IMPORTANT POINT
Before a set of employees can claim parity of pay scales on the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work it has to be shown by such claimants that qualitatively and quantitatively the work which they do is of the same type and nature as that of their counterparts whose pay scales are pressed in service for getting the parity and even educational qualifications must be identical.

Headnote:(i) Service Law-Principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work -Applicability of-Claim of parity of pay scales on principle of-Claimants to show that qualitatively and quantitatively the work they do is of same type and nature-Even educational qualifications must be identical.
       Held that before a set of employees can claim parity of pay scales on the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work it has to be shown by such claimants that qualitatively and quantitatively the work which they do is of the same type and nature as that of their counterparts whose pay scales are pressed in service for getting the parity. Not only that but even educational qualifications must be identical. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that different pay scales can be prescribed for employees having different educational qualifications. (Para 7)
       (ii) Constitution of India-Art. 136-Respondents working as Language Teachers in Haryana Government Vocational Education Institute, teach Hindi and English to standard 11 and 12 students of the institute-Claim of parity of pay scale that was made available to higher secondary school teachers-Distinction between a Pass Class Post Graduate teacher and a second class or first Class Post Graduate degree-holder teacher was totally effaced by recommendations of Pay Revision Committee-No substantial cleavage in quantity and quality of work done by both these sets of employees-They are similarly circumscribed-Respondents pay scales will stand notionally revised from 1.1.1986-Arrears to be paid from date of judgment of single Judge.
       Held : So far as the quantity of work is concerned it is well established that in school cadre in Education Department a Lecturer teacher 30 periods in a week, one period is of 40 minutes duration, i.e., 20 hours in a week whereas the Language Teachers like the respondents teaching in technical institutes teach for 24 hours in a week, one period being of one hour s duration, i.e., 24 hours in a week. Thus even quantitatively the work which the respondents do is more intensive as compared to the work done by their counterpart teachers in higher secondary schools. That the difference in the nomenclature between the two sets of employees, namely, Language Teachers like the respondents in technical institutes and Lecturers in higher secondary schools does not represent any substantial cleavage in the quantity and quality of work done by both these sets of employees. (Para 11)
       Further held that but for the difference in educational qualifications both these sets of employees are similarly circumscribed. So far as the educational qualifications difference is concerned that would have, as noted above, made some vital difference but for the fact that the appellants themselves in their own wisdom thought it fit to ignore this difference in the educational qualifications by offering a uniform time scale of Rs.1640-2900/- to all Post Graduate Lecturers in higher secondary schools. For all these reasons no fault can be found with the decision rendered by the High Court especially in the light of latter developments at the end of the appellants themselves who treated all these teachers at par by promulgating the Revised Pay Rules in the light of the recommendations of the Pay Revision Committee as well as Pay Anomalies Commission as noted in details by us earlier. (Para 12)
       The appellants will have now to make good to the respondents arrears of pay in the revised pay scale of Rs.2000-3500/- as claimed by them with effect from the date of the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, that is, from 15th July 1992, though their earlier pay scales will stand notionally revised to Rs. 1640-2900/- from 1.1.1986 and to Rs. 2000-3500/- from 01st May 1990 and their increments in the said pay scales will have to be worked out accordingly and their present pay will have to be re-fixed accordingly. (Para 14)

JUDGMENT

S.B. Majmudar, J.-State of Haryana and Director of Industrial Training & Vocational Education having obtained special leave to appeal from this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India have moved this appeal against the judgment and order rendered by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1267 of 1992 which was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court and whereby the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court against the appellants was confirmed.

2. In order to highlight the grievance of the appellants it is necessary to note a few backdrop facts. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 who only remain in the arena of contest as respondent nos. 3 and 4 were ordered to be deleted by an earlier order of this Court dated 08th April 1977, are working as Language Teachers in Haryana Government Vocational Education Institute. They teach Hindi and English to standard 11 and 12 students who study in such institutes. The respondents were appointed in pay scale of Rs. 600-1100/- which was subsequently revised to Rs. 1400-2600/- with effect from 1.1.1986 as per Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1987. The respondents grievance is that as they were Language Teachers teaching students of standard 11 and 12 forming part of higher secondary educational system should have been paid the same pay scale that was made available to their counterparts who were teaching standard 11 and 12 students in higher secondary schools in the State. That they were equally circumscribed as their aforesaid counterparts and consequently on the principle of Equal Pay for Equal work they were entitled to higher pay scale which was made available to higher secondary school teachers in these schools. Said higher pay scale was initially Rs. 1640-2900/- which was further revised by the appellant-State with effect from 01st May 1990 to Rs. 2000-3500/-. It is this revised pay scale which, according to the respondents, should have been made available to them and as that was not granted they filed Civil Writ Petition No. 16543 of 1990 in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana.

3. A learned Single Judge of the High Court after hearing the appellants herein as well as the contesting respondents came to the conclusion that there was no justification for the appellant-State to deny equal pay scales to the respondents as were made available to Lecturers in higher secondary schools as the nature of work carried out by the respondents was identical with the work of the teachers in higher secondary schools. The learned Judge negatived the contention of the appellants that respondents were not comparable with the higher secondary school teachers as the respondents educational qualifications differed from those which were required to be possessed by higher secondary school teachers-cum-lecturers. In the view of the learned Single Judge educational qualificationwise respondents were better situated. The learned Single Judge accordingly allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to make available to the respondents higher pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- as was granted to higher secondary school teachers. However the arrears payable to the respondents were made payable from the date of the judgment of the learned Single Judge which was rendered on 15th July 1992.

4. The appellants being aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Single Judge carried the matter in appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. The respondents were on the other hand satisfied with the direction of the grant of back wages as awarded by the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench dismissed the said Letters Patent Appeal by its judgment and order dated 04th October 1993 duly endorsing the view of the learned Single Judge. That is how the appellants have landed in this Court. After earlier issuing notice in the Special Leave Petition a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court by an order dated 20th February 1995 granted special leave to a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(SC) 862

Cases Referred (2)