IMPORTANT POINT
Despite fact that employees have been performing similar duties and functions and their posts were interchangeable, a valid classification can be made on basis of their educational qualification.

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.-Applicability of doctrine of equal pay for work is involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 13.4.1998 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Petition No. 1550 of 1998.

Background Facts :

2. The appellant herein is an Association of Rural Agriculture Extension Officers (hereinafter referred to as the Extension Officers ). They were originally appointed as Village Level Workers. They are matriculates. The services of the Village Level Workers were transferred to the agriculture department of the State. It framed rules in the year 1972. On or about 9.4.1981, the designation of the Village Level Workers was changed to the Rural Agriculture Extension Officer by the State Government. The State of Madhya Pradesh in exercise of the power conferred upon it under the Proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India made rules known as Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1983 . Rule 3 of the said Rules reads as under :

"3. Revised Scale of Pay.- The revised scale of pay applicable to any post carrying existing scale shown in columns 2 and 3 of Annexures I and II respectively shall be the corresponding pay-scale shown in column 4 thereof respect of that post."

3. By reason of the provisions of the said Rules, two different scales of pay were prescribed, namely, Rs. 575-880/- for non-graduates (Dying scale) and Rs. 635-950/- for fresh recruitment and for existing B.Sc./B.Sc. Agriculture. By reason of an executive instruction dated 2/5.3.1984, the decision of the State Government was communicated to the Director, Agriculture, the relevant portion whereof is to the following effect :

"Essential educational qualification for the post of Rural Agricultural Extension Officer being graduation (for all departments) be fixed and all the graduates so employed be paid by the pay-scale of Rs. 635-950-. All those graduate employees who were working to the posts in all departments prior to 1.4.81 should be paid given a salary at the rate of Rs. 635-950/-.

2. * * * * *

3. * * * * *

This sanction endorsement vide notification No.5/385/84/Dept.1/Four dated 3.3.84 had been endorsed in the records of the Accountant General s Office."

4. Yet again by an amendment to the rule by a notification dated 5.9.1984 in sub-clause (2) in Part B of the said Rules the words "for new recruitments and for the qualification B.Sc./B.Sc. (Agri.) pass" were replaced by the words "for new recruitments and for graduates holding the degree". The appellant herein filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs :

"(b) That the pay scale of Rural Agriculture Extension Officers be given in accordance with the ratio given in AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1221 and it should be enhanced with the cadres stated in the above paras by giving them maximum pay scale, as has been given to any one of those cadres."

5. On constitution of the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal in the year 1988, however, the said writ petition was transferred thereto. The Tribunal gave several opportunities to the respondents herein to file a return but despite its failure to do so and despite holding that a clear case of hostile discrimination has been made out in view of the decision of this Court in Union of India and Another vs. P.V. Hariharan and Another [(1997) 3 SCC 568] - [JT 1997 SC 569] held that the grievances of the applicant regarding pay scale had to be dealt with by the Pay Commission. A writ petition filed thereagainst before the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court by the appellant was also dismissed in view of the judgment of this Court in Hariharan (supra) observing :

"...Moreso, there can always be a classification on the basis of graduation and non-graduation in the pay scale. Thus, we are satisfied that there is no ground to interfere with the order. Hence, this petition is dismissed."

Submissions :

6. Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, lear