Supreme Court denies 6th Pay Commission scales to re-employed CGIT presiding officers

A division bench held that re-employed presiding officers of Central Government Industrial Tribunals form a separate class and cannot claim 6th Pay Commission scales, dismissing their writ petition.

The Supreme Court has dismissed a writ petition by two presiding officers of Central Government Industrial Tribunals-cum-Labour Courts who sought 6th Pay Commission pay scales, holding that their re-employed status placed them in a distinct class governed by a separate pay-fixation regime. The petitioners had invoked Article 32 and claimed breach of Articles 14 and 16, arguing that grouping them with the District Judiciary rather than with other tribunals was arbitrary. Justice N.V. Anjaria, writing for a bench with Justice S.V.N. Bhatti, found the classification reasonable and grounded in expert-body recommendations. The Court reiterated that pay fixation is an executive function subject to limited judicial review. Decided on 12 August 2026, the judgment closes a claim pending since 2012 and confirms that re-employed pensioners cannot demand parity with regular officers on Fundamental Rights grounds.

How the pay dispute reached the Court

Petitioner No. 1, formerly a judicial officer of the Government of NCT of Delhi, was appointed Presiding Officer of CGIT-I, New Delhi, taking charge on 21 April 2009 on deputation until 30 June 2009. From 1 July 2009 he continued on re-employment basis up to the age of 65. Petitioner No. 2 was similarly appointed Presiding Officer of the CGIT at Hyderabad.

Their pay was fixed at the Super Time Scale available to a District Judge, following the scales recommended by the Justice E. Padmanabhan Committee. The petitioners argued that CGIT-cum-LCs are Union tribunals within the meaning of Article 247 read with Article 323-B, standing on the same footing as the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and similar bodies whose officers received 6th Pay Commission scales.

By treating them instead like courts of the District Judge constituted under Article 233, the petitioners said, the Union had “treated unequals with equals” and denied them the 6th Pay Commission scales. They sought a mandamus to implement those scales and certiorari to set aside the order dated 16 January 2012.

What the Court held on parity

The Court rejected the parity claim. It held that the industrial tribunals and labour courts where the petitioners served are established within the State, and equating such presiding officers with the District Judiciary—excepting the presiding officers of National Tribunals at Mumbai and Kolkata, drawn from High Court Judges—is reasonable and not arbitrary.

The equating exercise, the Court noted, was carried out by expert bodies including the Shetty Commission and the Justice E. Padmanabhan Committee, which formed the basis for extending District Judiciary scales to CGIT-cum-LC presiding officers. Courts refrain from taking a view contrary to one reached by an expert body equipped with the relevant details.

Re-employed pensioners as a separate class

Central to the outcome was the petitioners' undisputed re-employed status. The Court found that their pay is governed by the Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986, under which re-employed pensioners draw pay only in the prescribed scale of the re-employed post, with no protection of scales held before retirement.

On this footing the Court reasoned that re-employed officers cease to be homogeneous with regular officers in government service. Classifying them separately for pay purposes, it held, satisfies the tests under Article 14 read with Article 16. Article 14 prohibits class legislation but permits reasonable classification resting on intelligible differentia, and the distinction here rested on rational grounds.

The bench recorded the successive statutory frameworks that fixed the petitioners' pay over time: the 2015 Rules for presiding officers of Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals and National Tribunals; the 2017 Rules under the Finance Act, 2017, prescribing salary of Rs. 1,44,200–2,18,200 equivalent to Level 14 of the 7th Pay Commission; the 2020 Rules; and the Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021 after the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021.

Limits of judicial review over pay

The Court restated that pay fixation is an executive function with a narrow scope for judicial review. It relied on State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia (1989) 1 SCC 121, where courts were said to be ill-suited to compare pay scales on affidavits, and would respect fixation by expert bodies absent mala fides.

It referred to Union of India v. Dineshan K.K. (2008) 1 SCC 586, where relief followed only because an apparent anomaly in the Pay Commission report was admitted, and to Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association (2023) 19 SCC 482, which disapproved equating posts with different recruitment rules. In Union of India v. T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao (2015) 3 SCC 653, the Court had held that classification of posts and pay structure lie in the exclusive domain of the executive.

On the equality test, the Court cited Charanjit Lal Chowdhury v. Union of India 1950 SCC 833 for the proposition that classification for a legitimate purpose does not offend Article 14 even if it produces some inequality.

Outcome

The Court held that the petitioners' claim to 6th Pay Commission scales had no basis in Fundamental Rights or on any other ground. Grouping the re-employed officers separately, and equating them with the District Judiciary rather than with regular officers, did not offend Article 14 or Article 16.

Finding no merit, the bench dismissed Writ Petition (C) No. 193 of 2012 on 12 August 2026.