The Supreme Court has observed that Pay Commissions may be justified in recommending different pay scales for seemingly similar posts and if the State accepts such differentiation based on a reasonable classification, then the Courts will not interfere.

The  doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" will not strictly apply in such cases.

"It may be true that the nature of work involved in two posts may sometimes appear to be more or less similar, however, if the classification of posts and determination of pay scale have reasonable nexus with the objective or purpose sought to be achieved, namely, the efficiency in the administration, the Pay Commissions would be justified in recommending and the State would be justified in prescribing different pay scales for the seemingly similar posts. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues or frustration due to longer duration of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. It is also a well-accepted position that there could be more than one grade in a particular service. The classification of posts and the determination of pay structure, thus falls within the exclusive domain of the Executive, and the Courts or Tribunals cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service", the Court observed.

The Supreme Court held that in matters involving financial implications the power of judicial review is very limited. In such matters the wisdom of the concerned expert body is amenable to judicial review only if there is a gross case of arbitrariness or unfairness which is established by the aggrieved party.

A Bench comprising Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi made the aforesaid observation while setting aside orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Delhi High Court granting parity of pay scale of Junior Design Officers (JDOs) in the Navy with that of the Civilian Technical Officers (CTOs). While doing so the Bench emphasised that equal pay can be granted, but only if it is for equal work with equal value. It opined that the duties and responsibilities of JDOs and CTOs are distinct; their promotional avenues were also based on different criteria.

The Court noted that though the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” can be enforced in a court of law, the equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. It further observed that the equation of pots and the determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and expert body like the Pay Commission should be granted the liberty to evaluate the same after considering the various aspects. It was of the view that there can be more than one grade in a particular service

“The classification of posts and the determination of pay structure, thus falls within the exclusive domain of the Executive, and the Courts or Tribunals cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service.”

Case Title: Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association And Anr.
Citation: Civil Appeal No. 8329 of 2011