1. Reconstitution of income-tax services creating two classes of officers with different promotion eligibility to higher posts — Challenge under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1961 Supreme(SC) 174
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
11th April, 1961
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., A.K. SARKAR, K.C. DAS GUPTA, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND J.R. MUDHOLKAR, JJ.
Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi, Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Respondent.
Writ Petn. No. 28 of 1959.
Advocates appeared
Mr. L. K. Jha, Senior Advocate, M/s. S. N. Andley, Rameshwar Nath, J. B. Dadachanji and P. L. Vohra, Advocates of (M/s. Rajinder Narain & Co. with him), for Petitioner; Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, (M/s. R. Ganapathy Iyer, Y. S. Parmar and T. M. Sen, Advocates, with him), for Respondent.
Advocates:
C.K.DAFTARY, J.B.DADACHAN, L.K.JHA, P.L.VOHRA, R.Ganapathy Iyer, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY, T.M.SEN, Y.S.PARMAR
C.K.DAFTARY, J.B.DADACHAN, L.K.JHA, P.L.VOHRA, R.Ganapathy Iyer, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY, T.M.SEN, Y.S.PARMAR
Article 16(1) guarantees equality of opportunity among employees of the same grade but does not prohibit the creation of different grades in government service. Furthermore, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work is not a requirement under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16(1) - Equality of opportunity in public employment - Promotion - Whether the requirement for employees of a lower grade to first attain a higher grade before becoming eligible for further promotion violates the right to equality of opportunity - Article 16(1) ensures equality of opportunity among citizens holding posts of the same grade; it does not forbid the creation of different grades in government service. (Para 2)
(B) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Equal pay for equal work - Whether different pay scales for employees of different grades performing similar work constitutes discrimination - The abstract doctrine of equal pay for equal work has no application under Article 14. (Para 3)
Facts of the case:
A government employee was placed in a lower grade following a service reconstitution. The rules stipulated that only employees of a higher grade were eligible for promotion to certain senior administrative posts, and those in the lower grade had to first be promoted to the higher grade. The employee challenged these promotion rules and the disparity in pay scales between the two grades as violations of fundamental rights.
Findings of Court:
The court held that there is no denial of equality of opportunity when rules distinguish between different grades of service. It further held that different pay scales based on grade or duration of service do not violate the right to equality.
Issues: Whether the exclusion of employees of a lower grade from direct promotion to senior posts violates Article 16(1) and whether different pay scales for similar work violate Article 14.
Ratio Decidendi: Article 16(1) requires equality of opportunity among citizens holding posts of the same grade; it does not prohibit the establishment of a graded hierarchy in government service. Additionally, the principle of equal pay for equal work is not an integral part of Article 14.
Result: Petition dismissed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether restricting direct promotion to higher posts for Class II officers violates Article 16(1) and whether differing pay scales for similar work violate Article 14. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. Article 16(1) ensures equality of opportunity among citizens in the same grade, not across different grades; Article 14 does not mandate equal pay for equal work. (Para 2 , 3 )
4. Article 16(1) does not forbid the creation of different grades in government service or restrict equality of opportunity to citizens holding posts of the same grade. (Para 2 )
5. Petition dismissed with costs. (Para 4 )
6. Does Article 16(1) of the Constitution forbid the creation of different grades in government service with different promotion eligibility?
No. Article 16(1) ensures equality of opportunity among citizens holding posts of the same grade. It does not forbid the creation of different grades or require equality of opportunity between citizens holding posts in different grades. (Para 2 )
7. Does the doctrine of equal pay for equal work fall within the scope of Article 14 of the Constitution?
No. The court held that the abstract doctrine of equal pay for equal work has nothing to do with Article 14, and incremental pay scales based on service duration are permissible. (Para 3 )
Judgment
DAS GUPTA, J. : The petitioner, an Income-tax Officer in the service of the Government of India has filed this petition for protection of his fundamental rights under Art. 14 and Art. 16 of the Constitution which he claims to have been violated by the respondent, the Union of India. The petitioner who was appointed an Income-tax Inspector in the Income-tax Department of the Government of India in 1943 became an Income-tax Officer in the same department on promotion in 1946. It appears that the Income-tax services were reconstituted by an order of the Government of India, dated September 29th, 1944, and later on In 1953, S. 5 of the Income-tax Act was amended in accordance with this decision to reconstitute. One of the features of the reconstitution was that in place of the one class of Income-tax Officers, two classes came into existence, one consisting of Income-tax Officers of Class I service and the other class in which all the then existing Income-tax Officers were placed forming the Class II Officers. Class I Officers were eligible to be promoted to the higher post of Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners ; Class 11 Officers would not however be eligible for direct promotion to these higher posts. They could obtain such promotion only after having first reached the status of Class I Officers. A percentage of the vacancies in the posts of Class I Officers was to be filled by promotion of Class II Officers and the rest by direct recruitment. It may be mentioned that Officers in Class II are eligible to compete for the direct recruitment. provided the requirements as regards age and other matters are satisfied.
2. The main contention which Mr. Jha has pressed before us on behalf of the petitioner is that this provision as regards recruitment to posts of Commissioners and Assistant Commissioners from Class I Officers but not directly from Class II Officers violates Art. 16 (1) of the Constitution. It is difficult to understand this argument. What Art. 16 (1) provides is that there should be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. It might very well be that "matters relating to employment or appointment to any office" are wide enough to include the matter of promotion. Inequality of opportunity for promotion as between citizens holding different posts in the same grade may, therefore, be an infringement of Art. 16. Thus, if, of the Income-tax Inspectors some were made eligible for promotion as Income-tax Officers and others were not, there would be legitimate ground for complaint that Art. 16 (1) has been violated. No such complaint can however be reasonably made, if, for example, all Income-tax Inspectors are eligible under the rules for promotion to the post of Income-tax Officers while Income-tax Sub-Inspectors are eligible for promotion only as Income-tax Inspectors but not directly as Income-tax Officers Similarly, if of the Income-tax Officers of the same grade, some are eligible for promotion to a superior grade, and others are not, the question of contravention of Art. 16 (1) may well arise. But how can such question arise at all when the rules make Income-tax Officers of Grade I, eligible for appointment as Assistant Commissioners, but make Income-tax Officers of Class II eligible for promotion as Income-tax Officers of Class I but not for promotion to the post of Assistant Commissioners? There is no denial here of equality of opportunity as among citizens holding posts of the same grade. As between citizens holding posts in different grades in government service there can be no question of equality of opportunity. It is fantastic to suppose that Art.16 of the Constitution forbids the creation of different grades in the government service ; that is what the petitioner s argument amounts to. The contention that Art. 16 has been violated because Class II Income-tax Officers are not eligible for promotion to higher posts, like the
