The Supreme Court joint bench of Justices Dr. Manoj Kumar Sharma and Sunil Kumar Pokharel issued an order dated 2081.03.10 BS in a writ petition concerning the adjustment and determination of civil service salary scales according to hierarchy. The petition, brought by Govind Khanal and 32 other civil servants, names the Office of the Prime Minister and Council of Ministers, the Ministry of Finance, and the Ministry of Federal Affairs and General Administration as respondents.
The petitioners are serving in various government offices, including the Office of the Attorney General, the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the Office of the Auditor General. They argue that differing starting salary scales for gazetted First, Second and Third Class civil servants, compared with certain security-service posts, create unequal treatment among employees in comparable ranks.
According to the petition, the disputed pay structure grants higher or different starting salaries to several posts in the security agencies while civil servants in equivalent or related ranks receive lower amounts. The petitioners allege that this breaches the constitutional right to equality under Article 18 of the Constitution of Nepal and is inconsistent with principles of equal protection and equal pay for equal work referred to in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The petition also refers to government notices, civil service regulations and Ministry of Finance communications concerning salary scales. It states that a House of Representatives committee had directed the Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministry of Finance to address the alleged inequality and adjust the FY 2079/80 salary scales, but the petitioners claim that direction has not been implemented.
The petitioners have requested quashing of the order or arrangement implementing the disputed starting pay scales and restoration or adjustment of the relevant hierarchy-based salary and grade amounts for affected gazetted civil servants. The Court noted its constitutional jurisdiction under Articles 46 and 133 of the Constitution and indicated that the order would preserve the status quo pending the proceeding.