In Union of India v. Rohith Nathan case, the Supreme Court held that OBC creamy layer status cannot be decided solely on parental income without considering parental post and status.
Other observation by SC
- Denying Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) status to children of PSU or private sector staff based on salary, while granting it to similarly paid government staff, violates Articles 14, 15, and 16.
- The Court affirmed that under the foundational 1993 Office Memorandum (OM), parental employment status (e.g., Group A/B vs. Group C/D) is the primary criterion, while the income/wealth test acts only as a secondary, residual filter.
Response by the Union Government
- Prospective Effect (Article 142): Urged the Court to apply the ruling prospectively to protect concluded selections, recruitments, and service allocations from disruption.
- Transition Relief: sought a two-year window to frame uniform post-equivalence standards across PSUs, banks, universities, and private entities.
About Creamy Layer Concept
- The creamy layer concept was introduced by the Supreme Court in the Indra Sawhney case (1992) to ensure that reservation benefits reach the truly disadvantaged.
- 1993 DoPT Office Memorandum: lays down two primary assessment mechanisms:
- Status Criteria (Categories I-V): Excludes children of constitutional post holders, Group A officers, and early-promoted Group B officers.
- Income/Wealth Test (Category VI): Applies residually; evaluates non-salary and non-agricultural income against the ₹8 lakh threshold over three years.
- The 2004 DoPT order: introduced separate aggregation of PSU/private parental salaries, creating an artificial distinction between public servants and non-government workers.
