Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 536 (GAU)

Akoijam Raginbala Devi v. State of Manipur

2008-07-28

T.NANDAKUMAR SINGH

body2008
JUDGMENT T. Nandakumar Singh, J. 1. In the present writ petition, the writ petitioners, 8 in number, who are working as Reporter Grade-I, assail the parity in revision of their scale of pay pursuant to introduction of the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1989 and also for quashing the impugned letter dated 29.12.99 of the Govt. of Manipur, Finance Department (Pay Implementation Cell) for revising the pay scale of the Reporter Grade-I at a scale lower to that of their counterparts in the Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat; and also for an appropriate order/direction to the respondents to rectify/remove anomaly of pay in respect of the post of Reporter Grade-I by making equal with that of Section Officer and Committee Officer of the Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat, i.e. Rs. 6500-10500/-pm. 2. Heard Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. R.S. Reisang, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents-1 and 3 and also Mr. Birendra Kumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. 3. For deciding the matter in issue in the present writ petition, a short facts in a nutshell, leading to the filing of the present writ petition, is required to be recapitulated. The Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1972 (for short Rules 1972) was framed in pursuance of the decision taken by the Council of Ministers as communicated under the Government of Manipur Confidential, Cabinet Department letter Nos. 2/6/72-Con dated 26 and 27.05.1972. Under Rule 11 of the Rules, 1972, the scale of pay attached to each of the post in the Secretariat shall be as set out against it in the first schedule to the Rule and provided that in the event of general revision of scale of pay and other emoluments of Government servants in the State of Manipur, the revised scale of pay and the emoluments admissible to a Government servant of the corresponding posts as set out against each entry of the post in the Secretariat in the second schedule to the rule, shall apply. 4. On bare perusal of the Rule 11 of the Rules, 1972, it is clear that in the event of a general revision of pay scale and other emoluments of the Government servant in the State of Manipur, the revised pay scale admissible to the Govt. 4. On bare perusal of the Rule 11 of the Rules, 1972, it is clear that in the event of a general revision of pay scale and other emoluments of the Government servant in the State of Manipur, the revised pay scale admissible to the Govt. servant of the corresponding posts shall also apply to the employees of the Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat. 5. Pursuant to the notification of the Finance Department (Pay Implementation Cell) published on 20.12.82 in the Manipur Gazette (extra ordinary), the scale of pay for the post of Committee Officer of the Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat was revised from Rs. 525-1040 to 760-1540 per month and the scale of pay for the post of Reporter Grade-I of the Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat was also revised from Rs. 590-950 to 760-1540 per month. Again the Government of Manipur Finance Department (Pay Implementation Cell) published a notification on 8.8.90 pursuant to Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1990 and the pay scale for the post of Committee Officer and the Reporter Grade-I of the Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat were revised to Rs. 1640-2900/- per month. Under order dated 8.4.93 issued by the Deputy Secretary (F) Legislative Assembly, Manipur, Special pay of Rs. 165 per month was prescribed for the post of Committee Officer, i.e. in total Rs. 1640-2900+ special pay of Rs. 165 per month and by the said order dated 8.4.93 a special pay of Rs. 200/- per month was prescribed for the post of Reporter Grade-I, i.e. in total Rs. 1640-2900+ special pay of Rs. 200/-per month. 6. After the introduction of Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 by the Govt. of Manipur for its employees, a Pay Committee was constituted by the Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly under Bulletin Part-n dated March 17, 1999 to examine and recommend the revised pay structure for the employees of the Assembly Secretariat. The said Committee under the Chairmanship of Dy. Speaker consists of 10 members and for easy reference the said bulletin dated 17.3.99 is quoted hereunder : ANNEXURE-IV MANIPUR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT BULLETIN-PART II (General Information relating to Parliamentary and other matters) Wednesday, March 17, 1999/Phalguna 26, 1920 (Saka). The said Committee under the Chairmanship of Dy. Speaker consists of 10 members and for easy reference the said bulletin dated 17.3.99 is quoted hereunder : ANNEXURE-IV MANIPUR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY SECRETARIAT BULLETIN-PART II (General Information relating to Parliamentary and other matters) Wednesday, March 17, 1999/Phalguna 26, 1920 (Saka). The Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly is pleased to constitute the Pay Committee of the Manipur Legislative Assembly, for the year 1999, consisting of the following members to examine the pay structures of the Officers and Staff of the Assembly Secretariat, Manipur on the adoption of the revised pay scales under the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 and to make suitable recommendation thereon and on allowances, service matters, leave and pensionary benefits for the Officers and all categories of the staff; 1. Deputy Speaker - Chairman 2. Minister (Finance) - Member 3. Minister (Law & Leg. Affairs) - Member 4. Chairman (PAC) - Member 5. Chairman (Estimate Committee) - Member 6. Chairman (PUC) - Member 7. Shri Radhabinod Koijam - Member 8. Shri Ksh. Irabot Singh - Member 9. Md. Muhammuddin Shaha - Member 10. The Secretary (LA) - Member The Committee should submit its Report on the adoption of the pay scales under the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 during the ensuing Budget Session for adoption by the House. Sd/- Illegible (I.S. Laishram) Secretary Manipur Legislative Assembly. 7. It is said that the said Pay Committee, while examining the pay structure of the officers and the staff of the Manipur 7. Legislative Assembly, on adoption of the revised pay scale under the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999, was guided by the principles of pay determination which reads as follows : PRINCIPLE OF PAY DETERMINATION The Pay Committee examined the structure of the scales of pay of the Officers and the Staff of the Assembly Secretariat with reference to the scales of pay of the posts having identical nature of works in the Government Secretariat and to various pay scales of different posts with similar nature of duties in other Departments of the Government as contained in the Manipur Services (Revised of Pay) Rules, 1999 and in the line of the procedures adopted in the Parliament Secretariat. The Pay Committee also took into consideration besides other factors, the principles which usually weigh in the determination of the structure of the pay as follows : 1) Duties and responsibilities attached to the post, 2) The degree of supervision required to be exercised. 3) The method of recruitment. 4) The risk and hazard involved in the service. 5) Necessity to keep the want and employees free from above temptation to the extent possible. 6) Need to attract suitable candidates. 7) The concept of equal pay for equal work. The Committee has felt the need to impress upon the employees of the Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat to be motivated to and excelled in the proper functioning of the Parliamentary Democratic Institutions by keeping high standard of work and in conduct. With these observations the Committee has made the recommendations for revising the Pay structure of the employees of the Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat keeping parity with the revised scale of pay as recommended by the Manipur Pay Commission, 1999 in identical, similar or equivalent categories of the posts in the Manipur Assembly Secretariat. 8. The said pay committee, after careful examination of the pay structure of the officers and the staff of the Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat, on adoption of the revised pay scale under the Manipur Services (Revised pay) Rules, 1999, on the principles of Pay determination as quoted above, had made the recommendation for revision of pay scales of the officers and the employees of the Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat and revised pay recommended for the post of Section Officer and the Reporter Grade-I of the Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat were Rs. 6500-10500/- per month from Rs. 1640-2900/- per month. 9. The said recommendation of the pay committee was accepted by the Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly and directed those recommendations to be implemented immediately vide order of the Manipur Legislative Assembly dated 28.7.99 which reads as follows : FOREWORD I have gone through the Report of the Pay Committee which was appointed by me on 17th March, 1999 to make recommendations on the structure of Pay, Allowances, etc. for the Officers and the Staff of the Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat in the context of Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999. This Report of the Committee pertains to scales of pay, allowances, etc. in respect of Class-II, III & IV categories of posts. for the Officers and the Staff of the Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat in the context of Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999. This Report of the Committee pertains to scales of pay, allowances, etc. in respect of Class-II, III & IV categories of posts. The Committee will examine the remaining posts falling under Class-1 category and other posts for which no conclusive decision had been taken by the Committee and another Report on the left out cases and other matter is expected to be presented soon. The Committee have done very useful work and have considered all necessary aspects objectively and judiciously. They also had given full opportunity to the Officers and Staff to represent their view point both in writing and in person to the Committee. The Committee have had the added advantage of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Law & Legislative Affairs, being the Members of the Committee. I congratulate the Committee for the very good work they have done. I accept the recommendations made in the Report and direct that these may be implemented immediately. Sd/- K. Babudhon Singh Speaker MANIPUR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY. 10. The said recommendation of the Pay Committee (1999) constituted by the Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly vide said bulletin dated 17.3.99 was forwarded to the Commissioner (F), Govt. of Manipur for communication of the necessary decision of the Govt. under letter of the Secretary, Manipur Legislative Assembly dated 5.8.99 which reads as follows : No. 1/(9)/99-LA(LEGN) Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat Imphal, the 5th August, 1999. To The Commissioner (Finance) Government of Manipur, Imphal. Subject : Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999. Sir, I am directed to send herewith 3(three) copies of the First Report of the Pay Committee (1999), on the structure of pay and emoluments of the Officers and Staff of the Manipur Legislative Secretariat. Following the introduction of Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 by the Govt. of Manipur for each employees, the employees of this Legislature Secretariat also demanded revision of the pay scales. Under the provision of the Article 187 of the Constitution which guaranteed a separate and independent character of the Secretariat of the Legislative Assembly, the Govt. of Manipur had not made any recommendation on the structures of pay of the Officers and Staff of the Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat in the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999. Under the provision of the Article 187 of the Constitution which guaranteed a separate and independent character of the Secretariat of the Legislative Assembly, the Govt. of Manipur had not made any recommendation on the structures of pay of the Officers and Staff of the Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat in the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999. Pursuant to the demands of the employees, the Hon'ble Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly constituted a pay committee vide Bulletin Part-II No. 47(17/3/99) to examine and recommend the Revised Pay structure for the Assembly Secretariat employees in the context of the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1999 and in the line of the procedures adopted in the Parliament Secretariats. The independent character of the Assembly Secretariat has also been safeguarded under Rule 11 of the Manipur Legislative Assembly (Recruitment and conditions of service) Rules, 1972. After a good deal of discussion and consideration in detail the committee has recommended that the Manipur Services (Revised Pay), Rules, 1999 should apply to all categories of posts in the Manipur legislative Assembly Secretariat and accordingly a detailed statement showing the Revised scale of pay for application in the Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat vide Annexure-1 of the First Report is recommended. I am, therefore, to request you kindly to communicate the decision of the Govt. at an early date. Encl: As above. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (I.S. Laishram) Secretary, Manipur Legislative Assembly. 11. As directed by this Court, the learned Addl. G A. makes the relevant file of the Govt. of Manipur i.e. File No. 3/1/86-PIC (Part-V) Finance Department (PIC) available before this Court for perusal. For doing justice and also for an appropriate decision, this Court meticulously peruses the file. The Finance Minister, Govt. of Manipur under Note No. 38 had approved the recommendation of the Pay Committee 1999 for revising the pay scale of the Reporter Grade-I, Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat to Rs. 6500-10500/- per month and also under the same note, i.e. Notes No. 38 the Finance Minister, Manipur decided that recommendation of the pay scale of Rs. 6500 to 10500/- per month in respect of the Report Grade-I as proposed by the Assembly Secretariat need not be referred to Cabinet. In defiance of the said decision of the Minister Finance, Govt. 6500-10500/- per month and also under the same note, i.e. Notes No. 38 the Finance Minister, Manipur decided that recommendation of the pay scale of Rs. 6500 to 10500/- per month in respect of the Report Grade-I as proposed by the Assembly Secretariat need not be referred to Cabinet. In defiance of the said decision of the Minister Finance, Govt. of Manipur, it appears that the Commissioner (Finance) drafted the Cabinet Memorandum for placing the said recommendation of the Pay Committee for revising pay scale of the Reporter Grade-I to Rs. 6500-10500/- per month and also the recommendation in respect of the Senior Reporter and the Reporter Grade-H of the Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat for placing the same before the Cabinet. Ultimately, with the approval of the Chief Minister, the matter was placed before the Cabinet. The Cabinet in its meeting held on 27.10.99 had taken the decision that the said recommendation of the Pay Committee 1999 in respect of posts of (a) Chief Librarian, (b) Sr. Reporter, (c) Reporter Grade-I and (d) Reporter Grade-II of the Manipur Assembly Secretariat may be examined and decided by the Cabinet Subcommittee on pay anomaly. Cabinet Subcommittee on pay anomaly, as it appears from the recommendation, made discrimination in acceptance of the said recommendation of the Pay Committee 1999 without any rational reason and justification inasmuch as the Cabinet Sub-committee on pay anomaly in its meeting held on 20.11.99 had recommended the revised pay scale of the Reporter Grade-I as follows : Reporter Grade-I (i)5500-9000 (ii) 6500-10500 after 10 years of regular service in grade-I. 12. The copies of the proceeding of the said Cabinet Sub-committee meeting held on 20.11.99 is available in the said Government file and no reason had been assigned for deciding to prescribe the revised pay scale of Rs. 6500 to 10500/- per month for the Reporter Grade-I after 10 years of regular service in the Grade and also for prescribing of lesser pay scale of Rs. 5500-9000/- per month in the other Reporter Grade-I, i.e. Reporter who have not completed 10 years of regular service in the cadre. 13. By the impugned letter of the Govt. of Manipur dated 29th December, 1999, the Govt. of Manipur intimated the Secretary, Manipur Legislative Assembly that Govt. 5500-9000/- per month in the other Reporter Grade-I, i.e. Reporter who have not completed 10 years of regular service in the cadre. 13. By the impugned letter of the Govt. of Manipur dated 29th December, 1999, the Govt. of Manipur intimated the Secretary, Manipur Legislative Assembly that Govt. of Manipur approved the report of the Pay Committee 1999 regarding revision of pay of the officers and the employees of the Manipur Legislative Assembly including the Section Officer, but the report of the Pay Committee 1999 in respect of the Reporter Grade-I have not been approved in full and prescribed the revised pay scale of the Reporter Grade-1 as (i) Rs. 5500-9000 and (ii) 6500-10500 after 10 years of regular service in the grade. Hence the present writ petition. 14. In Roshan Deen v. Preet Lal reported in (2002) ILLJ 465 SC the Apex Court observed that purpose of power conferred in High Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to advance justice, not to thwart it. Even when justice is the by-product of an erroneous interpretation of law, High Court ought not to wipe out such injustice in the name of correcting the error of law. Apex Court in Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union and Ors. reported in 1997 (2) Supreme 165 held that the founding fathers placed no limitation or fetters on the power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution except self imposed limitation. The arm of the Court is long enough to reach injustice whenever it is found. In State of Maharashtra v. Digambar reported in AIR 1995 SC 1991 , the Apex Court held that the power of the High Court to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution, if it is discretionary, its exercise must be judicious and reasonable admits of no controversy. 15. Mr. Tarunkumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, in order to substantiate the case of the petitioners that there should not be discrimination at the time of revision of the pay of the employees/officers and also the employees/officers who are carrying the same scale of pay before the revision of pay, shall also be allowed to enjoy the same scale of pay, had heavily relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the following cases : 1. State of U.P. and Ors. State of U.P. and Ors. v. U.P. State Sale Tax Officers Grade-II Assn. [2003] 3 SCR 617. 2. State of Mizoram and Anr. v. Mizoram Engineering Service Assn. and Anr. AIR 2004 SC 3644 . 3. K.T. Veerappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2006) 9 SCC 406. 16. The Apex Court in "State of Maharashtra v. Assn. of Court Stenos PA PS and Anr. [2002] 1 SCR 124 held that the High Court in its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot itself examine the nature of the work of its employees and issue a mandamus directing a particular pay scale to be given to such employee. The Court, further, clarifies that this may not be construed as total ouster of jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 to examine the nature of duties of an employee and apply the principle of equal pay for equal work' in appropriate case." 17. The Apex Court in the State of U.P. and Ors. v. UP State Sale Tax Officers Grade II Assn. (supra) reported in [2003] 3 SCR 617 held that the decision of expert body like the pay commission is not ordinarily subject to judicial review obviously because pay fixation is an exercise requiring to go into various aspects of the posts held in various services and nature of duties of the employees. In that case the recommendations of pay commission in respect of the District Level Officer have not been accepted by the Government without any justification. The Apex Court held that there cannot be discrimination at the time of revision of pay. The fact of the case, as spelt out in para 2 of SCC and the decision mentioned in para Nos. 11 and 12 of the SCC, are quoted below : 2. The claim of Trade Tax Officers through their Association(respondent herein) in the High Court was that on a par with other District Level Officers in the State Services who are carrying pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 400-750/-, the Trade Tax Officers should also have been given revised pay scale of Rs. 690-1420/- in implementation of the Government resolution dated 29.12.1981 which was taken pursuant to the report of the Second U. P. Pay Commission set up for revision of pay scales of government servants w.e.f. 1.7.1979. 400-750/-, the Trade Tax Officers should also have been given revised pay scale of Rs. 690-1420/- in implementation of the Government resolution dated 29.12.1981 which was taken pursuant to the report of the Second U. P. Pay Commission set up for revision of pay scales of government servants w.e.f. 1.7.1979. The High Court, after going through the relevant part of the report of the Pay Commission and the government resolution dated 29.13.1981 taken pursuant thereto, came to the conclusion that since the Trade Tax Officers were carrying pre-revised pay scale of Rs. 400-750/- on a par with other District Level Officers in other departments of the State, the pay scale of Rs. 625-1240/- granted to them which is a step below the revised pay scale of Rs. 690-1420/- given to the District Level Officers in other departments, is per se discriminatory. It is held that keeping in view the nature of the duties and functions of Trade Tax Officers, they are equal in rank to District Level Officers and have to be given revision of pay scales on a par with other District Level Officers as both of them were carrying the same-revised pay scale of Rs. 400-750/-. 11. There can be no denial of the legal position that decision of expert bodies like the Pay Commission is not ordinarily subject to judicial review obviously because pay fixation is an exercise requiring going into various aspects of the posts held in various services and nature of the duties of the employees. In the present case, however, judicial review is not sought against the report or recommendations of the Pay Commission. What the respondent Association has questioned is the implementation of the resolution of the Government based on the report and recommendations of the Pay Commission. As we have seen above, the Pay Commission classified the District Level Officers into two groups. Those engaged in welfare and developmental activities, in view of their onerous duties, were recommended pay revision a step above other District Level Officers engaged in traditional work of the Government. As we have seen above, the Pay Commission classified the District Level Officers into two groups. Those engaged in welfare and developmental activities, in view of their onerous duties, were recommended pay revision a step above other District Level Officers engaged in traditional work of the Government. These recommendations of the Pay Commission by classifying District Level Officers into two groups i.e. A and B has been given a go-by rightly too, in our view, by the Government when it resolved under its decision taken on 29.12.1981 to grant revised pay scales to District Level Offices only on the basis of the pre-revised pay scales which they were carrying. We have also noted the relevant part of the resolution of the Government which recommends for the officers in the pre-revised scale of Rs. 400-750/-, the pay scale of Rs. 690-1420/-. 12. In the light of the aforesaid decision of the Government. Trade Tax Officers who were carrying pre-revised scale of Rs. 400-750/- could not have been discriminated vis-a-vis the District Level Officers who also carried the same pre-revised scale of pay. Pursuant to the aforesaid decision of the Government, Trade Tax Officers have been granted a pay scale of Rs. 625-1170/- which is a step below the pay scale of Rs. 690-1420/- granted to the District Level Officers who carried the same pre-revised scale of pay with Trade Tax Officers. 18. The State respondents filed their affidavit in-opposition in the present writ petition, but no reason had been given in their affidavit in-opposition for not accepting the recommendation of the pay committee, constituted by the Hon'ble Speaker under the said bulletin dated 17.3.99, as stated above, accepted by the Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly by his said order dated 28.07.99. Under Article 187 of the Constitution of India, the houses or its house of the Legislature of a State shall have a separate secretarial staff and the legislature of State may, by law, regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of the persons appointed, to the Secretarial Staff of the house or the houses of the legislature of the State. Under Article 187 of the Constitution of India, the houses or its house of the Legislature of a State shall have a separate secretarial staff and the legislature of State may, by law, regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of the persons appointed, to the Secretarial Staff of the house or the houses of the legislature of the State. As stated above, in the present case Manipur Legislative Assembly had framed the Rules regulating the recruitment of the Staff of the Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat under which in the event of general revision of scale of pay and other emoluments by the Government servant in the State of Manipur, the revised scale of pay and other emoluments admissible to the Government servant of the corresponding posts in the Assembly Secretariat, shall apply, hi case the Government hold a view different from that of the committee constituted by the Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly, the Govt. have to appraise the committee of the reasons that might have weighed with them in not accepting or implementing the recommendations. The matter, in such event, is to be considered by the committee for a further report, if deemed necessary, may be presented to the house. The difference of opinion between the committee and the Government shall also be to be referred to the Speaker for guidance. The relevant portion of page 770 of M.N. Kaul S.L. Shakdher Practice and Procedure of Parliament published for the Lok Sabha Secretariat (Fifth Edition, 2001) reads as follows: Disagreement between a Committee and the Government The recommendations of a Parliamentary Committee are normally accepted and implemented by the Government. If in regard to any recommendation the Government hold a view different from that of the Committee, the Government have to apprise the Committee of the reasons that might have weighed with them in not accepting or implementing the recommendations. The matter is considered by the Committee and a further report, if deemed necessary may be presented to the House. In the case of the Fourth Report of the Public Accounts Committee, 1952-53, the Government deviated from this procedure and laid a statement on the Table on August 11, 1953, without placing the views before the Committee in the first instance. In the case of the Fourth Report of the Public Accounts Committee, 1952-53, the Government deviated from this procedure and laid a statement on the Table on August 11, 1953, without placing the views before the Committee in the first instance. The Committee sought the Speaker's guidance in the matter, who directed that a circular should be sent to all the Ministries laying down that in those cases where Government were not in a position to implement a recommendation made by a Committee and the Government had reasons to disagree with the recommendation of the Committee, the Ministry concerned should, in consonance with the well-established procedure, place its views before the Committee who may, if it thinks fit, present a further report to the House after considering the views of the Government in the matter. Where a difference of opinion between the committee and the Government remains unresolved, the case is referred to the Speaker for guidance. 19. In the present case, the difference of opinion between the Pay Committee 1999 of the Manipur Legislative Assembly and the Govt. of Manipur regarding revision of pay scale for the post of Report Grade-I was not apprised to the committee by the Government and also the difference of opinion was not referred to the Speaker, who had accepted the report, for guidance. Over and above, there is no justification and rational reasons for selective discrimination in accepting the said report of the Pay Committee 1999 so far the post of Reporter Grade-I is concerned inasmuch as, the said report regarding the other corresponding posts, of Grade-I had been accepted in full 20. The Apex Court, in State of Mizoram and Anr. v. Mizoram Engineers Assn. reported in AIR 2004 SC 3644 , held that there cannot be discrimination at the time of revision of pay on the recommendation of the pay Commission. In that case, the recommendation of the pay commission was accepted by the State Government. Even after such acceptance, the State Government had discriminated in revising the pay scale in respect of Chief Engineer/Addl. Chief Engineer of the State Engineering Department merely because of absence of recruitment rules for the service and also on financial burden. The Apex Court held that financial burden cannot be ground for denial of revision of pay scale and also that there cannot be discrimination in revision of the pay scale. Chief Engineer of the State Engineering Department merely because of absence of recruitment rules for the service and also on financial burden. The Apex Court held that financial burden cannot be ground for denial of revision of pay scale and also that there cannot be discrimination in revision of the pay scale. Paras 5, 6 and 7 of the SCC in Mizoram Engineers Assn.'s case (supra) are quoted below : 5. Coming to the argument that the scale of pay of Rs. 5900-6700/- was confined to only the then Chief Engineer Mr. Robula and was not to be allowed to future entrants in the service, we find no justification for this. The fact that the revised pay scale was being allowed to Mr. Robula in tune with the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission, shows that the State Government had duly accepted the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission. Having done so it cannot be permitted to discriminate between individuals and not allow the same to the rest. In this context the learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that it is not unusual that sometimes special pay is granted to an individual and the same does not become a precedent for others. As a proposition it may not be disputed. But there has to be special reason for this. In the facts of the present case, we do not find any justification for confining the higher scale to a particular individual and deny the same to others. There maybe special reasons, for instance, special merit, expertise or the like, for giving special pay to a particular individual. In the present case no such reason is forthcoming. On the other hand the reason given is that since he was holding the post on 1.1.86 the date from which the Fourth Central Pay Commission recommendations were given effect to he was being allowed the higher pay scale. This reason rather supports the case of the respondent. It shows an admission on the part of the appellant that the revised pay scales for the post of Chief Engineer as per the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission was Rs. 5900-6700/- and was allowed to a Chief Engineer. This reason rather supports the case of the respondent. It shows an admission on the part of the appellant that the revised pay scales for the post of Chief Engineer as per the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission was Rs. 5900-6700/- and was allowed to a Chief Engineer. The State Government cannot be permitted to discriminate between similarly placed individuals in this behalf between those holding the post at the time of revision of pay scales and future incumbents of the post. The argument has no merit. 6. Great stress was laid on the fact that Engineering Service in the State was not an organized service and therefore, it did not have categorization by way of entrance-level and senior-level posts and for that reasons the higher scale of Rs. 5900-6700/- which was admissible for senior-level posts could not be given in the Engineering Serving as an unorganized service in the State is absence of recruitment rules for the service. Who is responsible for not framing the recruitment rules? Are the members of the Engineering Service responsible for it? The answer is clearly "No". For failure of the State Government to frame recruitment rules and bring Engineering Service within the framework of organized service, the engineers cannot be made to suffer. Apart from the reason of absence of recruitment rules for the Engineering Service, we see hardly any difference in organized and unorganized service so far as Government service is concerned. In government service such a distinction does not appear to have any relevance. Civil service is not trade unionism. We fail to appreciate what is sought to be conveyed by use of the words "organized service" and "unorganized service." Nothing has been pointed out in this behalf. The argument is wholly misconceived. 7. The learned Counsel for the appellant also argued that if the scale of Rs. 5900-6700/- is to be allowed to the Chief Engineers, the State Government will have to allow the same scale to other heads of departments in the service of the State Government which will be a heavy burden on the financial resources of the State and for that reason we should restrict the scale for post of Chief Engineer and Additional Chief Engineer to Rs. 4500-5700/-, Rs. 4100-5300/- respectively. In our view this is hardly any ground to interfere with the decision of the High Court. 4500-5700/-, Rs. 4100-5300/- respectively. In our view this is hardly any ground to interfere with the decision of the High Court. It has been found that the claim of the respondents is fully justified by the facts on record. The Central Government as well as the State Government accepted the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission and the scales being allowed to the members of the respondent Association are based on those recommendations. 21. The Apex Court in K.T. Virapa and Ors. (supra) held that Court should interfere with administrative decision pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factor. Para 13 of SCC (K.T. Virapa reported in (2006) 9 SCC 406) is quoted below : 13. He next contended that fixation of pay and parity in duties is the function of the executive and financial capacity of the Govt. and the priority given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the Government are also relevant factors. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance on State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. and Union of India v. S.B. Vohra. There is no dispute nor can there by any to the principle as settled in State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. That fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties is the function of the executive and the scope of judicial review of administrative decision in this regard is very limited. However, it is also equally well settled that the courts should interfere with administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity when they find such a decision to be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors. 22. In the present case, as discussed above, there is no reason in the decision of the Govt. for a discriminatory approval of the said report of the Pay Committee 1999 in respect of the post of Reporter Grade-I and it is unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees, i.e. Reporter Grade-1 of the Manipur Legislative Assembly Secretariat and also it is taken in ignorance of material and relevant factors. 23. To the contrary Mr. Reisang, learned Aodl. 23. To the contrary Mr. Reisang, learned Aodl. G.A. relied on the decisions of this Court - (a) Accounts Service Association of Nagaland v. State of Nagaland and Ors. 2006 (Supp) 1 GLT 211, (b) Khaizallan (Dr.) and Anr. v. Thokchom Jitenkumar Singh and Ors., and also the decision of the Apex Court M.P. Rural Agricultural Extension Officers Assn. v. State of M.P. and Anr. reported in. 24. This Court had given anxious consideration of mind to the cases cited above by Mr. Reisang, learned Addl. G.A. appearing for the respondents. 25. In Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat AIR 1986 SC 1620 Apex Court observed– 18....The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case. It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. In Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. AIR 2003 SC 511 Apex Court observed 59....It is also well settled that a little difference in facts or additional facts may make a lot of difference in the precedential value of a decision. As held in Bharat Petroleum Corporation. Ltd. v. N.R. Vairamani (2004) 8 SCC 579 a decision cannot be relied on without disclosing the factual situation. In the same judgment Apex Court also observed: (SCC pp. 584-85, paras 9-12). 9. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of a statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statues, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes, their words are not to be interpreted as statues. In London Graving Dock Co. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statues, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes, their words are not to be interpreted as statues. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton AC at p. 761 : 1951 AC 737 Lord Mac Dermott observed All ER p. 14-C-D. The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the Ipsissima verba of willes, J. as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge,.... 10. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co. Ltd. (1970) 2 ALLER 294 (All ER p. 297 g-h) Lord Reid said, 'Lord Atkin's speech is not to be treated as if it were a statutory definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances.' Megarry, J. in Shepherd Homes Ltd. v. Sandham No. 2 (1971) 2 ALLER 1267observed: All ER p. 127d One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of even Russel, L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament; And, in Herrington v. British Railways Board Lord Morris (1972) 1 ALLER 749 said: All ER p. 761c There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or a judgment as though they were words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case. 11. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper. 12. The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying precedents have become locus classicus : Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between one case and another is not enough because even a single significant detail may alter the entire aspect, in deciding such cases, one should avoid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cardozo) by matching the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide therefore, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to another case is not at all decisive. Precedent should be followed only so far it marks the path of justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is to keep the path of justice clear of obstructions which could impede it. 26. For the reasons discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the above cases cited by the RS Reisang, learned Addl. GA. will not help the case of the State respondents and as such the respondents had utterly failed to show any justification and rational reasons for denying the recommendation of the pay committee 1999 under its report, which had been accepted by the Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly, for revision of the pay scale of the Report Grade-I from Rs. 1640-2900 to Rs. 6500-10500 per month. Accordingly, the impugned letter/order of the Government of Manipur dated 29th December, 1999 so far the case of the Reporter Grade-I is concerned, is required to be interfered with. Accordingly, same is hereby quashed. 27. In the result, the revised pay of the Reporter Grade-I of the Manipur Legislative Assembly pursuant to the recommendation of the pay Committee 1999 under its report, which had been accepted by the Speaker, Manipur Legislative Assembly, would be Rs. 6500 to 10500 per month and the petitioners would be entitled to all the consequential benefits. 28. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. Parties are to be bear their own costs. Petition allowed.