Background

The case arose out of a dispute regarding the implementation of the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission for naval personnel. Pursuant to a Gazette Notification dated August 30, 2008 (effective from January 1, 2006), all staff with a pay scale of S-9 category have been placed in pay band-2. However, while Chief Petty Officers received a graded pay of Rs. 4,200, Artificers in Grades I, II and III, despite being in the same pay band-2 and holding a grade equivalent to that of Chief Petty Officers, were given a lower grade pay of Rs. 3,400. The appellant, who worked as Artificer III, initially approached the Bombay High Court challenging this disparity. After the establishment of the Armed Forces Tribunal, the matter was transferred there, where both the original application and the subsequent review application were dismissed.

argument

The main contention of the appellant was based on Navy Instructions no. 2/S/96 and on various official communications, emphasizing in particular a directive of November 16, 2000 from the Naval Headquarters. The appellant contended that since Artillerymen III and above hold the relative rank of Chief Petty Officer, confirmed by Presidential warrants on promotion, denying them the same grade pay of Rs. 4,200 was discriminatory. This position was supported by the citation of Regulation 247 and a clarification issued by the Chief of the Naval Staff on 5 September 1977, both of which confirmed that Gunners Class III and above were equivalent to Chief Petty Officers.

The respondents, represented by the Additional Attorney General, disputed that equivalence with the rank of Chief Petty Officer is achieved only by promotion to Chief Artificer, not to the level of Artificer III. They pointed out that Artificers III through I work under the Chief Artificers, which makes sense for their pay to be lower. Respondents justified the existing structure where Gunners I through III receive higher grade pay than NCOs but less than Chief Gunners/Chief Petty Officers, arguing that this reflects proper hierarchical progression.

Decision

First, the Court looked at Regulation 247 and noted that while it addresses rank and command structure, it does not deal with pay equity. The Court noted that Chief Artificers hold command over Artificers of Classes I through III, establishing a clear hierarchical distinction despite any nominal equivalence of rank. Second, the Court examined Navy Order 100/67, concluding that the equivalence between Artificers III and Chief Petty Officers was limited to seniority purposes and did not extend to pay structure. This interpretation recognized that organizational hierarchy and promotion paths could justify differences in pay even between positions of equivalent seniority.

Thirdly, the Court emphasized the importance of promotion paths in determining the level of remuneration. It has been noted that Artificers III can only be promoted to Chief Artificer roles and cannot directly access Master Chief Artificer roles. This structured progression justified placing the salary of Artificer III to I (Rs. 3,400) between that of Artificer IV (Rs. 2,800) and Chief Artificer (Rs. 4,200). As noted, only Chief Artists, not Artists III through I, could be promoted to Chief Master positions. This parallel to the non-technical branch, where Chief Petty Officers could advance to Master Chief (PO) positions, supported the existing pay structure where Chief Artificers and Chief Petty Officers received equal pay.

Finally, the Court upheld the April 20, 2009 Hearing Order, which held that the title of “Chief” was given only to Chief Artificers, not to Artists III through I. This distinction, combined with the clear promotional hierarchy, led the Court to conclude that there was “neither illegality nor arbitrariness” in the existing graded pay structure. Thus, the Court upheld the decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal, finding that promotion paths and the command structure could legitimately influence pay grades independent of nominal grade equivalency. Accordingly, the civil appeals were dismissed.

Decided on: October 23, 2024

Citation: 2024 INSC 815 (Manish Kumar Rai v. Union of India and Ors.)

Click here to read/download the order