1992 (2) TMI 381 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Status and classification of the West Bengal Registration Service.
2. Revision of pay scales for Sub-Registrars.
3. Comparison of Sub-Registrars' duties with other State Service officers.
4. Judicial intervention in pay fixation.
5. Educational qualifications and their impact on pay scales.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Status and Classification of the West Bengal Registration Service:
The West Bengal Registration Service, comprising the Sub-Registrar's post, was initially part of the Subordinate Services but was later included in the State Service by a notification dated July 17, 1953. This inclusion was supposed to accord the Sub-Registrars all privileges admissible to State Service officers. Despite this, the Sub-Registrars were not granted the revised pay scales commensurate with their new status.

2. Revision of Pay Scales for Sub-Registrars:
The respondents contended that their pay scale was not revised to Rs. 200-400, which was the minimum for State Service officers. Subsequent revisions, including recommendations by the First (State) Pay Commission, suggested higher scales, but these were not implemented by the State Government. The Division Bench of the High Court directed that Sub-Registrars should be placed in the pay scale of Rs. 660-1600 with effect from April 1, 1981, and their pay scales should be fixed notionally on that basis without paying the difference in salary up to January 1, 1986.

3. Comparison of Sub-Registrars' Duties with Other State Service Officers:
The High Court concluded that Sub-Registrars, being gazetted officers with administrative and financial powers, should be equated with Munsiffs in terms of pay scale. However, the Supreme Court found that the duties and responsibilities of Sub-Registrars were not as onerous as those of Judicial Officers like Munsiffs. Therefore, the comparison was deemed inappropriate.

4. Judicial Intervention in Pay Fixation:
The Supreme Court emphasized that pay fixation is primarily an executive function, usually undertaken by expert bodies like Pay Commissions. The Court should not ordinarily interfere unless there is cogent material to show a grave error in pay fixation. The High Court's decision to revise the pay scale was deemed an overreach, as it disrupted the carefully balanced pay structure.

5. Educational Qualifications and Their Impact on Pay Scales:
The High Court noted that the educational qualification for Sub-Registrars was raised to a degree in law, similar to that required for Munsiffs. However, the Supreme Court pointed out that while educational qualifications are relevant, they are just one of many factors in pay fixation. The complexity and responsibilities of the job are also crucial. The Supreme Court directed the State Government to re-examine the appropriate pay scale for Sub-Registrars, considering the raised educational qualifications and other relevant factors.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and directed the State Government to re-examine the pay scale for Sub-Registrars within three months, considering the raised educational qualifications and other relevant factors. The decision should be communicated to the respondents, and if an upward revision is decided, the pay scales of higher posts in the department should also be considered for revision.