them. On 7th November, 1988 another Anomalies

Committee was appointed. The report of the Anomalies

Committee was accepted by the Government of the State of

Mizoram. A notification No. G 12011/3/87F.Est. dated 19th

January, 1989 accepting the recommendations was issued. Soon

thereafter the State Government issued another notification dated

3rd February, 1989 (the impugned notification) to the effect that the

scales of pay for Group 'A' officers as mentioned in paras 28 of

Schedule A and Schedule B did not include pay scales for MCS

officers/MPS officers whose pay scales were governed by their

respective service rules. The notification further excluded

engineering officers of the rank of Executive Engineer and

Superintending Engineer from the benefits of the notification dated

19th January, 1989. This notification was challenged by the

respondent Association by filing a Writ Petition in the Gauhati High

Court. In the Writ Petition the first prayer was with regard to

quashing the notification dated 3rd February, 1989 which excluded

the Executive Engineers and the Superintending Engineers from

getting the benefit of revised pay scales under the notification of

the State Government dated 19th January, 1989. The second

prayer was with respect to the Chief Engineers and Additional

Chief Engineers seeking directions that they should get the

conversion scale of pay of Rs.5900-6700 and Rs.4500-5700

respectively instead of the revised scales of pay prescribed for

them by the State Government. The scale of Rs.5900-6700 for the

Chief Engineer and Rs.4500-5700 for Additional Chief Engineer

demanded by the respondent Association was as per the

recommendations of the 4th Central Pay Commission and was the

same as was being allowed to incumbents holding equivalent

posts in the Central Public Works Department. The learned Single

judge allowed the Writ Petition granting both the prayers of the Writ

Petitioner. The appeal against the judgment of the learned Single

Judge was dismissed by the Division Bench. The present appeal

is directed against the said judgment of the Division Bench.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

At the outset we may note that the learned counsel for the

appellant has not seriously challenged the impugned judgment so

far as it grants relief to the Executive Engineers and

Superintending Engineers by quashing the Notification dated 3rd

February, 1989. The challenge in the appeal is mainly directed

against the scale of pay granted to the Chief Engineers and

Additional Chief Engineers i.e. Rs.5900-6700 and Rs.4500-5700

respectively. In this connection following points have been raised:

1. The base year for purposes of revision of pay scales of

Chief Engineer and Additional Chief Engineer should be

taken as 1973 and not 1983 even though the revision was

being taken into consideration w.e.f. 1.1.1986 as per the

Fourth Central Pay Commission Report which had been

accepted by the State Government.

2. In respect of Chief Engineer, the recommendation of the

Pay Anomalies Committee which was accepted vide

Notification dated 19th January, 1989 was to the effect that

only the existing incumbent would get the scale of

Rs.5900-6700 and future entrants would be entitled to pay

scales of Rs.4500-5700 only. This scale is the scale for

all heads of departments in the State of Mizoram while the

scale of Rs.5900-6700 was for next higher post.

It was not disputed that the then incumbent of the post

of Chief Engineer namely, Mr. Robula was given the scale

of Rs.5900-6700. It was submitted that the said scale was

specially allowed to him since he was holding the post on

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5

1.1.1986 i.e. the date from which Fourth Central Pay

Commission recommendations were made applicable.

Subsequent entrants to the service were not to be given

that scale. (Per letter dated 13th January,1989 from

Secretary, PWD to Director Accounts & Treasury,

Mizoram).

3. It was vehemently argued that scale of Rs.5900-6700 was

being allowed by the Government of India for senior level

posts in the corresponding cadres. Engineering Service in

the State of Mizoram was not an organized service.

There were no Recruitment Rules for the service.

Therefore, there were no senior level posts which would

entitle the incumbents to get the grade of Rs.5900-6700.

So far as the question as to which base year should be taken

into consideration for purposes of revision of pay i.e. 1973 or 1983,

we may recall that Mizoram became a Union Territory in the year

1973. The Government of India had accepted the fact that the

persons employed in Engineering Services within the State of

Mizoram should get pay scale at par with those working in the

Central Public Works Department. This decision was also

implemented. The scales of pay for Engineers working in the

Mizoram State were revised w.e.f. 1973. The next crucial event in

this connection is the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay

Commission which were accepted by the State of Mizoram as well.

These recommendations take 1983 as the base year for the

purpose of revision of pay scales. Apart from this the Central Civil

Services (Revised Pay) Amendment Rules, 1987 also take the

year 1983 as the base year. These rules came into force on 1st

January, 1986. At that time Mizoram was a Union Territory. The

Government of India accepted the Rules. They were made

applicable in Mizoram as well. The schedule annexed to the Rules

refers to present scales and revised scales of pay. The present

scales mean the scales which were in force at that time. For the

relevant category of posts the existing scale given in the Schedule

is Rs.2250-125/2-2750 and the revised pay scale is Rs.5900-200-

6700. In this background there does not appear to be any good

reason for taking 1973 as the base year for the purposes of pay

revision in Mizoram. No reason is forthcoming. Mr. L. Nageshwara

Rao, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the

appellant relied on a Notification dated 1st February, 1989 to

submit that it was the decision of the State Government to treat the

year 1973 as the base year for the purpose of pay revision and

that has to be accepted. We are unable to accept this submission

made on behalf of the appellants in view of the fact that

recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission have

been duly accepted by the State Government. Additional factor

which impels us to take this view is that the State Government

itself accepted the scale of Rs.5900-6700 and allowed the same to

the then incumbent Mr. Robula w.e.f. 1.1.1986. The State linked

up revision of pay scale of Mr. Robula with the date of revision of

pay scales as per recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay

Commission. A different reasoning cannot be applied in case of

other officers in the service. In this connection it is also worth

noting that in para 4 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the

State Government before the learned Single Judge in response to

the Writ Petition it is admitted that the existing pay scale for the

post of Chief Engineer was Rs.2250-2500 prior to enforcement of

recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission. This is

also admitted that the conversion scale for the scale of Rs.2250-

2500 is Rs.5100-5700 and 5900-6700 as per the Fourth Pay

Commission Report. However, it is submitted that grade of

Rs.5900-6700 was applicable only in respect of organized Medical,

Engineering and other Central Services as per specific

recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission. In view

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5

of this stand of the State Government it is difficult to accept that the

Chief Engineers will not be allowed the grade of Rs.5900-6700.

Coming to the argument that the scale of pay of Rs.5900-

6700 was confined to only the then Chief Engineer Mr. Robula

and was not be allowed to future entrants in the service, we find no

justification for this. The fact that the revised pay scale was being

allowed to Mr. Robula in tune with the recommendations of the

Fourth Central Pay Commission, shows that the State Government

had duly accepted the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay

Commission. Having done so, it cannot be permitted to

discriminate between individuals and not allow the same to the

rest. In this context the learned counsel for the appellant

submitted that it is not unusual that sometimes special pay is

granted to an individual and the same does not become a

precedent for others. As a proposition it may not be disputed. But

there has to be special reason for this. In the facts of the present

case we do not find any justification for confining the higher scale

to a particular individual and deny the same to others. There may

be special reasons for instance special merit, expertise or the like,

for giving special pay to a particular individual. In the present case

no such reason is forthcoming. On the other hand the reason

given is that since he was holding the post on 1.1.1986, the date

from which Fourth Central Pay Commission recommendations

were given effect to, he was being allowed the higher pay scale.

This reason rather supports the case of respondent. It shows an

admission on the part of the appellant that the revised pay scales

for the post of Chief Engineer as per the recommendations of the

Fourth Central Pay Commission was Rs.5900-6700 and was

allowed to a Chief Engineer. The State Government cannot be

permitted to discriminate between similarly placed individuals in

this behalf between those holding the post at the time of revision of

pay scales and future incumbents of the post. The argument has

no merit.

Great stress was laid on the fact that Engineering Service in

the State was not an organized service and therefore, it did not

have categorisation by way of entrance level and senior level posts

and for that reason the higher scale of Rs.5900-6700 which was

admissible for senior level posts could not be given in the

Engineering Service. The main reason for dubbing Engineering

Service as an unorganized service in the State is absence of

recruitment rules for the service. Who is responsible for not

framing the recruitment rules? Are the members of the

Engineering Service responsible for it? The answer is clearly 'No'.

For failure of the State Government to frame recruitment rules and

bring Engineering Service within the framework of organized

service, the engineers cannot be made to suffer. Apart from the

reason of absence of recruitment rules for the Engineering Service,

we see hardly any difference in organized and unorganized service

so far as Government service is concerned In Government service

such a distinction does not appear to have any relevance. Civil

Service is not trade unionism. We fail to appreciate what is sought

to be conveyed by use of the words 'organised service' and

'unorganised service'. Nothing has been pointed out in this behalf.

The argument is wholly misconceived.

The learned counsel for the appellant also argued that if the

scale of Rs.5900-6700 is to be allowed to the Chief Engineers, the

State Government will have to allow the same scale to other heads

of departments in the service of the State Government which will

be a heavy burden on the financial resources of the State

Government and for that reason we should restrict the scale for

post of Chief Engineer and Additional Chief Engineer to Rs.4500-

5700 and Rs.4100-5300 respectively. In our view this is hardly any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5

ground to interfere with the decision of the High Court. It has been

found that the claim of the respondents is fully justified by the facts

on record. The Central Government as well as the State

Government accepted the recommendations of the Fourth Central

Pay Commission and the scales being allowed to the members of

the respondent Association are based on those recommendations.

Thus we do not find any merit in the present appeal. The

impugned judgment does not call for interference. The appeal is

dismissed leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.