Income cannot be sole decider of OBC creamy layer: SC | India News

NEW DELHI: Income of parents cannot be the only criterion to exclude a candidate from OBC quota for being part of the ‘creamy layer’, the Supreme Court said, adding that parents’ job status and category must be considered, as additional criteria for exclusion in the income/wealth test. Currently, the threshold income for determining the ‘creamy layer’ is Rs 8 lakh per annum.The court’s judgment will have huge implications for the wards of PSU and private sector employees as income was taken as the sole determining factor in deciding ‘creamy layer’ status for them, unlike in the case of government employees wards, for which job category is the deciding factor. A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan said that children of Group A and B government employees are barred from getting OBC reservation benefits due to their employment status, but wards of Group C and Group D employees are eligible for OBC reservation benefits even if their income level exceeds the limit, due to promotion and flow of time.The court rejected the Centre’s plea which insisted on the income/wealth test criteria and accepted the contention of the aggrieved children of PSU employees who fought the case for over a decade through their lawyer Shashank Ratnu.The Office Memorandum issued by the Center in 1993 stated that the same principle would be applied to employees of public sector undertakings, banks, insurance companies, universities and similar organizations holding equivalent or comparable positions. But the “equality of posts” contemplated in the OM was not done, and a clarification letter was issued by the government in 2004 making the income/wealth test the sole criterion for PSU and private sector employees.The SC held that placing too much emphasis on the 2004 letter without considering the status or category of service of the parents would defeat the structural framework of exclusion envisaged under the 1993 OM.Cannot have double standard for children of government employees: SCIt is also clear from a broad reading of the 1993 OM along with the clarification letter that income from salary alone cannot be the sole criterion for deciding whether a candidate falls within the cream layer. The status as well as the category of the post to which the candidate’s parent or parents belong is essential. Exclusions under Divisions I to III of the Schedule are purely status-based rather than income-based, reflecting the policy understanding that progression within the civil service hierarchy indicates social advancement independent of fluctuations in pay levels. A candidate’s status whether he falls in the creamy layer or the non-creamy layer of OBCs cannot be decided solely on the basis of income,” said Justice Mahadevan, who wrote the judgement. “Hence, determination of creamy layer status on the basis of income bracket alone without reference to classification of posts and status parameters as mentioned in 1993 OM is clearly unsustainable in law.”Stating that there cannot be a separate standard for children of government employees and the rest, the court said it would amount to discrimination which cannot be sanctioned.“Adopting an interpretation which disadvantages a section of the same backward class without reasonable justification would be tantamount to treating equal as unequal and thus would be anti-equality… Considering the peculiar facts of the present case, the reasoning adopted by the High Court that treating private sector employees alike and treating them differently to government employees in PSU wards. Entitlement to reservation, tantamount to discriminatory discrimination, certainly inspires confidence in this Court,” it said.