1. Pay scale classification dispute between matriculate and non-matriculate tracers following state reorganization — claim for higher pay scale under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1967 Supreme(SC) 245
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.N. WANCHOO, C.J.I., R.S. BACHAWAT, V. RAMASWAMI, G.K. MITTER AND K.S. HEGDE, JJ.
The State of Mysore and another, Appellants
Versus
P. Narasinga Rao, Respondent.
Civil Appeal No. 1238 of 1966,
D/-31-8-1967.
Advocates Appeared
M/s. R. Gopalakrishnan and S. P. Nayar Advocates, for Appellants; M/s. S. C. Mazumdar, M. M. Kshatriya and G. S. Chatterjee, Advocates, for Respondent.
Advocates:
G.S.CHATTERJEE, M.M.KSHATRIYA, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN, S.C.MAJUMDER, S.P.NAIR
G.S.CHATTERJEE, M.M.KSHATRIYA, R.GOPAL KRISHNAN, S.C.MAJUMDER, S.P.NAIR
Educational qualifications constitute a reasonable basis for classifying employees into different pay scales, even if they perform identical technical tasks, as such qualifications relate to general suitability for public service and satisfy the test of reasonable classification under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Pay scales for employees - Classification based on educational qualifications - Whether creating separate pay scales for matriculate and non-matriculate employees performing the same work violates the right to equality - Article 16 is an incident of the application of the concept of equality enshrined in Article 14 - Reasonable classification of employees is permissible for the purpose of appointment or promotion - A classification is valid if it is based on an intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved - The government may consider general educational attainments in addition to technical proficiency to determine suitability for public service; thus, higher educational qualifications are relevant considerations for fixing higher pay scales (Paras 3, 4).
(B) States Reorganisation Act, 1956 - Section 115(7) - Conditions of service - Whether the creation of separate grades for matriculate and non-matriculate employees after reorganization constitutes a variation of conditions of service to the disadvantage of the employee - No violation of the proviso to Section 115(7) if the employee is not deprived of accrued benefits and promotion opportunities remain based on merit-cum-seniority (Para 5).
Facts of the case:
An employee serving as a tracer in a former state was allotted to a successor state following reorganization. The successor state established two distinct pay scales for tracers: one for those with matriculation qualifications and a lower one for those without. The employee, being a non-matriculate, challenged this distinction, arguing that since both categories performed the same work, the classification violated constitutional guarantees of equality. The lower court had ruled in favor of the employee, granting a writ of mandamus to accord the benefit of the higher pay scale.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the classification based on educational qualifications was reasonable and did not violate the Constitution. It further held that the reorganization of grades did not adversely affect the employee's conditions of service under the relevant reorganization statute, as seniority and promotion prospects were not compromised.
Issues: Whether the creation of two different pay scales for employees performing the same duties, based on educational qualifications, violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and whether such a change violates the protection of conditions of service under Section 115 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956.
Ratio Decidendi: Article 16 is an application of the general principle of equality in Article 14. Reasonable classification is valid if it is based on an intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus to the object. Educational qualifications are relevant for determining pay scales as they indicate general suitability for public service, and the government is not restricted to considering only technical proficiency. Furthermore, a change in grade classification does not necessarily constitute a disadvantageous variation of service conditions if seniority and promotion prospects are preserved.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether creating distinct pay scales for matriculate and non-matriculate tracers performing identical work constitutes discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 and violates the States Reorganisation Act. (Para 2 , 4 , 5 )
3. General educational qualifications are relevant for public service suitability and can justify reasonable classification for pay scales, provided there is an intelligible differentia and rational nexus. (Para 4 )
4. Reasonable classification based on educational qualifications for pay scales is permissible under Articles 14 and 16 if it satisfies the test of intelligible differentia and rational nexus. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court judgment set aside — respondent denied higher pay scale. (Para 6 )
6. Does creating different pay scales for employees performing the same work based on educational qualifications violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution?
No, provided the classification is based on an intelligible differentia and has a rational nexus to the object. The government may consider general educational attainments, not just technical proficiency, as relevant for suitability in public service. (Para 4 )
7. What are the two tests to determine if a classification is reasonable under Article 14?
First, the classification must be based on an intelligible differentia that distinguishes those grouped together from those left out. Second, that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory provision. (Para 4 )
8. Does Article 16 of the Constitution guarantee absolute equality in matters relating to employment?
No, Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity, not absolute equality. It does not prohibit the prescription of reasonable rules for selection or the laying down of qualifications for employment. (Para 4 )
9. Does the creation of a separate grade for non-matriculate employees after state reorganization necessarily violate the proviso to Section 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act?
Not necessarily. If the employee's seniority is not affected and they are not deprived of accrued benefits or promotion opportunities, the change in grade does not necessarily constitute a disadvantageous variation of service conditions. (Para 5 )
Judgement
RAMASWAMI, J. :-This appeal is brought, by special leave, from the judgment of the Mysore High Court dated January 15, l963 in Writ Petition No. 48 of 1962 granting a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the appellants to accord to the respondent the benefit of both the revised higher pay scales for the Matriculate Tracers with effect from the respective dates on which they came into force.
2. The respondent, Narasing Rao was employed as a tracer in the Engineering Department in the Ex-Hyderabad State on the scale of pay Rs. 65-90. In the cadre of tracers of that State, there were matriculates as well as non-matriculates. But there was no distinction made in the scale of pay for that reason and all the tracers were placed in the same scale. The respondent was a non-matriculate. There was re-organisation of States in 1956 and as a result of the re-organisation a part of the area of Hyderabad State became part of the new Mysore State. The respondent was allotted to the new Mysore State. After the transfer of the respondent to the new State, the cadre of tracers into which tracers from Bombay State had also been absorbed was re-organised into two grades, one consisting of matriculate tracers whose scale of pay was fixed at Rs. 50-120 and the other of non-matriculates at Rs. 40-80 with effect from January 1, 1957. It is necessary to state that in the old Mysore State even before November 1, 1956 there were two grades of tracers, viz., non-S. S. L. C. tracers on the pay scale of Rs. 30-50 and S.S.L.C. tracers on the pay scale of Rs. 40-60. As the respondent was a non-matriculate he was given the option to accept the new scale of pay i. e., Rs. 40-80 or remain in the old Hyderabad scale of Rs. 65-90. But the respondent refused to exercise the option and claimed that the cadre of tracers in the new Mysore State should not have been divided into two grades and that no distinction should have been made between matriculates ant non-matriculates. The respondent insisted that his pay should be fixed in the grade Rs. 50-120. The claim was rejected by the Superintending Engineer on March 19, 1958 and the respondent was told that he could only be fixed in the new revised scale of Rs. 40-80 as he had not passed the S. S. L. C. examination. Meanwhile, by an order of the Government dated February 27, 1961 the pay scales of the tracers in the new State of Mysore were further revised and the revised pay scales were directed to come into force with effect from January 1, 1961. Under this Government order, the tracers who had passed the S. S. L. C. examination were entitled to opt in favour of the pay scale Rs. 80-150 and those who had not passed that examination were entitled to get into the pay scale of Rs. 70-110. The respondent claimed that he was entitled to the pay scale applicable to the tracers who had passed the S. S. L. C. examination viz., Rs. 80-150. The claim of the respondent was rejected. Thereafter the respondent filed a writ petition in the Mysore High Court praying that the order of the Superintending Engineer dated March l9, 1958 fixing his pay in the scale of non-matriculate tracers and giving him the option to retain his old scale may be quashed and for a writ in the nature of mandamus to fix his pay in the scale prescribed for matriculate tracers. The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that there was a violation of the guarantees given under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and granted the relief claimed by the respondent on the ground that there was no valid reason for making a distinction as both matriculate and non-matriculate tracers were doing the same kind of work.
3. The first question to be considered in this appeal is whether the creation of two pay scales of tracers in the new Mysore State who were doing the same kind of work amounted to a discrimination which violated the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
4. The relevant law on the subject is well settled. Under Article
