Back
1997(1) Supreme 137
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I. and Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.
State of Haryana & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Jasmer Singh & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 14223 of 1996
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 27150 of 1995)
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 14224-14362 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27151-54/95, 27155-57/95, 27158-60/95, 27161/95, 27162/95, 582/96, 590-595/96, 2898-2913/96, 3549-3553/96, SLP (C) 22115/96 CC 472, SLP (C) 22114/96 CC 420, SLP (C) Nos. 8284-8287/96, 8055-8084/96, 10341-10343/96, 15239-15241/96,
15242-15250/96, 13967-14006/96,
4213-4220/96)
Decided on 7-11-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appearing Parties : K. Madhava Reddy, V.A. Mohta, Sr. Advs. (Prem Malhotra) Adv., for Ms. Indu Malhotra, Kirti Kumar, Gurinder Pal Singh, G.G. Singh, (J.S. Mannipur, G. Nand Lal, I. D. Single,), Advocates for Anil Kumar Gupta-II, Anis Ahmed Khan, (Jasbir Malik, J.P.N. Gupta) Advocates for M.S. Dahiya, Ms. Anjana Sharma, Ms. Puja Anand, Madan Dev Sharma, C.S. Ashri, R.C. Pathak, Ms. Naresh Bakshi, Ms. Revathy Raghavan, Advocates.
Held : It is, therefore, clear that the quality of work performed by different sets of persons holding different jobs will have to be evaluated. There may be differences in educational or technical qualifications which may have a bearing on the skills which the holders bring to their job although the designation of the job may be the same. There may also be other considerations which have relevance to efficiency in service which may justify differences in pay-scales on the basis of criteria such as experience and seniority, or a need to prevent stagnation in the cadre, so that good performance can be elicited from persons who have reached the top of the pay-scale. There may be various other similar considerations which may have a bearing on efficient performance in a job. This Court has repeatedly observed that evaluation of such jobs for the purpose of pay-scale must be left to expert bodies and, unless there are any mala fides, its evaluation should be accepted. (Para 7)
Further held : The respondents, therefore, in the present appeals who are employed on daily wages cannot be treated as on a par with persons in regular service of the State of Haryana holding similar posts. Daily-rated workers are not required to possess the qualifications prescribed for regular workers, nor do they have to fulfil the requirement relating to age at the time of recruitment. They are not selected in the manner in which regular employees are selected. In other words the requirements for selection are not as rigorous. There are also other provisions relating to regular service such as the liability of a member of the service to be transferred, and his being subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the authorities as prescribed, which the daily-rated workmen are not subjected to. They cannot, therefore, be equated with regular workmen for the purposes for their wages. Nor can they claim the minimum of the regular pay-scale of the regularly employed. (Para 9)
Key Points: - The court held that equal pay for equal work has no mechanical application; Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics of recruited persons. (!) (!) - Daily-rated workers (Mali-cum-Chowkidars/Pump Operators) on daily wages cannot be equated with regular government employees for pay purposes; they are not required to meet the same qualifications or undergo the same selection process, and they are not under same disciplinary or transfer provisions. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.-Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
2. These appeals have been filed by the State of Haryana against the various judgments of the Punjab and Haryana High Court granted to persons employed by the State of Haryana on daily wages the same pay as those holding regular posts in Govt. service. For the sake of convenience the particulars of special leave petition No. 27150 of 1995 are set out.
3. The respondents are employed as Mali-cum-Chowkidars/Pump Operators on daily wages by the State of Haryana from different dates. The respondents prayed that on the basis of equal pay for equal work they should be paid the same salary as is being paid to regularly employed persons holding similar posts in the services of the State of Haryana. This prayer was granted by the High Court which directed the State of Haryana to pay to the respondents the same salary and allowances as are being paid to regular employees holding similar posts with effect from the dates the respondents were employed on the posts held by them.
4. The principle of equal pay for equal work is not always easy to apply. There are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating work done by different persons in different organisations, or even in the same organisation. The principle was originally enunciated as a part of the Directive Principles of State Policy in Article 39(d) of the Constitution. In the case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India & Ors.1, however, this Court said that this was a constitutional goal capable of being achieved through constitutional remedies and held that principle had to be read into Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In that case a Driver-constable in the Delhi Police Force under the Delhi Administration claimed equal salary as other Drivers and this prayer was granted. The same principle was subsequently followed for the purpose of granting relief in Dhirendra Chamoli & Anr. v. State of U.P.2 and Jaipal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.3. In the case of Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognised) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors44, however, this Court explained the principle of equal pay for equal work by holding that differentiation in pay-scales among government servants holding same posts and performing similar work on the basis of difference in the degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality would be a valid differentiation. In that case different pay-scales fixed for Stenographers (Grade I) working in the Central Secretariat and those attached to the heads of subordinate offices on the basis of a recommendation of the Pay Commission was held as not violating Article 14 and as not being contrary to the principle of equal pay for equal work . This Court also said that the judgment of administrative authorities concerning the responsibilities which attach to the post, and the degree of reliability expected of an incumbent, would be a value judgment of the concerned authorities which, if arrived at bona fide, reasonably and rationally, was not open to interference by the Court.
5. In the case of State of U.P. & Ors. v. J.P. Chaurasia & Ors.5 this Court again sounded a note of caution. It pointed out that the principle of equal pay for equal work has no mechanical application in every case of similar work. Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who are left out. Of course, these qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. In the case before the Court, the Bench Secretaries in the High Court of Allahabad claimed the same pay as Section Officers. While negativing this claim, the court said that in service matters merit or experience can be a proper basis for classification for the purposes of pay in order to promote efficiency in administration. That apart, a higher pay-scale to avoid stagnation or resul
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
