Judgment

KHALID, J. :- The question involved in this appeal brings to force how the equality doctrine embodied in the Constitution of India is attempted to be flouted by some authorities under cover of artificial divisions, dividing persons doing the same work into two groups without any justification and denying to one group by way of pay and emoluments what the other group gets. We do not propose to examine the width of the equality provisions contained in Art. 39(d) in all its manifold aspects but would like to restrict it in its application to the facts of this case, in our attempt to see whether the High Court was justified or not, in declining relief to the petitioners. Now the facts :

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Miscellaneous Petition No. 408 of 1978, dismissing the petition challenging the Order of the Government of India accepting the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission dividing Senior Draughtsmen into two groups with different pay scales, which according to the appellants, violated Arts. 14 and, 16 of the Constitution. The appellants Nos. 1 to 8 are Senior Draughtsmen in the Ordnance Factories under the Ministry of Defence, Department of Defence Production and the Director General of Ordnance Factories. Appellants Nos. 1 to 5 were promoted on different dates to the post of senior Draughtsman when they were working as Draughtsmen. Appellants Nos. 6, 7 & 8 were directly recruited as Senior Draughtsmen in the Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur on different dates. Appellant No. 9 is a registered Association of the Employees working in the Design / Drawing Office of the Defence Establishments under the Ministry of Defence, etc.

3. There are 33 establishments under the Ministry of Defence Production and Director General of Ordnance Factories, Calcutta. In these establishments, there are two categories of Drawing Office Staff; (1) Senior Draughtsman and (2) Draughtsman. Senior Draughtsmen are either directly recruited or promoted from the post of Draughtsmen. At all relevant times, all the Senior Draughtsmen throughout the above establishments, were drawing the same pay-scale. The first and the second Pay Commission set up by the Government of India, recommended same scales of pay for all the Senior Draughtsmen.

4. A Third Pay Commission was set up by the Government of India under the Chairmanship of Shri Raghubar Dayal, a retired Judge of the SC of India and consisting of three other members. One of the recommendations of this Pay Commission, related to the scales of pay of Draughtsmen and Senior Draughtsmen. Draughtsmen were to be in the scale of Rs. 330-560 while the Senior Draughtsmen were divided into two groups with two scales of pay, Rs. 330-560 and Rs. 425-700. It is this division of Senior Draughtsmen that was under challenge before the High Court.

5. Representations were made by the petitioners against this grouping by the Third Pay Commission, and they pleaded that there should not be any discrimination in the pay-scales of Senior Draughtsmen as was recommended by the Third Pay Commission. Similar representations were made by others also like Senior Rate Estimator, Senior Rate Fixer, Senior Planner and Supervisor etc. Some representations were accepted by the Government but not the representations made by the appellants Association. Aggrieved by this unhelpful attitude of the Government in not accepting their representation, the appellants moved the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Their case before the High Court was that Senior Draughtsmen discharged identical, duties and performed similar work. That being so there was little or no justification in putting 50% of them in a higher scale of pay and 50% others in a lower scale of pay. This grouping was without any intelligible differentia.

6. The High Court referred to a decision of this Court in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India AIR 1962 SC 1