The Supreme Court has held that re-employed officers constitute a distinct class for the purpose of pay fixation and that the executive’s decision to structure their pay separately does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The Bench of Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria found no merit in the petitioners’ contention that they were arbitrarily denied the benefits of the Sixth Central Pay Commission by being placed on pay scales corresponding to those applicable to the District Judiciary.
The petitioners had approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, invoking their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16. They sought directions to the Union Government to implement the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations for Presiding Officers of CGIT-cum-LCs on a parity with other Central tribunals.
Buy Now: 50+ Supreme Court Judgments – July 2026
They also sought fixation of the first petitioner’s pay in accordance with the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations and challenged the Government’s January 16, 2012 order concerning their pay structure.
The petitioners were serving as Presiding Officers of CGIT-cum-LCs at New Delhi and Hyderabad. Their principal contention was that these tribunals were Union tribunals falling within the constitutional framework of Articles 247 and 323-B and, therefore, their Presiding Officers should receive treatment comparable to officers of other Central tribunals such as the Central Administrative Tribunal and Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
According to the petitioners, while the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations had been implemented for officers of several other tribunals, the Government had instead linked the pay of CGIT Presiding Officers to the scales applicable to District Judges. They argued that this amounted to treating unequals as equals and constituted arbitrary discrimination.
The Union Government opposed the plea, maintaining that tribunals constituted under different statutory and constitutional frameworks could not automatically be treated as identical for purposes of pay fixation.
The Government pointed out that the CGIT-cum-LCs had historically received pay scales linked to those applicable to the District Judiciary. The pay scales had been revised pursuant to recommendations of judicial pay commissions, including the First National Judicial Pay Commission headed by Justice Shetty and subsequently the Justice E. Padmanabhan Committee.
The Government further relied upon the fact that the petitioners were re-employed officers. The first petitioner had initially joined as Presiding Officer of CGIT-I, New Delhi, on deputation on April 21, 2009 and, after superannuation from his earlier judicial post on June 30, 2009, was re-employed from July 1, 2009. The second petitioner was similarly appointed as Presiding Officer of the CGIT at Hyderabad.
The Union Government stated that 22 CGIT-cum-LCs functioned under the administrative control of the Ministry of Labour and Employment. It also distinguished the National Tribunals at Mumbai and Kolkata, whose Presiding Officers were required to be High Court Judges or persons with specified judicial experience.
The record showed that CGIT Presiding Officers had historically been granted pay scales corresponding to those of District Judges.
Following the recommendations of the First National Judicial Pay Commission, the Government had revised their pay scales with effect from July 1, 1996. The relevant scales included Rs. 16,750–20,500 for District Judge entry level, Rs. 18,750–22,850 for selection grade and Rs. 22,850–24,850 for the super time scale.
The Justice E. Padmanabhan Committee subsequently recommended revised scales for the District Judiciary. The Supreme Court judgment records that these scales were also implemented for the CGIT Presiding Officers by the Government’s order dated January 16, 2012.
The table reproduced in the judgment shows the revised scales effective from January 1, 2006. The District Judge entry-level scale was fixed at Rs. 51,550–63,070, the selection-grade scale at Rs. 57,700–70,290 and the super-time scale at Rs. 70,290–76,450.
The Court also noted the subsequent evolution of the statutory framework. Under the 2015 Rules, CGIT Presiding Officers received specified salary and allowances. Following the Finance Act, 2017, the 2017 Tribunal Rules prescribed a salary of Rs. 1,44,200–2,18,200, equivalent to Level 14 under the Seventh Pay Commission. The same scale continued under the 2020 Rules and the Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021.
A significant aspect of the Supreme Court’s reasoning was the petitioners’ status as re-employed pensioners.
The Court examined the Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986, which prescribe a special framework for determining the pay of persons who return to government service after retirement.
Under these rules, re-employed pensioners draw pay in the prescribed pay scale of the post to which they are re-employed, rather than retaining the pay structure of their earlier post. The rules also prescribe how initial pay is to be fixed depending upon whether pension and pensionary benefits are ignored or taken into account.
The Supreme Court held that this framework was important because the petitioners were not regular government officers in service when they sought the Sixth Pay Commission scales. Their pay fixation as re-employed officers was governed by a distinct statutory regime.
The Court reiterated the settled principle that pay fixation is primarily an executive function.
Referring to its earlier decision in State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, the Court observed that judges are generally not equipped to evaluate and compare the justification for different pay scales merely on the basis of pleadings and affidavits. Such questions are ordinarily best left to the executive and expert bodies, unless mala fides or a clear constitutional infirmity is established.
The judgment also considered decisions dealing with judicial review of pay structures. While the Court acknowledged that judicial review is not completely excluded where an apparent anomaly exists, it stressed that courts should exercise restraint in matters involving the classification of posts and determination of salaries.
The Court referred to Union of India v. Dineshan K.K., where judicial intervention was justified because an apparent disparity or anomaly in the Pay Commission’s own recommendations had been established and admitted by the Government.
The Bench also relied upon the principle that classification of posts and determination of pay structure fall within the executive domain and that tribunals and courts cannot ordinarily substitute their own assessment for that of the executive and expert bodies.
Rejecting the petitioners’ equality argument, the Supreme Court held that Article 14 prohibits arbitrary discrimination but does not prevent the State from making reasonable classifications based on rational and intelligible differentia.
The Court found that re-employed officers form a distinct category from regular government employees. Their status, manner of appointment and applicable pay-fixation regime are materially different.
According to the Bench, this distinction provides a rational basis for applying a separate pay structure to re-employed officers. The Court therefore held that such classification satisfies the requirements of Articles 14 and 16.
The judgment further explained that equality does not mean that every person must receive identical treatment regardless of differences in their circumstances. Where a classification is based on a legitimate and rational distinction, different treatment does not automatically amount to constitutional discrimination.
The Supreme Court specifically rejected the argument that CGIT Presiding Officers had been wrongly equated with the District Judiciary.
The Court held that, except for the Presiding Officers of the National Tribunals functioning at Mumbai and Kolkata, the decision to equate CGIT-cum-LC Presiding Officers with the District Judiciary was reasonable and did not suffer from arbitrariness.
Importantly, the Court noted that the exercise was not an ad hoc administrative decision. The linkage had its basis in recommendations made by expert bodies such as the Shetty Commission and the Justice E. Padmanabhan Committee.
The Court stressed that expert bodies possessing specialised knowledge and detailed information are better placed to determine questions of pay structure and equivalence between posts.
Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy
To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.
