2023 INSC 995 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1663 OF 2016

Union of India & Ors. .… Appellant(s)

Versus

D.G.O.F. Employees Association and Anr. …. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

A.S. Bopanna, J.

1. The appellants-Union of India and others are before

this Court assailing the order dated 14.10.2014 passed by

the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (Civil) No.4606 of

2013. By the said order, the High Court has set aside the

order dated 18.10.2012 passed by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench (‘CAT’ for short) in

C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 1

O.A. No.39 of 2011 and the order dated 01.04.2013 passed

in the Review Application bearing R.A.No.43 of 2013. The

CAT had thereby declined the relief sought by the

respondents herein for parity in pay scales. The High Court

while setting aside the order of CAT has held that the

respondents would be entitled to the benefit in terms of

paragraph 3.1.9 of the recommendations contained in the

VI

th

Central Pay Commission (VI

th

CPC for short). The

appellants therefore claiming to be aggrieved are in this

appeal.

2.The respondent is an Association of Employees in the

Head Quarters of Ordnance Factory Board. They sought for

upgradation of the pay scales of Assistant and Personal

Assistants of Ordnance Factory Board, Headquarters as had

been given to similarly placed employees of Central

Secretariat Service (‘CSS’ for short) and equivalent posts in

Armed Force Headquarters Civil Service (‘AFHCS’ for short)

Cadre, New Delhi and similar other cadres. The Ministry of

Defence through the order dated 20.04.2010 did not

C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 2

approve the same. This was communicated to the

respondents by the letter dated 07.06.2010. The

respondents therefore being aggrieved were before the CAT.

The CAT also declined the prayer which resulted in the writ

proceedings before the High Court.

3. The High Court having analysed the matter was

however of the view that the members of the respondent

were historically treated as equals to CSS/CSSS employees

and had earlier enjoyed equal pay and all benefits. Hence a

direction was issued to the appellants herein to fix the

members of the Respondent Association and other similarly

placed Assistants working in Ordnance Factories and in

OFB in the same pay scale as was given to Assistants

similarly placed in CSS/CSSS, Army Headquarters, UPSC,

CAT, MEA, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs etc. with effect

from the same date as was first given to them. The appellant

therefore claiming to be aggrieved by the same are in this

appeal.

C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 3

4. Heard Mr. R. Bala Subramanian, learned senior

counsel for the appellant, Ms. Kiran Suri, learned senior

counsel for the respondents and perused the appeal papers.

5. The thrust of the contention on behalf of the

appellants is that the power of judicial review in matters

pertaining to pay scale is limited, unless arbitrariness can

be demonstrated or there is palpable discrimination. Insofar

as the provision contained in the recommendations of the

VI

th

CPC the appellants seek to rely on para 3.1.14 which

recommended replacement pay scale. The reliance placed by

the respondents instead on para 3.1.9 is disputed to

contend that it does not refer to employees of OFB and it is

further contended that it does not extend any extra benefits.

In that backdrop, it is seen that the High Court having

noted the fact that the successive CPC recommendations

had resulted in parity in pay scales and in view of such

equal treatment historically had also considered the pay

scale as provided in the VI

th

CPC as well as the intention as

contained in para 3.1.9 which provided for parity.

C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 4

6. In order to appreciate the manner in which the High

Court has analysed the issue to arrive at its conclusion, it

would be apposite to reproduce relevant portion of the

consideration made by the High Court. The same reads as

hereunder:-

“16. In this background, it would be necessary to

extract the relevant recommendations of the Sixth

CPC, i.e. paras 3.1.9 and 3.1.14 which reads as

follows:

"3.1.9 Accordingly, the Commission recommends

upgradation of the entry scale of Section Officers in

all Secretariat Services (including CSS as well as

non-participating

ministries/departments/organizations) to Rs. 7500-

12000 corresponding to the revised pay band PB 2

of Rs.8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs.4800.

Further, on par with the dispensation already

available in CSS, the Section Officers in other

Secretariat Offices, which have always had an

established parity with CSS/CSSS, shall be

extended the scale of Rs.8000-13500 in Group B

C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 5

corresponding to the revised pay band PB 2 of

Rs.8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs.4800 on

completion of four years service in the lower grade.

This will ensure full parity between all Secretariat

Offices. It is clarified that the pay band PB 2 of

Rs.8700-34800 along with grade pay of Rs.4800 is

being recommended for the post of Section Officer in

these services solely to maintain the existing

relativities which were disturbed when the scale was

extended only to the Section Officers in CSS. The

grade carrying grade pay of Rs.4800 in pay band

PB-2 is, otherwise, not to be treated as a regular

grade and should not be extended to any other

category of employees. These recommendations shall

apply mutatis mutandis to post of Private

Secretary/equivalent in these services as well. The

structure of posts in Secretariat Offices would now

be as under: -

Post Pre revised

pay scale

Corresponding revised

pay band and grade

pay

LDC Rs.3050-4590 PB-1 of Rs.4860-

20200 along with

grade pay of Rs.1900

C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 6

UDC Rs.4000-

6000

PB-1 of Rs.4860-

20200 along with

grade pay of Rs.2400

Assistant Rs.6500-

10500

PB-2 of Rs.8700-

34800 along with

grade pay of Rs.4200

Section OfficerRs.7500-12000

Rs.8000-13500 (on

completion of four

years)

PB-2 of Rs.8700-34800

along with grade pay of

Rs.4800 PB-2 of

Rs.8700-34800 along

with grade pay of

Rs.5400* (on completion

of four years)

Under

Secretary

Rs.10000-15200

Rs.8000-13500 (on

completion of four

years)

PB-3 of Rs.15600-39100

along with grade pay of

Rs.6100

Deputy

Secretary

Rs.12000-16500 PB-3 of Rs.15600-

39100 along with

grade pay of Rs.6600

Director Rs.14300-18300 PB-3 of Rs.15600-

39100 along with

grade pay of Rs.7600

* This scale shall be available only in such of those

organizations/services which have had a historical

parity with CSS/CSSS. Services like

AFHQSS/AFHQSSS/RBSS and Ministerial/

Secretarial posts in Ministries/Departments

C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 7

organizations like MEA, Ministry of Parliamentary

Affairs, CVC, UPSC, etc. would therefore be covered.”

XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX

Recommendations for non-Secretariat Organizations

3.1.14 In accordance with the principle established

in the earlier paragraphs, parity between Field and

Secretariat Offices is recommended. This will involve

merger of few grades. In the Stenographers cadre,

the posts of Stenographers Grade II and Grade I in

the existing scales of Rs.4500-7000/Rs.5000-8000

and Rs.5500-9000 will, therefore, stand merged and

be placed in the higher pay scale of Rs.6500-10500.

In the case of ministerial post in non-Secretariat

Offices, the posts of Head Clerks, Assistants, Office

Superintendent and Administrative Officers Grade

III in the respective pay scales of Rs.5000-8000,

Rs.5500-9000 and Rs.6500-105000 will stand

merged. The existing and revised structure in Field

C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 8

Organization will, therefore, be as follows:-

Designation Present

pay

scale

Recommende

d Pay scale

Corresponding Pay

Band & Grade Pay

Pay

Ban

d

Grade Pay

LDC 3050-

4590

3050-4590 PB-

1

1900

UDC 4000

-

6000

4000-6000 PB-

1

2400

Head

Clerk/Assistant/

Steno Grade

II/equivalent

4500-

7000/

5000-

8000

6500-

10500

PB-

2

420

0

Office

Superintendent/Sten

o Grade I/equivalent

5500-

9000

Superintendent/Asst

t. Admn.

Officer/Private

Secretary/equivalent

6500-

10500

6500-

10500

PB-2420

0

Administrative

Officer Grade II/Sr.

Private

7500-

12000

7500-

12000

entry grade

PB-2480

0

5400

C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 9

Secretary/equ. for fresh

recruits)

8000-

13500 (on

completion

of four

years)

(afte

r 4

year

s)

Administrative

Officer Grade I

10000-

15200

10000-

15200

PB-2610

0

Note1: The posts in the intermediate scale of

Rs.7450-11500, wherever existing, will be extended

the corresponding replacement pay band and grade

pay.”

Note 2 The existing Administrative Officer Grade

II/Sr. Private Secretary/equivalent in the scale of

Rs.7500-12000 will, however, be placed in the

corresponding replacement pay band and grade pay

till the time they become eligible to be placed in the

scale of Rs.8000-13500 corresponding to the

revised pay band PB 2 of Rs.8700-34800 along with

grade pay of Rs.5400.”

17.The Sixth CPC had this to say about the

AFHQ Civil Service, AFHQ Stenographer’s Services

C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 10

and other similarly placed posts in different

Headquarter organizations:

“AFHQ Civil Services and AFHQ

Stenographers Service

7.10.22 AFHQ Civil Services and AFHQ

Stenographers Service have demanded parity

with CSSS and CSS. Since the Commission

has recommended parity between posts in

headquarters and field offices, it is only

justified that such parity also exists between

similarly placed posts in different

headquarter organisations. The Commission,

accordingly, recommends that parity should

be maintained between the posts at the level

of Assistant and Section Officer in these

services.”

18.It is evident from the above discussion that

the denial of parity is based upon the Central

Governments interpretation of the 6

th

CPC

recommendations. As observed earlier, there

is about that parity had existed as between

C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 11

Assistants working in the OFs falling within

the jurisdiction of the OFB and identically

situated Assistants working in CSS/CSSS.

This parity had also existed as between

CSS/CSSS Assistants on the one hand and

similar ranking employees in all other

non-Secretariat employees working in

different departments in the Central

Government. This parity existed for 10

years even after the Fifth CPC

recommendations and its implementation.

The singular event which brought about a

change was not the result of the Sixth CPC

recommendations; it was the intervening

upgradation of the pay scales that had

existed for Assistants in all these

organizations pending the acceptance of

those recommendations. The upgradation

given to all others but denied to

employees in OFs was the point of

departure, and also the turning point of

the discrimination practiced against them.

C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 12

19.The Central Government’s first

explanation for denial is that this is in

terms authorized by Para 3.1.14 of the

Sixth CPC recommendations. That is

plainly incorrect, because that portion of

the Sixth CPC merely indicated the

replacement scales from the existing

Rs.5000-8000/- to be Rs.6500-10,500/-.

By the time this recommendation was

accepted, Assistants in the CSS/CSSS

were already enjoying the higher scale of

Rs.6500-10,500/-. Even the CCS (Revised

Pay) Rules, 2008 support this inference.

Under Rule 3(1) of the said Rules, “existing

basic pay” means “pay drawn in the

prescribed existing scale of pay, including

stagnation increment(s), but does not include

any other type of pay like ‘special pay’, etc.

Rule 3(2) on the other hand, prescribed

“existing scale” in relation to a Government

servant as “the present scale applicable to

the post held by the Government servant…as

on the 1

st

day of January..2006”. Rule 3 (7)

C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 13

defined “revised pay structure” as one in

relation to any post specified in column 2 of

the First Schedule and meaning “the pay

band and grade pay specified against that

post or the pay scale specified in column 5 &

6 thereof, unless a different revised pay band

and grade pay or pay scale is notified

separately for that post.” Rule 11 prescribed

the mode of fixation in pay after 01.01.2006.

Part B of Section II of the First Schedule to

the Rules specifically stated as follows:

“XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

“Sl.

No.

(1)

Post

(2)

Present

scale

(3)

Revised

Scale (4)

Corresponding Pay &

Band

Para

No of

the

report

(7)

Pay Band

(5)

Grade Pay

(6)

OFFICE STAFF IN THE SECRETARIAT*

1. Section

Officer/

PS/equi

valent

6500-

10500/

-

7500-

12000

8000-

13500 (on

PB-2

PB-3

4800/-

5400/-

(on

3.1.9

C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 14

completion

of 4 years)

completion

of 4 years)

* This scale shall be available only in such of those

organizations/services which have had a historical

parity with CSS/CSSS. Services like

AFHQSS/AFHQSSS/RBSS and

Ministrial/Secretarial posts in

Ministries/Departments organizations like MEA,

Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, CVC, UPSC, etc.

would therefore be covered.

OFFICE STAFF WORKING IN ORGANIZATIONS OUTSIDE THE

SECRETARIAT

1.Head

clerk/Assistants/Sten

o Grade II equivalent

4500-

7000/5000

-8000/

6500-

10500

8000-

135000

(on

completio

n of 4

years)

PB

-2

4200/-

5400/-

(on

completio

n of 4

years)

3.1.1

2

.

Administrative Officer

Grade II/Senior

Private

7500-

12000

7500-

12000

(entry

PB-

2

480/-

5400/-

3.1.

1

C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 15

Secretary/equivalent grade for

fresh

recruits)

8000-

13000/-

(on

completion

of 4 years)

(on

completion

of 4 years)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX”

The interesting part of the above table is that but

for the explanation it affords, the substantive part

of the Rules are based on the replacement scales

being in accordance with the ones indicated in Part

A of the First Schedule-read with definition of

“revised pay”. The scales indicated, under the First

schedule are in the form of merger of four pay

scales- Rs.4500-7000/-; Rs.5000-8000/-; Rs.5500-

9000/- and Rs.6500-10,500/-. All are merged into

one pay scale, i.e., Rs.9300-34800/-. The Rules, as

well as the Sixth CPC recommendations

specifically talk of continuation of pay benefits

on the basis of “historical parity”. As observed

C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 16

earlier, this historical parity is not denied;

however, the explanation for denial of the

benefit of upgradation – and the consequent

placement in higher pay scales, to employees in

Ordnance Factories is that OFB employees are

not specifically mentioned, as opposed to

mention of other non-secretariat employees:

“like AFHQSS/AFHQSSS/RBSS and

Ministerial/Secretarial posts in Ministries/

Departments organizations like MEA, Ministry

of Parliamentary Affairs, CVC, UPSC, etc.” This

argument is both unpersuasive and specious,

because mention of specific department was

meant only by way of illustration; else a

contrary intention would have been clearer.

That the mention of some, not all non-

secretariat employees is illustrative and not

exhaustive is clear from the qualifying terms –

“like” and “etc.” The allusion to historical parity

with reference to only a few illustrations was to

encompass all those organizations where

employees had identical pay scales and not

merely those in enumerated departments or

C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 17

organizations. Any other interpretation would

negate the whole intention of maintaining

historical parity altogether.

21. The other submission of the respondents

was that employees in Ordnance Factories were

not working in Headquarters based

organizations. The history of Ordnance

Factories, available from the record is that by

the Central Government order dated 27

th

September, 1975, the President had extended

the Armed Forces Headquarters Service scheme

mutatis mutandis to the Directorate General

Headquarters Staff. Later, by order of

09.01.1979, the Ordnance Factory Board was

set up at the Headquarters office of the DGOF.

These documents point to the untenability of

the respondents’ submission that of services are

not Headquartes based services. In this context, it

is worth mentioning that what comprises

“Headquarters” is indicated in the Sixth CPC

recommendations although no such definition

exists under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules. At para

C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 18

3.1.1 of the Sixth CPC recommendations, it is

stated that:

“Office staff in Headquarters and Field

Organisations of Government of India

3.1.1 The various Secretariats of the

Ministries and Departments of Government

of India together constitute the headquarters

organization. The Secretariats are chiefly

involved in matters relating the formulation of

policy and ensuring that these policies are

executed in a coordinated and effective

manner. Actual execution of these policies,

however, is left to field agencies outside the

Secretariat which may be either attached or

subordinate offices or quasi-

Government/autonomous/public sector

undertakings.”

22.If the respondents’ submission is that

Headquarters implies the headquarters being

located in New Delhi, there is no warrant-

either express or implied, for such a

C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 19

contention. Headquarters of different Central

Government organizations can and are

geographically dispersed- some, deliberately

having regard to functional necessity and

others as a historical reality. These can,

without anything more, not be the basis of

discrimination or valid differentiation.”

(emphasis supplied)

7.Having noted the manner of consideration made by the

High Court, before we advert to appreciate the correctness

of the same, it would be necessary to take note of the rival

contentions addressed relating to the power of the Court to

delve into the aspect relating to determination of pay scale.

The learned senior counsel for the appellant in support of

his contention that the fixation of pay scale is in the realm

of the employer and the Court should exercise restraint has

relied on the pronouncement of this Court in State of

Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others (2017) 1

SCC 148 with specific reference to para 42 wherein the

parameters relating to consideration of cases relating to

C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 20

equal pay for equal work has been adverted to and the

extent to which comparison between one set of employees

with another is permissible. It is stated therein that where

there is no comparison between one set of employees of one

organisation and another set of employees of a different

organization, there can be no question of the equation of

pay scales under the principle of “equal pay for equal work”

even if two organizations have a common employer.

8.The decision in Union of India vs. Indian Navy

Civilian Design Officers Association and Another (2023)

SCC Online SC 173 is next referred to by the learned senior

counsel for the appellant to point out the consideration

made therein at para 11 to 14 with reference to the earlier

decisions of this Court. It is thereafter held therein that the

Courts, therefore, should not enter upon the task of job

evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like

the Pay Commissions which undertake rigorous exercise for

job evaluation after taking into consideration several factors

like the nature of work, the duties, accountability and

C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 21

responsibilities attached to the posts, the extent of powers

conferred on the persons holding a particular post, the

promotional avenues, the statutory rules governing the

conditions of service, the horizontal and vertical relativities

with similar jobs etc.

9.The learned senior counsel for the respondents on the

other hand has referred to the decision of this Court in

Union of India vs. Dineshan K.K. (2008) 1 SCC 586

wherein it is held that though the equation of posts and

equation of pay structure being complex matters are

generally left to the executive and expert bodies like the Pay

Commission etc. and the carefully evolved pay structure

ought not to be ordinarily disturbed by the Court as it may

upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other

cadres as well, nevertheless, it will not be correct to lay

down as an absolute rule that merely because

determination and granting of pay scales is the prerogative

of the executive, the Court has no jurisdiction to examine

any pay structure and an aggrieved employee cannot be left

C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 22

with no remedy if he is unjustly treated by arbitrary State

action or inaction, except to go on knocking at the doors of

the executive or the legislature. It is further held therein

that undoubtedly, when there is no dispute with regard to

the qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the persons

holding identical posts or ranks but they are treated

differently merely because they belong to different

departments or the basis for classification or post is ex facie

irrational, arbitrary or unjust it is open to the Court to

intervene.

10. A cumulative perusal of the opinion expressed by this

Court would indicate that though the Courts would not

undertake the exercise of determining the pay scale keeping

in view the nature of the work by comparing employees who

are not similarly placed in cases where the exercise of

determining such complex issues would arise, at the same

time, relief cannot be denied to the employees when the

entitlement is denied due to irrational consideration

without application of mind to the facts involved in the case

C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 23

by the employer, thereby denying the benefits to the

employees. If this aspect of the matter is kept in view, a

perusal of the consideration made by the High Court as

seen from the portion reproduced above from the judgment

of the High Court, it would disclose that the High Court has

not undertaken the exercise regarding which restraint has

been expressed by this Court. However, on the admitted

facts and the earlier situation which existed, a consideration

has been made keeping in view the very recommendation of

the Pay Commission in reckoning the appropriate

application of the pay scale. In that regard, all that has been

adverted to by the High Court is as to whether the

employees who are the members of the respondent and are

employed in the headquarters are similarly placed as that of

the employees of CSS/CSSS and in that regard has

considered the matter further to ensure that the members

of the respondent are not discriminated upon.

11. In that view of the matter what is to be taken into

consideration is as to whether in the facts and

C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 24

circumstances of the present case the High Court was

justified in arriving at the conclusion that the provision

contained in para 3.1.9 of the Sixth CPC would apply to the

fact situation and in that regard whether it had rightly

rejected the contention of the appellant herein that it ought

to have been guided by para 3.1.14 of the

recommendations. The contention as noted by the High

Court is what was urged before us. In that regard, at the

outset it is necessary to clarify that the conclusion as

reached with regard to the parity in pay scale in the case of

the employees who are members of the first respondent is

basically due to the fact that they are employees in the

headquarters of the Ordnance Factory and therefore they

are similarly placed as that of the Assistants in CSS/CSSS

Army Headquarters as well as such other similarly placed

organisations referred to in the recommendations. If that be

the position, the conclusion as reached by the High Court is

unexceptionable.

C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 25

12. However, the learned senior counsel for the appellant

in order to buttress his contention that para 3.1.14 of the

recommendations would apply has sought to rely on the

decision of this Court in Union of India and Others vs.

Manoj Kumar and Others Civil Appeal Nos.913-914 of

2021 disposed of on 31.08.2021 wherein this court while

examining the very same provision as contained in paras

3.1.9 and 3.1.14 had arrived at the conclusion that the

benefit of equal pay in the said case cannot be extended and

had held that the Pay Commission, which is a specialised

body set up with the objective of resolving anomalies had

made its recommendation, which would not call for

interference. The decision would indicate that this Court

though had referred to the very paragraph as contained in

the Sixth CPC recommendations, what had however arisen

for consideration therein was with regard to disparity

between Secretariat and Field Officers. What was noted in

that case was the claim made by Private Secretaries Grade

II employed in Eastern Central Railways (Field Office/Zonal

Railways) for parity in pay with their counterparts working

C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 26

in the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service/Railway

Boards Secretariat Stenographers Service/Central

Administrative Tribunal. In that view, this Court was of the

view that though there is an observation that the

recommendations shall apply mutatis mutandis to Private

Secretaries and posts equivalent thereto in the service

under para 3.1.9; the subsequent para 3.1.14 has

specifically dealt with the aspect of parity between the Field

and Secretariat Offices which was really the subject matter

of the claim therein. The said observation, though

emphasised by the learned senior counsel for the appellant

would indicate that it is not a consideration akin to the

consideration herein. As seen from the highlighted portion

of the reproduced paragraphs from the impugned order

passed by the High Court hereinabove, it would disclose

that in the instant facts the reliance placed by the High

Court on para 3.1.9 is based on the fact that there was

similarity inasmuch as the pay scale as sought for

implementation is the one which was provided to the

C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 27

employees of the headquarters as they were similarly placed

as the employees of the headquarters in CSS/CSSS.

13. Further, what was also taken into consideration by

the High Court is the historical similarity in pay scales

which existed prior to the recommendations in the Sixth

CPC. Such historical similarity which had existed was taken

note and, in that light, the pay scale which was applicable

was taken into consideration and had accordingly arrived at

the conclusion that the employees in the headquarters of

the Ordnance Factories being similarly placed cannot be

discriminated. Therefore, such consideration in the instant

case would fall within the parameters as permitted by this

Court. Also, in the present circumstance, the High Court

has adverted to the fact situation and has thereby rectified

the pay anomaly. In fact, the question of parity with regard

to the pay scale to the Assistants in the lower formations in

the Indian Navy with that of the Assistants in CSS was held

as discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution by this Court in the case of All India Naval

C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 28

Clerks Association and Others vs. Union of India and

Others in Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition

(Civil) No.29204 of 2019 dated 27.07.2022.

14. As noted by the High Court, it is evident that parity of

pay scales vis-à-vis LDCs, UDCs, Assistants/PAs and

Stenographers, was maintained even prior to 01.01.1986

under the Third Central Pay Commission recommendations

(for the period of 01.01.1973 to 31.03.1985). This parity

was continued in the Fourth Central Pay Commission

recommendations (with effect from 01.01.1986 to

31.12.1995) and the Fifth Central Pay Commission

recommendations (for the period 01.01.1996 to

14.09.2006). The post of Assistants, PAs and Stenographers

is governed by Director General Ordnance Factories

Headquarters Civil Service Rules, 1977.

15. Be that as it may, in the present facts the perusal of

the judgment passed by the High Court impugned herein

would indicate that the High Court having kept in view the

legal, as well as the factual aspects, has not proceeded in a

C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 29

manner so as to equate two sets of employees in different

organizations. But, keeping in view the recommendation of

the Pay Commission and the applicability of the pay scales

recommended to similarly placed employees employed in the

headquarters and on noticing discrimination despite

historical similarity has merely rectified the error, which

does not call for interference.

16. In view of the above, the appeal being devoid of merit,

stands dismissed with no order as to costs.

17. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.

…………...………………….…………………J.

(A.S. BOPANNA)

…………...………………….…………………J.

(PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA)

New Delhi,

November 09, 2023

C.A. No.1663 of 2016 Page 30