Important Point
Different educational qualifications would not by itself be a criterion to deny equal pay for equal work to the employees otherwise similarly circumscribed.

Headnote:(i) APPEAL BY SPECIAL LEAVE -Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136-Appellants working as Draftsmen in Central Water Commission-Moved Administrative Tribunal for parity of pay scales with CPWD from 1st January, 1973 to 16th November, 1978 and arrears of revised pay scales from 16th November, 1978 to 13th May 1982 Tribunal allowed benefit of pay scales notionally from 13th May, 1982 with benefit of actual payment from 1st November, 1983-Appeal-Clear distinguishing feature between two cadres of draftsmen in CWC and CPWD well established on record-Tribunal not erred in not granting revised pay scales to draftsmen in CWC notionally from 1st January, 1973 to 16th November, 1978 and arrears of revised pay scales from 16th November, 1968 to 13th May, 1982-Appellants not discriminated by respondent in not giving them benefit of revised pay scales both notionally and actually than that given by Tribunal pursuant to O.M. of 1984 and which relief made available to appellants by even stretching relief by Tribunal in their favour.
       Held : The submission that difference in educational qualification should not be a discriminating factor for a truncated period cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the period got truncated only because the Tribunal stretched a point in favour of the appellants by narrowing the gap for the short period by giving retrospective benefit of pay scales to the appellants both notionally and actually from 1982-83 though the difference in educational qualifications for recruitment at grassroot level so far as draftsmen in CWC were concerned remained upto 1987. The submission based on the difference between draftsmen Grade III in CWC and CPWD so far as educational qualifications were concerned though was confined to Grade III draftsmen only even, in promotional avenues, as we have seen earlier, there was a clear distinction so far as requirements for promotional eligibility even to higher grades were concerned during the relevant time. Consequently in the light of these clear distinguishing features between the two cadres of draftsmen in CWC and CPWD which are well established on record no useful purpose could be served by remanding the matter to Central Administrative Tribunal as lastly submitted in these written submissions. The first point for determination is consequently answered in the negative against the appellants and in favour of the respondents. (Para 12)
       Further held : It is, therefore, obvious that on merits the Tribunal had held in favour of those concerned employees in other departments that they were similarly circumscribed as the draftsmen in CPWD and on those peculiar facts these reliefs were given to them. In the present case such similarity of qualifications of employees was not available to the appellants as found by the Tribunal itself. We fail to appreciate how judicial orders passed against employees in other departments on the basis of the separate fact situations which were found established in their cases by the Tribunal or other judicial authorities could ever be pressed in service almost automatically by the appellants in the peculiar facts of the present case wherein they are not similarly situated as their counterparts in CPWD. Consequently it could not be said that the appellants have been discriminated even on this additional ground by the respondents in not giving them further benefit of revised pay scales both notionally and actually than that which was given to them by the Tribunal pursuant to the O.M. of 1984 and which relief, as we have seen earlier, was made available to the appellants by even stretching the relief by the Tribunal in their favour. Consequently even the second contention is not found sustainable on merits and stands rejected. (Para 13)

Judgment

S.B. Majmudar, J.-This appeal by grant of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India has brought in challenge the judgment and order rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Principal Bench at New Delhi in O.A. No. 1 of 1989, filed by the 429 original applicants before the Tribunal insofar as the Tribunal has not granted them full relief as prayed for therein. In order to appreciate the grievance of these appellants it will be necessary to note a few introductory facts.

Background Facts

2. The appellants are working as Draftsmen in the Central Water Commission (‘CWC’ for short). It is not in dispute that the said Commission is functioning under the Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India. According to these appellants the Third Pay Commission appointed by the Central Government had observed that the pay scales allowed to the Draftsmen were rather low and they were required to be upgraded as per the recommendations of the said Commission. The case of the appellants is that upto 20th June 1980 the draftsmen in Grades I, II and III in CWC and Central Public Works Department (‘CWD’ for short) were enjoying identical pay scales from 1st January 1947 to 20th June 1980 on the basis of First, Second and Third Pay Commission’s recommendations. However the pay scales of draftsmen of CPWD were revised upwards on 20th June 1980 giving effect notionally from 1st January 1973 and actual benefits of arrears from 28th and 29th July 1978. The appellants contend that they were doing similar type of work as draftsmen in CPWD and they were also entitled to the similar treatment and revised pay scales, notional and actual, on the same lines as those granted to their counterpart draftsmen in CPWD. They made number of representations to the respondent authorities. But they were of no avail. The recruitment rules of the appellants were revised somewhere in 1982. The respondent authorities constituted a sub-committee for the purpose of Cadre Review of Draftsmen cadre in CWC. According to the appellants the sub-committee recommended that the anomaly created regarding the pay scales of Draftsmen in CWC as compared to Draftsmen in the CPWD shall be rectified and be brought at par with the pay scales awarded by the Board of Arbitration to CPWD draftsmen. But despite these recommendations nothing happened. Ultimately Ministry of Finance issued a Memorandum on 13th March 1984. According to it all draftsmen Grade I, II and III working in all the Government Departments similarly qualified were required to be placed and given revised pay scales with effect from 1st May 1982 in view of the award given by the Board of Arbitration to CPWD Draftsmen in 1980. That thereafter the Recruitment Rules of draftsmen were amended on 27th November 1987 and consequently the pay scales of the appellants were revised and brought at par with CPWD draftsmen from 9th November 1987. The appellants’ grievance is that the parity of pay scales should have been given to them on the same lines on which benefit of revised pay scales was given to the CPWD draftsmen from 1st January 1973 partly notionally and subsequently actually. The appellants, therefore, represented that their pay scales should be revised on the same lines as the revised pay scales of CPWD draftsmen with effect from 1st January 1973 instead of from 9th November 1987. As their representation remained abortive the appellants moved the Central Administrative Tribunal in the aforesaid O.A. No. 1 of 1989. The relief which they prayed for was to the effect that the applicants may be given revised pay scales with effect from 1th January, 1973 instead of 9th November, 1987 as ordered to be paid by the respondents. The said prayer was based on the ground that the draftsmen Grade I, II and III in CWC were discharging similar type of duties as the draftsmen in CPWD and that their qualifications were also substantially similar and consequently they were entitled to be given the same t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 22

Important PointDifferent educational qualifications would not by itself be a criterion to deny equal pay for equal work to the employees otherwise similarly circumscribed.

Cases Referred (2)

Important Point
Different educational qualifications would not by itself be a criterion to deny equal pay for equal work to the employees otherwise similarly circumscribed.