Re-employed Judicial Officers Cannot Claim 6th Pay Commission Scales: Supreme Court

"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." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated August 12, 2026, held that judicial officers appointed on a re-employment basis as Presiding Officers of Central Government Industrial Tribunals-cum-Labour Courts form a distinct class and cannot claim parity with regular government employees for the grant of 6th Pay Commission pay scales.

A bench comprising Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice N.V. Anjaria observed that the fixation of pay scales for re-employed pensioners is governed by special statutory frameworks, specifically the Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986.

Petitioners Assailed Pay Fixation Based On Expert Committees

The petitioners, who were appointed as Presiding Officers of Central Government Industrial Tribunals-cum-Labour Courts at New Delhi and Hyderabad respectively, invoked the jurisdiction of the court under Article 32 of the Constitution. They challenged the government's decision to extend pay scales equivalent to the District Judiciary as recommended by the Justice E. Padmanabhan Committee instead of implementing the recommendations of the 6th Central Pay Commission. They argued that their tribunals constituted Union courts under Article 247 read with Article 323-B of the Constitution, placing them on par with other central tribunals like the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

The primary question before the court was whether re-employed judicial officers serving as Presiding Officers in Industrial Tribunals are entitled to claim 6th Pay Commission pay scales as a matter of fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The court was also called upon to determine whether equating such Presiding Officers with the District Judiciary violates the equality clause by treating unequals as equals.

Court Upholds Executive Domain In Pay Fixation And Notes Reasonable Classification

Pay Fixation Is An Executive Function

The Supreme Court reiterated that the determination of pay structures and the classification of posts fall within the exclusive domain of the executive and expert bodies. Citing precedents such as State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia and Union of India v. T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao, the bench emphasized that courts must respect expert recommendations unless clear mala fides or apparent anomalies are demonstrated.

Re-Employed Pensioners Constitute A Distinct Class

Addressing the challenge under Articles 14 and 16, the court held that re-employed officers stand with substantial distinction against regular government employees. The classification separating re-employed pensioners for pay fixation purposes is founded on rational and intelligible differentia.

"Classifying the re-employed persons separately for the purpose of applying pay structure and pay fixation clearly satisfies the principles and tests laid down for applying the Equality Clause read with principles underlying Article 16 of the Constitution."

Statutory Framework Governs Re-Employed Pay

The bench noted that the petitioners are governed by the Central Civil Services (Fixation of Pay of Re-employed Pensioners) Orders, 1986, and statutory rules framed from time to time under enactments like the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Finance Act, 2017, and the Tribunal Reforms Act, 2021. These regulations specifically stipulate that re-employed pensioners draw pay in the prescribed scale of the re-employed post without protection of prior pay scales.

Equating With District Judiciary Is Legitimate

The court observed that the equivalence drawn between the Presiding Officers of CGIT-cum-Labour Courts and the District Judiciary originated from the recommendations of the First National Judicial Pay Commission, known as the Shetty Commission, and were subsequently revised pursuant to the Justice E. Padmanabhan Committee report. Except for National Tribunals functioning at Mumbai and Calcutta—which require sitting or retired High Court judges—equating industrial tribunal presiding officers with the District Judiciary is entirely reasonable.

Judicial Review In Pay Matters Remains Extremely Limited

Reiterating the settled legal position, the bench underscored that courts cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the executive or expert pay commissions regarding complex salary equations. The petition was found entirely devoid of merit and was accordingly dismissed by the bench.

The Supreme Court conclusively resolved the long-standing pay dispute by upholding the statutory pay framework applicable to re-employed judicial officers. The ruling reinforces the principle that re-employed pensioners form a separate legal category whose emoluments are strictly governed by specific service rules rather than general pay commission revisions applicable to regular cadre officers.

Date of Decision: 12 August 2026