IMPORTANT POINT
Claim for equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right vested in any employee though it is a constitutional goal to be achieved by the Govt. on the basis of settled principles of law which have been ignored by High Court in this case.

Headnote:Service Jurisprudence-Equal pay for equal work-Claim relating to parity of pay and fixation of revised scale of pay of the Personal Assistants working in Haryana Govt. at par with P.A. s working in the Central Secretariat as per recommendations of Fourth Central Pay Commission w.e.f. 1-1-86-Allowed by High Court-Appeal against to Supreme Court-Whether High Court has ignored the settled principles of law in a claim relating to parity of pay and fixation of revised scale of pay? (Yes)-Appeal allowed but with direction not to take back arrears which have already been paid-Case law discussed.
       Held : From the discussions in the impugned judgment it is clear to us that the High Court has ignored certain settled principles of law for determination of the claim on parity of pay scale by a section of government employees. While making copious reference to the principle of equal pay for equal work and equality in the matter of pay, the High Court overlooked the position that the parity sought by the petitioner in the case was with employees having only the same designation under the Central Government. Such comparison by a section of employees of State Government with employees of Central Government based merely on designation of the posts was misconceived. The High Court also fell into error in assuming that the averment regarding similarity of duties and responsibilities made in the writ petition was unrebutted. The appellants in their counter affidavit have taken the specific stand that no comparison between the two sections of employees is possible since the qualifications prescribed for the P.A.s in the Central Secretariat are different from the P.A.s in the State Civil Secretariat. Even assuming that there was no specific rebuttal of the averment in the writ petition that could not form the basis for grant of parity of scale of pay as claimed by the respondent. The High Court has not made any comparison of the nature of duties and responsibilities, the qualifications for recruitment to the posts of P.A.s in the State Civil Secretariat with those of P.A.s of the Central Secretariat (Para 8)
       Held further : It is to be kept in mind that the claim of equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right vested in any employee though it is a constitutional goal to be achieved by the Government. Fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge. While taking a decision in the matter several relevant factors, some of which have been noted by this Court in the decided case, are to be considered keeping in view the prevailing financial position and capacity of the State Government to bear the additional liability of a revised scale of pay. It is also to be kept in mind that the priority given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the State Government is also a relevant factor for consideration by the State Government. In the context of complex nature of issues involved, the far reaching consequences of a decision in the matter and its impact on the administration of the State Government courts have taken the view that ordinarily courts should not try to delve deep into administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity. That is not to say that the matter is not justiciable or that the courts cannot entertain any proceeding against such administrative decision taken by the government. The courts should approach such matters with restraint and interfere only when they are satisfied that the decision of the government is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and the government while taking the decision has ignored factors which are material and relevant for a decision in the matter. Even in a case where the court holds the order passed by the government to be unsustainable then ordinarily a direction should be given to the State Government or the authority taking the decision to reconsider the matter and pass a proper order. The court should avoid giving a declaration granting a particular scale of pay and compelling the government to implement the same. As noted earlier, in the present case the High Court has not even made any attempt to compare the nature of duties and responsibilities of the two sections of employees, one in the State Secretariat and the other in the Central Secretariat. It has also ignored the basic principle that there are certain rules, regulations and executive instructions issued by the employers which govern the administration of the cadre. (Para 10)
       Held finally : On the discussions in the foregoing paragraphs, we have no hesitation to hold that the High Court was in error in allowing the writ petition and directing the appellants to grant the scale of Rs. 2000-3500 to the P.A.s of the State Civil Secretariat with effect from 1.1.1986. The judgment of the High Court is unsustainable. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the judgment under challenge is set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondent herein is dismissed. There will, however, be no order for costs. (Para 11)
       Held, however : We make it clear that if any of the Personal Assistant(s) serving in the Haryana State Civil Secretariat has/have received any additional emolument in pursuance of the judgment of the High Court under challenge such amount will not be recovered from him/them. (Para 12)

JUDGMENT

D.P. Mohapatra, J.-This appeal filed by the State of Haryana, represented by the Chief Secretary and the Secretary to Government of Haryana, Department of Finance, is directed against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 13.8.1996 in CWP No.4206/95 filed by the Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association through its General Secretary Shri Ram Mehar Sharma. In the writ petition the petitioner prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant the Personal Assistants (for short P.A.s ) the pay scale of Rs. 2,000-3500 plus Rs. 150/- as special pay which have been given to the P.A.s working in the Central Secretariat for the reason that the State of Haryana had accepted the recommendations made by the Fourth Central Pay Commission with regard to revision of pay scales with effect from 1.1.1986 with all consequential benefits like fixation of pay, arrears and other benefits.

2. The case of the writ petitioner sans unnecessary details was that prior to 1986 the P.A.s in the Civil Secretariat Haryana were enjoying higher scale of pay than the P.A.s of the Central Secretariat. On receipt of the Fourth Central Pay Commission Report the Central Government revised the pay scale of P.A.s to Rs.2000-3500 with effect from 1.1.1986. Though the Government of Haryana accepted the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission and implemented the same in respect of certain categories of employees but in respect of P.A.s in the Civil Secretariat the revised scale of pay was fixed at Rs. 1640-2900 + Rs.150/- as special pay, instead of Rs. 2000-3500. The further case of the petitioner was that in respect of certain categories of employees of different departments of State of Haryana like Education, Police, Transport, Health and Engineering and Technical staff, the State Government revised the scale of pay exactly according to the recommendation of the Fourth Central Pay Commission and granted them the scale of Rs. 2000-3500 but in case of the P.A.s the State Government fixed the lower revised scale of pay denying them parity of pay scale with their counterparts in the Central Government. The petitioner alleged that the post of P. A. in Civil Secretariat of the State of Haryana is comparable with the post of P.A. in Central Secretariat; they discharge similar duties and responsibilities as those of their counterparts in the Central Secretariat. The petitioner contended that employees like Police Inspectors and some others who were borne on the same scale of pay as P.A.s prior to implementation of the Fourth Central Pay Commission Report i.e. Rs. 700-1250, were granted the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3200 whereas the P.A.s were placed in the scale of Rs. 1640-2900 only. Such action on the part of the State Government, the petitioner contended, was arbitrary, discriminatory and irrational. The further case of the petitioner was that on receipt of several representations from the petitioner-association and its members, the State Government referred the matter to the Pay Anomalies Commission headed by the Chief Secretary, which did not accept the claim of the petitioner but only recommended the Selection Grade of Rs. 2000-3200 to the 20% of the posts of P.A.s with the condition of 12 years of service. It was asserted by the petitioner that the P.A.s working in the Civil Secretariat were entitled to get the pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 with effect from 1.1.1986 and the decision taken by the State Government granting the Selection Grade of Rs. 2000-3200 and that too only to those P.A.s who have completed 12 years of services and maximum up to 20% of the posts in cadre is wholly illegal and unjust.

3. Refuting the allegations made in the writ petition the respondents in their counter affidavit questioned the very basis of the claim laid by the petitioner which was based on the assumption that P.A.s in the State Civil Secretariat were entitled to the same scale of pay granted by the Central Gover

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2002 Supreme(SC) 677

IMPORTANT POINTClaim for equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right vested in any employee though it is a constitutional goal to be achieved by the Govt. on the basis of settled principles of law which have been ignored by High Court in this case.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Claim for equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right vested in any employee though it is a constitutional goal to be achieved by the Govt. on the basis of settled principles of law which have been ignored by High Court in this case.