The Supreme Court dismissed a petition by two presiding officers of Central Government Industrial Tribunals-cum-Labour Courts who sought pay scales of the 6th Central Pay Commission instead of those recommended by the Justice E. Padmanabhan Committee. According to reports from The Economic Times, a bench of Justices N.V. Anjaria and S.V.N. Bhatti, in R.K. Yadav & Anr vs Union of India & Others (Writ Petition No. 193 of 2012), ruled that grouping the petitioners with the District Judiciary for pay fixation was "reasonable" and did not violate Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution. The judgment was delivered on August 12, 2026.
The dispute spans over a decade, with the petitioners appointed as presiding officers of CGIT-cum-Labour Courts at New Delhi and Hyderabad respectively. As reported by The Economic Times, Petitioner No. 1 (Yadav), a judicial officer of the Government of NCT of Delhi, took charge as presiding officer of CGIT-I, New Delhi, on April 21, 2009 on deputation until June 30, 2009, and was then re-employed from July 1, 2009 to work up to the age of 65. The petitioners argued that CGIT-cum-LCs are tribunals within the meaning of Article 247 read with Article 323-B of the Constitution, and that other tribunals such as the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, and the Railway Claims Tribunal had been granted 6th Pay Commission scales.
The government's position was that the pay scales of CGIT presiding officers had historically been linked to the District Judiciary. According to The Economic Times, the First National Judicial Pay Commission, known as the Shetty Commission, had recommended pay scales for CGIT presiding officers equivalent to those of District Judges. The Justice E. Padmanabhan Committee recommended revised scales that were implemented for CGIT presiding officers by order dated January 16, 2012. The Padmanabhan Committee pay scales included ₹51,550-1230-58,930-1380-63,070 for District Judge (Entry Level), ₹57,700-1230-58,930-1380-67,210-1540-70,290 for District Judge (Selection Grade), and ₹70,290-1540-76,450 for District Judge (Super Time Scale).
The court rejected the argument that the petitioners had been wrongly equated with the District Judiciary, noting that "industrial tribunals or labour courts in which persons like the petitioners are appointed as presiding officers are established within the State, and equating such presiding officers with the District Judiciary, excepting the presiding officers of National Tribunals functioning at Mumbai and Calcutta, is reasonable and does not book any arbitrariness." As reported by The Economic Times, the court held that re-employed officers constitute a distinct class, stating "upon re-employment, the re-employed officers/persons would cease to be homogeneous vis-a-vis class of regular officers in employment of the government." The judgment reiterated that pay fixation is an executive function, citing an earlier ruling in Union of India vs. T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao (2015) that "the classification of posts and determination of pay structure comes within the exclusive domain of the executive."
The court noted that statutory rules had been framed over the years to revise pay for CGIT presiding officers, with the 2015 Rules prescribing salaries for presiding officers. According to The Economic Times, after the Finance Act, 2017, the salary was fixed at ₹1,44,200 to ₹2,18,200, equivalent to Level 14 as per the 7th Pay Commission. The Tribunal (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2021 maintained the same pay level. The judgment emphasized that "it is trite principle that the courts refrain from adopting a different view contrary to one seasonedly taken by the expert body, which is equipped with details and has the proficiency in the subject," and concluded that "the petition is devoid of merit. It is dismissed."
