R.K. YADAV VS. UNION OF INDIA

2026 INSC 848Writ Petition No. 193 of 2012 Page 1 of 28

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 193 OF 2012

R.K. YADAV & ANR. …PETITIONERS

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS …RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

Heard learned counsel Mr. Nishant Krishan Yadav for

the petitioners, learned Additional Solicitor General Ms.

Archana Pathak Dave for Union of India and its authorities-

respondent Nos. 2 and 3, assisted by learned advocate on

record Mr. Amrish Kumar and other advocates.

2. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32

of the Constitution and seeking to assert the Fundamental

Rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution in the

subject of fixation of pay scales, the petitioners have

Writ Petition No. 193 of 2012 Page 2 of 28

advanced in the present petition, the following principal

prayers,

“(a) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus

directing the respondent no.1 to implement the

recommendations of 6th Pay Commission in

regard to Central Government Industrial

Tribunal, at par with other Tribunals.

(b) further directing the respondent no.1 to fix the

pay of the petitioner no.1 in pursuance of the

recommendations of the 6th Pay Commission

keeping in view of the orders dated 07.04.2010

and 04.05.2010 passed by this Hon'ble Court in

I.A. Nos.276 & 5 respectively in Writ Petition

Civil No.1022 of 1989

(c) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to set

aside the order dated 16.01.2012 vide

No.A11015/1/2002-CLS-II.”

3. It is the case of the petitioners that they were appointed

as Presiding Officers of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunals-cum-Labour Courts1, functioning at New Delhi

and Hyderabad respectively. It was contended that the

tribunals which they presided over were the Union

Courts/Tribunals within the meaning of Article 247 read

with Article 323-B of the Constitution. It was submitted that

other tribunals, such as the Central Administrative

1 Hereinafter, “CGIT-cum-LCs”.

Writ Petition No. 193 of 2012 Page 3 of 28

Tribunal, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Railway Claims

Tribunal, Debt Recovery Tribunal, the Foreign Exchange

Maintenance Authority, Company Law Board , etc., are also

tribunals within the purview of Articles 247, 323-A, and

323-B of the Constitution.

3.1 The petitioners submitted that CGIT-cum-LCs on one

hand and all the above tribunals on the other, stand at the

same pedestal. Despite that position, it was contended, the

Government of India accepted the recommendations of the

6th Pay Commission for the officers of other tribunals such

as the Central Administrative Tribunal and Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal, however, as far as the CGIT-cum-LCs

were concerned, the Government treated them along with

the courts of the District Judge constituted by the State

Government under Article 233 of the Constitution, and the

pay structure and scales of pay were fixed accordingly.

3.2 The scales of pay recommended by Justice E.

Padmanabhan Committee, which were approved by this

Court for the District Judiciary of all the States, were applied

to the Presiding Officers like the petitioners of CGIT-cum-

Writ Petition No. 193 of 2012 Page 4 of 28

LCs. It is the case of the petitioners that thereby the

respondent- Union of India treated unequals with equals

and arbitrarily grouped the petitioners with the District

Judiciary, denying them the 6th Pay Commission pay scales.

3.3 The premise of unequal treatment sought to be set up

by the petitioners is that, instead of being accorded the 6th

Pay Commission pay scales, they have been extended the

pay scales recommended by Justice E. Padmanabhan

Committee, equivalent to those granted to the District

Judiciary.

3.4 The respondents contend that the tribunals are

constituted by the Central Government under different

statutes enacted by Parliament in exercise of powers under

Articles 247, 323-A, and 323-B of the Constitution, or under

existing laws saved by Article 372 of the Constitution, and,

therefore, cannot be put at par with the courts and tribunals

constituted by the State Government under Articles 233 and

234, or under an enactment as provided by Article 323-B of

the Constitution. Raising a corollary, it was contended that

not extending the 6th Pay Commission pay scales to the

Writ Petition No. 193 of 2012 Page 5 of 28

Presiding Officers in the CGIT-cum-LCs is arbitrary and

violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

3.5 It was stated that for the purpose of revision of pay for

the District Judiciary, this Court had appointed Justice E.

Padmanabhan Committee which, in its report,

recommended Rs.51550-1230-58930-1380-63070 for the

District Judge (entry level) and the District Judge (selection

grade) was recommended to be Rs.57700-1230-58930-

1380-67210-1540-70290. The Super Time Scale for the

District Judge was recommended to be Rs.70290-1540-

76450. These scales were given to the Presiding Officers of

CGIT-cum-LCs. It was contended that in Delhi, 6th Central

Pay Commission’s recommendations were implemented as

an interim measure.

3.6 The petitioners stated that petitioner No. 1, who was a

judicial officer of the Government of NCT of Delhi, came to

be appointed as Presiding Officer of CGIT-I, New Delhi, and

took charge of the post on 21.04.2009 on deputation till

30.06.2009. From 01.07.2009, petitioner No. 1 was taken

on re-employment basis to work up to the age of 65 years.

Writ Petition No. 193 of 2012 Page 6 of 28

Petitioner No. 2 was also accordingly appointed as Presiding

Officer of the CGIT, Hyderabad.

3.7 The pay of the petitioners was fixed equivalent to the

Super Time Scale available to a District Judge. The

petitioners sought to produce additional documents

pointing out amendments in the Central Civil Services

(Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, and that in terms of the

Amendment, the scale was hiked in the Higher

Administrative Grade and the respondent-Union of India

issued necessary orders of pay scales for Presiding Officers

of CGIT-cum-LCs in accordance therewith based on the

recommendations of Justice E. Padmanabhan Committee’s

recommendations. It was stated that the dissatisfied

petitioners made several representations for the grant of 6th

Pay Commission pay scales, but in vain.

4. The petition and the prayers were contested by

respondent No. 1-Union of India by filing an affidavit-in-

reply, wherein the following facts came to be highlighted,

(i) The petitioner was appointed as Presiding Officer

in CGIT-cum-LC-I, New Delhi, with effect from

Writ Petition No. 193 of 2012 Page 7 of 28

21.04.2009. His appointment was on deputation

basis up to date of superannuation, which was

30.06.2009, whereafter, he came to be appointed

with effect from 01.07.2009 on re-employment basis.

(ii) At the time of appointment to the post of Presiding

Officer in the CGIT-cum-LCs, the petitioner was

drawing his pay in the pay scale of Rs.22,850-500-

24,850 as applied to the Delhi Judicial Service.

(iii) 22 CGIT-cum-LCs are under the administrative

control of the Ministry of Labour and Employment,

set up under the provisions of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, out of which 10 are non-plan

CGITs whereas 12 are plan CGITs.

(iv) The CGIT-cum-LC-I, Mumbai and CGIT-cum-LC,

Kolkata, function as National Tribunals, which are

headed by Presiding Officers selected from amongst

High Court Judges, either serving or retired, or

amongst the District or Additional District Judges,

either serving or retired having experience of a

Writ Petition No. 193 of 2012 Page 8 of 28

minimum of three years in such capacity as District

Judge.

(v) Only High Court Judges are qualified to be

appointed as Presiding Officers of National Tribunals.

On re-employment of the petitioner as Presiding

Officer in CGIT-cum-LC, the pay drawn was in pay

scale of Rs.22,850 as stated above.

(vi) Upon revision of the pay scales of the Central

Government employees in accordance with the

recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission,

the Ministry of Labour and Employment had referred

the matter to the Department of Justice seeking

advice in respect of the pay scales of Presiding

Officers of CGIT-cum-LCs, other than the National

Industrial Tribunals and whether they are to be

revised corresponding to the 6th Pay Commission

recommendations.

(vii) Earlier the pay scales of the Presiding Officers

of the CGIT were revised in accordance with the

recommendations of the first National Judicial Pay

Writ Petition No. 193 of 2012 Page 9 of 28

Commission named Shetty Commission by Letter

dated 28.09.2005 of the Ministry of Labour and

Employment.

(viii) This was in the background of the fact that the

pay scales of the Presiding Officers like the

petitioners, were revised in view of the Shetty

Commission's recommendations by letter dated

28.09.2005, therefore, it was to be ascertained

whether the pay revision would now be calculated in

light of the Shetty Commission's recommendations or

as per the 6th Pay Commission pay scales.

(ix) The Department of Justice observed that the

Ministry of Labour and Employment with the

approval of the Ministry of Finance, revised the pay

scales of the Presiding Officers of CGITs in

accordance with the recommendations of the Shetty

Commission to bring the pay scales at par with the

pay scales of District Judges in the State Judiciary.

(x) The pay scales of the Presiding Officers linked

to the pay scales granted to the District Judges after

Writ Petition No. 193 of 2012 Page 10 of 28

Shetty Commission, came to be revised and

implemented after Justice E. Padmanabhan

Committee recommended about the revision. The

revised pay scales of the Presiding Officer, CGIT has

made in the consonance with the recommendation of

Justice E. Padmanabhan Committee dated

16.01.2012.

(xi) The revised pay structure has been

implemented for the petitioners. Accordingly,

petitioner No. 1 has been placed in Higher

Administration Grade scale of Rs. 67,000/- and

79,000/- and that his last pay was fixed accordingly.

4.1 It was next contended by the respondents that the

petitioners are reemployed persons. As per Central Civil

Services (Fixation of pay of Re-employed Pensioners)

Orders, 1986, reemployed pensioners shall be allowed to

draw pay only in the prescribed scales of pay of the post in

which they are reemployed. No protection of pay scales, it

was stated, of the post held by the persons like petitioners

in their reemployed capacity could be granted.

Writ Petition No. 193 of 2012 Page 11 of 28

4.2 It was stated that the CGIT-cum-LCs, Mumbai and

CGIT-cum-LCs, Kolkata functions as National Tribunals,

which are headed by the Presiding Officers who are selected

from amongst the High Court Judges or the

District/Additional District Judges having served for three

years as District Judges. It was further stated that only the

High Court judges are qualified and that the Presiding

Officers of CGIT-cum-LCs would hold the post till he or she

attains age of 65 years.

4.3 The respondent stated that the representation of the

petitioners regarding availing 6th pay commission pay scales

to them was referred to the Ministry of Finance (Department

of Expenditure) as well as Department of Personnel and

Training, however, neither of the departments was of the

view for reviewing the pay structure of the persons

belonging to the class of the petitioners – the Presiding

Officers of CGIT-cum-LCs.

5. Before proceeding to examine the contentions

regarding unequal and arbitrary treatment in the fixation of

pay scales of the petitioners and the like re-employed

Writ Petition No. 193 of 2012 Page 12 of 28

officers, the chronological details of the pay and allowances

admissible to the presiding officers of the CGIT-cum-LCs

made available by the learned Additional Solicitor General,

are highlighted herein, which would reflect as to how the

petitioners are treated in granting the pay scales.

(i) By order dated 16.01.2012, the pay scales prescribed

by Justice E. Padmanabhan Commission were implemented

for them. The pay scales were as under,

S.

No.

Designation Scale of pay

admissible prior

to

Padmanabhan

Commission

Revised scale of pay

as per

recommendations

from Padmanabhan

Commission -

effective from

01.01.2006

1. District Judge

(Entry Level)

Rs.16,750-400-

19250- 450-

20500

Rs.51,550-1230-

58,930-1380-63,070

2. District Judge

(Selection Grade)

Rs.18,750-400-

19150- 450-

21850-500-

22,850

Rs. 57,700-1230-

58,930-1380-67,210-

1540 -70,290

3. District Judge

(Super Time Scale)

Rs.22,850-500-

24,850

Rs. 70,290-1540-

76,450

(ii) Dearness Allowance and House Rent Allowances as

applicable to the Central Government employees were

granted subject to applicable conditions. The conveyance

allowance was granted and the medical facilities were

Writ Petition No. 193 of 2012 Page 13 of 28

extended under the CGHS Rules. The Transport Allowance

was not admissible to the judicial officers, therefore, it was

not made available to the presiding officers of the CGIT-

cum-LCs .

(iii) The Central Government, by Notification dated

06.04.2015, framed Rules called the Presiding Officers of

the Labour Court, Industrial Tribunal, and National

Tribunal, (Salaries, Allowances and Other Terms and

Conditions of Service) Rules, 2015. Under Rule 4(2) of the

said rules, the salary of the presiding officer was prescribed

as. The Dearness Allowances, House Rent Allowance,

Conveyance Allowance and Medical Concessions were made

admissible in the same way as applicable to the Central

Government employees drawing equivalent pay.

(iv) Upon enactment of the Finance Act, 2017, Notification

dated 01.06.2017 was issued, notifying the Tribunal,

Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities (Qualifications,

Experience and other Conditions of Service of Members)

Rules, 2017. The presiding officer of the Industrial Tribunal,

constituted by the Central Government, was provided the

Writ Petition No. 193 of 2012 Page 14 of 28

salary of Rs.1,44,200– 2,18,200, equivalent to Level 14 as

per the 7th Pay Commission.

(v) Thereafter, by Notification dated 12.02.2020, the

Tribunal, Appellate Tribunal and other Authorities

(Qualifications, Experience and other Conditions of Service

of Members) Rules, 2020 were framed, which prescribed the

same pay scales for the presiding officers as were prescribed

in the Rules of 2017.

(vi) After the enactment of the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021,

Notification dated 15.09.2021 was issued, in which the

rules called the Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021

were notified. As per Rule 10(3) of the said rules, it was

provided that the presiding officer of the Industrial Tribunal

constituted by the Central Government shall be paid salary

in the Pay Level of Rs.1,44,200– 2,18,200.

(vii) The presiding officers of the CGIT-cum-LCs were also

made entitled to allowances and benefits admissible to a

Government of India officer serving in a Group A post and

carrying the same pay.

Writ Petition No. 193 of 2012 Page 15 of 28

5.1 In other words, statutory rules have been framed from

time to time to prescribe and revise pay scales for the

officers belonging to the class of petitioners holding the post

of presiding officer in the CGIT-cum-LCs.

5.2 The entire case of the petitioners is that they in their

capacity as Presiding Officers in the CGIT-cum-LCs which

are the tribunals within the meaning of Article 247 read

with Article 323B of the Constitution, came to be wrongly

denied the pay scales of the 6th Pay Commission by grouping

them with the cadre of District Judiciary and granting the

pay scales as applicable to the District Judiciary.

5.3 Noticing at this stage the relevant provisions of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947,2 regarding constitution of the

Labour Courts and Tribunals, Section 7 of the ID Act deals

with the Labour Courts providing that the appropriate

Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,

constitute one or more Labour Courts for the adjudication

of industrial disputes in relation to any matter specified in

the Second Schedule and perform such other functions as

2 Hereinafter, “ID Act”.

Writ Petition No. 193 of 2012 Page 16 of 28

may be assigned under the Act. A person who is or has been

a Judge of the High Court or a person who has worked for

a period not less than three years as a District Judge or an

Additional District Judge is qualified for appointment as the

Presiding Officer of a Labour Court. A person who has held

any judicial office in India for not less than seven years or

one who has been the Presiding Officer of a Labour Court

constituted under Provincial Act or State Act for not less

than five years would also be eligible.

5.3.1 Section 7A of the ID Act is about constitution of

Industrial Tribunals for the purpose of adjudication of

industrial disputes relating to any matter specified either in

the Second Schedule or in the Third Schedule of the Act.

The appropriate Government may appoint a person as

Presiding Officer among those who is or has been a Judge

of the High Court or who has worked for a period of not less

than three years been a District Judge or an Additional

District Judge.

5.3.2 The constitution of the National Tribunals is

dealt with in Section 7B of the Act. A National Tribunal may

Writ Petition No. 193 of 2012 Page 17 of 28

be constituted by the Central Government for adjudication

of industrial disputes which in the opinion of the Central

Government, involve questions of national importance or

are of such a nature that industrial establishments situated

in more than one State are interested therein or are affected

by such disputes. The Presiding Officer of a National

Tribunal is appointed with the Central Government. A

Presiding Officer has to be a sitting or former Judge of the

High Court, and the Central Government may appoint two

more persons as assessors to advise the National Tribunal

in proceeding before it.

5.4 Tracing the history of pay fixation and pay structure

of the petitioners and similarly situated persons,

communication dated 28.09.2005 of the Ministry of Labour

and Employment, Government of India produced by the

respondents along with the counter-affidavit, goes to show

that the pay scales of their presiding officers appointed

under Section 7A of the I.D. Act in the CGIT-cum-LCs came

to be prescribed upon acceptance of the recommendations

of the First National Judicial Pay Commission. The

presiding officers in CGIT-cum-LCs were granted the

Writ Petition No. 193 of 2012 Page 18 of 28

revised pay scales as are applicable to the district judges

with effect from 01.07.1996, to be thus fixed at that time;

(i) Distt. Judge (Entry Level) - 16/750-400-19,150-450-

20500/-, (ii) Distt. Judge (Selection Grade) -18J50400-

19,150-450-21,850-500-22,850/- and (iii) Distt Judge

(Super time Scale)-22,850-500-24,850/-.

5.4.1 It was provided in paragraph 5 of the

aforementioned communication that in respect of retired

judicial officers, joining the CGIT-cum-LCs as presiding

officers on re-employment basis, the pay is to be fixed as

per the extant rules in the revised pay scales from the date

of joining/taking into account their gross pension and

pension equivalent to other retirement benefits. An Office

Memorandum of the Ministry of Personnel, Public

Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel and

Training, Government of India dated 05.04.2010, copy of

which was also produced along with the reply-affidavit

dealing with the subject of applicability of the CCS (RP)

Rules, 2008 to the persons re-employed in government

service after retirement and whose pay is debitable to civil

estimates.

Writ Petition No. 193 of 2012 Page 19 of 28

5.4.2 It was mentioned that the question of fixation of

pay of retired personnel or officers re-employed in the

Central Government was considered in consultation with

the Department of Expenditure. It was clarified that the pay

fixation of the re-employed pensioners on re-employment in

Central Government would be done in accordance with the

CCS (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Orders,

1986 dated 31.07.1986 issued by the Ministry of Personnel

and as revised from time to time.

5.4.3 The revised provisions indicated the manner and

the special scheme of availment of the pay-scale/pay

structure to the re-employed persons. The summary of the

provisions could be culled out as under,

(a) Re-employed pensioners shall be allowed to

draw pay only in the prescribed pay scale/pay

structure of the post in which they are re-employed. No

protection of the scales of pay/pay structure of the post

held by them prior to retirement shall be given.

(b) In all cases where the pension is fully ignored,

the initial pay on re-employment shall be fixed as per

Writ Petition No. 193 of 2012 Page 20 of 28

entry pay in the revised pay structure of the re-

employed post applicable in the case of direct recruits

appointed on or after 1.1.2006 as notified vide Section

II, Part A of First Schedule to CCS (RP) Rules, 2008.

(c) In cases where the entire pension and

pensionary benefits are not ignored for pay fixation, the

initial basic pay cum re-employment shall be fixed at

the same stage as the last basic drawn pay before

retirement. However, he shall be granted the grade pay

of the re-employed post.

(d) The maximum basic pay cannot exceed the

grade pay of the re-employed post plus pay in the pay

band of Rs.67000 i.e. the maximum of the pay band

PB-4. In all these cases, the non-ignorable part of the

pension shall be reduced from the pay so fixed.

(e) In the case of persons retiring before attaining

the age of 55 years and who are re-employed, pension

(including PFG and other forms of retirement benefits)

shall be ignored for initial pay fixation as prescribed

for.

Writ Petition No. 193 of 2012 Page 21 of 28

5.4.4 It was further contemplated that the re-employed

pensioners will be allowed to draw normal increments as

per the provisions of Rules 9 and 10 of the CCS (RP) Rules,

2008, once the initial pay of the re-employed pensioner is

fixed. Furthermore, the drawal of the various allowances in

the revised pay structure shall be regulated with reference

to the Grade Pay of the re-employment post or the basic pay.

The manner of fixation of Defence Forces officers/personnel

when re-employed in civilian posts was mentioned to state

that the pension of such re-employed pensioners will

include Military Service Pay (MSP), they will not be granted

MSP while working in civilian organizations. Fixation of pay

of personnel/officers re-employed before 01.01.2006 and

who were in employment as on 01.01.2006 was also stated.

Thus, the pay scales and their fixation for the re-employed

persons is envisaged as a special scheme.

5.5 The fact is not in dispute, rather it is the case of the

petitioners themselves, that they are in re-employment

holding the post of presiding officer in CGIT-cum-LCs. While

working on the re-employed post, they have been seeking

for themselves the grant of 6th Pay Commission pay scales.

Writ Petition No. 193 of 2012 Page 22 of 28

What becomes evident is that the fixation of pay scales and

the manner of pay structure available to the class of re-

employed officers such as the petitioners, are governed by

the Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed

Pensioners) Orders, 1986. In other words, the petitioners in

their re-employed capacity and governed by different

statutory Orders for the purpose of their pay fixation, want

to be granted 6th Pay Commission scales, further

contending that they could not be placed at par with the

District Judiciary for grant of pay scales.

5.6 It is well settled that pay fixation is an executive

function. In State of U.P. and Others vs. J.P. Chaurasia

and Others3, it was observed that courts are not suited to

evaluate and compare on the basis of the affidavits and

pleadings, the justifiability or otherwise of the differentiation

of the pay scales and that such matters should be best left

to the executive. It was stated that unless mala fides are

shown, the Court would respect the fixation of pay scales by

the expert bodies or Pay Commissions Committees.

3 (1989) 1 SCC 121

Writ Petition No. 193 of 2012 Page 23 of 28

5.6.1 In Union of India vs. Dineshan K.K.4, this Court

stated that though the task of judicial review in respect of

pay structure is not altogether excluded from the purview of

judicial review and the courts may look into it provided

apparent anomaly exists. In that case, the plea of parity was

considered by the Court and relief was granted on the basis

that there was an apparent disparity and anomaly in the

report of the Pay Commission itself, which the Central

Government had admitted before the Court.

5.6.2 In Union of India vs. Indian Navy Civilian

Design Officers Association and Another5, this Court

disapproved the decision of the tribunal which equated the

post of Junior Design Officers at par with that Civilian

Technical Officers in the Navy and proceeded to fix pay

scales for them treating them equally although, among other

factors, the recruitment rules governing the Junior Design

Officers and Civilian Technical Officers are different.

4 (2008) 1 SCC 586

5 (2023) 19 SCC 482

Writ Petition No. 193 of 2012 Page 24 of 28

5.6.3 In Union of India vs. T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna

Rao6, the following statement of law was observed,

“The classification of posts and determination

of pay structure comes within the exclusive

domain of the executive and the Tribunal

cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the

executive in prescribing certain pay structure

and grade in a particular service. There may

be more grades than one in a particular

service.”

(Para 26)

6. It is well-settled that Article 14 prohibits class

legislation, but does not prohibit reasonable classification

for the purposes of legislation. The classification brought

out in the instant case for the purpose of applying the pay

scales is based on rational and intelligible differentia which

distinguishes persons grouped together from those left out

of the group. Classifying the re-employed persons

separately for the purpose of applying pay structure and

pay fixation clearly satisfies the principles and tests laid

down for applying the Equality Clause read with principles

underlying Article 16 of the Constitution.

6 (2015) 3 SCC 653

Writ Petition No. 193 of 2012 Page 25 of 28

6.1 In Charanjit Lal Chowdhury vs. Union of India7, it

was observed that Article 14 does not take away from the

State the power of classifying persons for legitimate

purposes. If the purpose is rational and legitimate, even if

such classification produces inequality in some form, it

would not offend Article 14. The principle of equality does

not mean that every law must have universal application for

all persons who are not, by nature, attainment or

circumstances, stand in the same position. When the

classes are different and validly made, varying factors would

apply requiring separate treatment.

6.2 The category of re-employed officers/persons like the

petitioners stand with substantial distinction against the

regular officers in the employment of the government. The

re-employed class could be reasonably and rationally

classified separately for the purpose of applying pay scales

which may not be equivalent to and on the same pedestal

with the other classes. Upon re-employment, the

reemployed officers/persons would cease to be

7 1950 SCC 833

Writ Petition No. 193 of 2012 Page 26 of 28

homogeneous vis-à-vis class of regular officers in

employment of the government.

6.3 The contention that the presiding officers in CGIT-

cum-LCs have been wrongly equated with the officers in the

District Judiciary and that the same scales are extended to

both has no legs to stand. The industrial tribunals or labour

courts in which persons like the petitioners are appointed

as presiding officers are established within the State, and

equating such presiding officers with the District Judiciary,

excepting the presiding officers of National Tribunals

functioning at Mumbai and Calcutta, is reasonable and

does not book any arbitrariness.

6.4 The equating exercise is undertaken by commissions

like Shetty Commission and recommendations made by

Justice E. Padmanabhan Committee, which are the basis

for extending the pay scale to the presiding officers of CGIT-

cum-LCs at par with the District Judiciary. It is trite

principle that the courts refrain from adopting a different

view contrary to one seasonedly taken by the expert body,

Writ Petition No. 193 of 2012 Page 27 of 28

which is equipped with details and has the proficiency in

the subject.

6.5 It has to be reiterated that the power of judicial review

in matters of classification of posts and determination of pay

scale was very limited inasmuch as the equation of posts

and salaries is a complex matter required to be best left to

an expert body. It is the domain which is exercised by the

executive with the aid of bodies expert in the field.

6.6 Not only that the pay structure of the petitioners is

designed and their pay scales are given as per the expert

recommendations as highlighted above, the classification

between the re-employed government officers who are

posted on re-employment basis after attaining the age of

superannuation grouping them with District Judges on one

hand, and the officers in government services in regular

employment on the other, for the purpose of their pay scales

and pay structures, is a reasonable classification.

6.7 The re-employed officers/persons after the retirement,

when re-employed again, stand belong to a separate class.

Their claim to avail the 6th Pay Commission pay scales has

Writ Petition No. 193 of 2012 Page 28 of 28

no basis to assert on the footing of Fundamental Rights or

on any other grounds. Grouping them separately with those

regularly working and equating them with District Judiciary

cannot be said to offend either the tenets of Article 14 or the

requisites of Article 16 of the Constitution.

7. In light of all the above reasons, no relief could be

granted to the petitioners. The petition is devoid of merit. It

is dismissed.

……………..………………………...J.

[S.V.N. BHATTI]

………………………….J.

[N.V. ANJARIA]

NEW DELHI;

AUGUST 12, 2026.