Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

Recently the Supreme Court has resolved a 22-year-old dispute over pay scales for education department officials in Uttar Pradesh, potentially impacting thousands of employees in case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. v. Virendra Bahadur Katheria and Ors. The Court invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to settle the matter, balancing the interests of retired officials and the state government. This judgment clarifies the application of the doctrine of merger and res judicata in cases involving multiple rounds of litigation between the High Court and the Supreme Court. 

• The Court's decision highlights the challenges in resolving long-pending pay parity disputes and offers guidance on how to approach such cases in the future. 
• The ruling sets important precedents for handling delayed appeals by state governments and the limits of judicial intervention in matters of pay scale determination. 

What was the Background of State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. v. Virendra Bahadur Katheria and Ors? 

• In 2001, the pay scales of Headmasters of Junior High Schools were revised upwards, creating a disparity with Sub-Deputy Inspectors of Schools (SDI)/Assistant Basic Shiksha Adhikaris (ABSA) and Deputy Basic Shiksha Adhikaris (DBSA), who previously had higher pay scales. 
• The affected officials filed a writ petition in 2002 seeking higher pay scales.  
  • The High Court ruled in their favor in 2002, directing higher pay scales to be granted from 2001. 
• The state appealed to the Supreme Court.  
  • During the appeal, the state proposed a policy to rectify the anomaly by merging posts and granting higher pay scales from 2006 (notionally) and 2008 (actually). 
• In 2010, the Supreme Court approved this proposal and dismissed the state's appeal, directing implementation. 
• The state issued orders in 2011 implementing the proposal. 
• However, some affected officials filed fresh writ petitions seeking benefits from 2001 instead of 2008. A Single Judge ruled in their favor in 2018. 
• The state filed a delayed appeal against this 2018 order, which was dismissed by the High Court in 2023 due to the delay. 
• The state has now appealed to the Supreme Court against the dismissal of its delayed appeal. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The court observed that Pay parity cannot be claimed as an indefeasible right unless the competent authority consciously decides to equate two posts, notwithstanding differences in nomenclature or qualifications. 
• Incidental grant of identical pay scales to distinct posts, absent express equation, does not constitute an anomaly infringing Article 16 of the Constitution. 
• Prescription of pay scales is a policy decision based on expert recommendations. The State's obligation is to ensure promotional posts are not remunerated lower than feeder cadres. 
• Creation, merger, de-merger, or amalgamation of cadres for administrative efficiency falls within the State's prerogative. Judicial intervention is warranted only upon blatant violation of Articles 14 and 16. 
• The Court invoked Article 142 to do complete justice, considering the protracted nature of litigation and its impact on retired respondents. 
• The Court upheld the 2011 Government Order granting restructured benefits, applying it notionally from 01st January 2006 and from 01st December 2008. 
• The Court directed non-recovery of excess payments made to respondents, in line with the principle established in State of Punjab v. Rafique Masih. 
• The judgment emphasized the need for finality in prolonged pay parity disputes, recognizing their potential to become infructuous due to delays. 

What is Article 14 ? 

• Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 affirms the fundamental right of “equality before the law” and “equal protection of law” to all persons. 
• The first expression “equality before law” is of England origin and the second expression “equal protection of law” has been taken from the American Constitution. 
• Equality is a cardinal principle enshrined in the Preamble of the Constitution of India as its primary objective. 
• It is a system of treating all human beings with fairness and impartiality. 
• It also establishes a system of non-discrimination based on grounds mentioned in Article 15 of the Constitution of India. 

What are Exceptions of Article 14?  

The above rule of equality is not absolute, and there are several exceptions to it. For instance, foreign Diplomats  

• Constitutional validity can extend to laws applicable to a single individual or entity, if special circumstances warrant such classification. 
• There's a presumption of constitutionality for enacted laws. The burden of proving unconstitutionality lies with the challenger. 
• This presumption may be rebutted if a law arbitrarily singles out an individual or class without rational differentiation. 
• Courts presume legislative understanding of societal needs and experience-based problem-solving through laws. 
• To uphold constitutionality, courts may consider common knowledge, reports, historical context, and conceivable factual scenarios. 
• Legislatures may address varying degrees of harm, focusing on the most pressing issues. 
• While good faith is presumed, courts won't automatically assume unknown reasons justify discriminatory legislation. 
• Classification can be based on various factors like geography, occupation, or objectives. 
• Perfect scientific or mathematical equality isn't required; similarity of treatment suffices. 
• Article 14's equal protection applies to both substantive and procedural law. 

What is Reasonable Classification Under Article 14? 

• Article 14 forbids class legislation, but it does not forbid reasonable classification of persons, objects and transactions by the legislature to achieve specific ends. 
• If the classification satisfies the test laid down in propositions, the law will be declared constitutional. 
• The question of whether a classification is reasonable, and proper or not, must, however, be judged more on common sense than on legal subtletees. 
• It does not forbid reasonable classification for legislation. The classification, however, should not be arbitrary.  
• It must always rest upon some real and substantial distinction bearing reasonable and just relation to the things in respect to which the classification is made.  
• Thus the only limitation of the power of the State is that the classification should not be unreasonable and arbitrary. Classification to be reasonable must fulfil the following two conditions (conditions were demarcated in the case of State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) 
  • The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia that distinguishes persons or things that are grouped from others left out of the group; and 
  • The differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Act. 
• The differentia which is the basis of the classification, and the object of the Act are two distinct things. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis of classification and the object of the Act which makes the classification. 

What is Doctrine of Arbitrariness? 

• Fairness and Arbitrariness are antithetical to each other, both concepts cannot be present in a single box. 
• Hence, the court of law attempted to bring an evolution in the list of reasonable classification by excluding the decision containing arbitrariness. 
• This doctrine was coined in the case of E.P Rayappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1973), where the bench termed equality as a dynamic concept and the ambit of reasonable classification cannot be altered by the usage of arbitrariness. 
• The doctrine was later applied to the cases of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) and R.D. Shetty v. International Airport Authority (1979) into which courts opined that arbitrariness refers to deprivation of equality.