The Case
R.K. YADAV VS UNION OF INDIA
Case No.: W.P.(C) No.-000193-000193 – 2012
Decided on: 08/12/2026
Diary No.: 13668/2012 ·
Supreme Court of India
The Legal Issue Before the Supreme Court
The petitioners, Presiding Officers of Central Government Industrial Tribunals-cum-Labour Courts, invoked Article 32 seeking to assert Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 16, praying for a mandamus to implement the 6th Pay Commission recommendations for CGIT at par with other tribunals, to fix petitioner No. 1's pay in pursuance thereof, and to set aside order dated 16.01.2012. The Court examined whether the denial of 6th Pay Commission pay scales to the petitioners, who were granted pay scales recommended by the Justice E. Padmanabhan Committee equivalent to the District Judiciary, was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16. The question was whether the classification of re-employed Presiding Officers of CGIT-cum-LCs separately and their equation with the District Judiciary was reasonable.
Facts of the Case
The petitioners were appointed as Presiding Officers of CGIT-cum-Labour Courts at New Delhi and Hyderabad; petitioner No. 1 took charge on 21.04.2009 on deputation till 30.06.2009 and from 01.07.2009 on re-employment basis up to the age of 65 years. The petitioners contended that CGIT-cum-LCs are tribunals under Article 247 read with Article 323-B, and that other tribunals such as CAT, ITAT, Railway Claims Tribunal, Debt Recovery Tribunal, FEMA Authority, and Company Law Board are similarly situated, yet they were denied 6th Pay Commission scales and were instead grouped with the District Judiciary. The respondents stated that upon revision of Central Government pay scales per the 6th Central Pay Commission, the Ministry of Labour and Employment referred the matter to the Department of Justice; the Department observed that pay scales of CGIT Presiding Officers were revised per Shetty Commission recommendations to bring them at par with District Judges, and later revised per Justice E. Padmanabhan Committee recommendations, implemented by order dated 16.01.2012. The respondents asserted that the petitioners are re-employed persons governed by the Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986, and that their representation for 6th Pay Commission scales was referred to the Ministry of Finance and Department of Personnel and Training, neither of which favored reviewing their pay structure. The petitioners' pay was fixed equivalent to the Super Time Scale available to a District Judge, and petitioner No. 1 was placed in Higher Administrative Grade scale of Rs. 67,000-79,000.
Summary of the Decision
The Court held that pay fixation is an executive function, and courts are not suited to evaluate and compare the justifiability of differentiation of pay scales, which should be best left to the executive unless mala fides are shown. It observed that Article 14 prohibits class legislation but permits reasonable classification, and the classification of re-employed persons separately for pay structure and pay fixation satisfies the principles and tests laid down for applying the Equality Clause read with Article 16. The Court found that the category of re-employed officers like the petitioners stands with substantial distinction against regular officers in government employment, and upon re-employment they cease to be homogeneous vis-à-vis regular officers. It rejected the contention that the presiding officers of CGIT-cum-LCs have been wrongly equated with the District Judiciary, holding that 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. The Court stated that the equating exercise was undertaken by commissions like Shetty Commission and recommendations of 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, and courts refrain from adopting a different view contrary to one seasonedly taken by the expert body. It reiterated that the power of judicial review in matters of classification of posts and determination of pay scale is very limited, as equation of posts and salaries is a complex matter best left to an expert body. The Court concluded that the re-employed officers/persons after retirement, when re-employed again, belong to a separate class, and their claim to avail the 6th Pay Commission pay scales has 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. In light of all the above reasons, no relief could be granted to the petitioners; the petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed.
This digest is AI-generated for quick reference only and is not legal advice. Always verify against the full judgment.