Facts
The petitioners were Presiding Officers of Central Government Industrial Tribunals-cum-Labour Courts (CGIT-cum-LCs), appointed on re-employment after retirement. They claimed parity with other Central Government tribunals and sought implementation of the 6th Pay Commission scales. Instead, their pay was fixed in scales corresponding to those applicable to District Judges pursuant to the recommendations of the Shetty Commission and Justice E. Padmanabhan Committee. They challenged this classification as violative of Arts.14 and 16 Const. of India.
Issues Framed
Implied Issue: Whether treating re-employed Presiding Officers of CGIT-cum-LCs separately for pay fixation, and extending to them the pay scales applicable to District Judiciary rather than the 6th Pay Commission scales, violates Arts.14 and 16 Const. of India.
Court’s Reasoning
(a) Re-employed officers form a distinct class. The petitioners' pay fixation was governed by the Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986. The Court held that re-employed officers stand on a different footing from regular government employees and may reasonably be classified separately for pay purposes. — Paras 5.5–6.2.
(b) Pay fixation is primarily executive. The Court reiterated that classification of posts and determination of pay scales fall within the executive domain and ordinarily depend upon expert assessment. Judicial interference is limited, particularly where the classification is supported by expert Pay Commission recommendations and no mala fide or patent anomaly is established. — Paras 5.6–5.6.3.
(c) Classification was reasonable. The application of District Judiciary scales to CGIT-cum-LC Presiding Officers, based on the recommendations of the Shetty Commission and Justice E. Padmanabhan Committee, was not arbitrary. The expert bodies had undertaken the relevant equation of posts and pay. — Paras 6.3–6.5.
(d) Arts.14 and 16 not violated. The Court held that the re-employed officers constitute a separate class from regularly employed government officers. Their distinct treatment for pay fixation therefore rested on an intelligible differentia having a rational basis. The claim to 6th Pay Commission scales could not be sustained as a Fundamental Right. — Paras 6.6–6.7.
Held
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court found no arbitrariness in the pay structure applicable to the petitioners and held that their separate classification as re-employed officers, including their equation with the District Judiciary for pay purposes, did not offend Arts.14 or 16 Const. of India.
Conclusion
The re-employed officers/persons after the retirement, when re-employed again, stand belong to a separate class. Their claim to avail the 6th Pay Commission pay scales has no basis to assert on the footing of Fundamental Rights or on any other grounds.
Relevant Para
6.7 The re-employed officers/persons after the retirement, when re-employed again, stand belong to a separate class. Their claim to avail the 6th Pay Commission pay scales has no basis to assert on the footing of Fundamental Rights or on any other grounds. Grouping them separately with those regularly working and equating them with District Judiciary cannot be said to offend either the tenets of Article 14 or the requisites of Article 16 of the Constitution.
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 848
Decided on: 12 August 2026
Case Title: R.K. Yadav & Anr. v. Union of India and Others
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: S.V.N. Bhatti J.; N.V. Anjaria J.