Two days after the Sixth Pay Commission brought out its report, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that there couldn’t be any legal challenge to the recommendations made by such expert bodies unless some glaring infirmities are established. “Even if some challenge is made to the recommendations made by the Pay Commission, the scope for interference is extremely limited,” said Justice Arijit Pasayat. He was heading a three-member Bench adjudicating the question as to whether officers in the General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF) — serving in the Border Roads Organisation (BRO) — were entitled to be treated equally with members of the Armed Force.Refusing to pass any direction on a petition filed by Ramesh Singh and other employees working for the BRO, the apex court took into account that the question has been rightly considered by the previous Pay Commissions. “The Fourth and the Fifth Central Pay Commissions considered the relevant aspects. We are of the view that prayers as made cannot be accepted, “ the Bench said.While passing the order, the Bench brought out the fact that nowhere in the petition, filed by aggrieved employees, there’s a challenge to the recommendations of the earlier Commissions.The petitioners had urged the court to issue directions to the Union Government to bring parity in the matter of service benefits so far as Army personnel and officers working in the BRO are concerned. The resentment among the civilian officers of BRO against ‘privileges’ enjoyed by regular Army officers in the BRO did not find a relief from the apex court. The court noted that earlier Pay Commissions had adequately dealt with the question of parity.
