Back
2007(8) Supreme 58
Supreme Court of india
(From Delhi High Court)
S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
Union of India and another — Petitioner
versus
Mahajabeen Akhtar — Respondent
Appeal (civil) 5087 of 2007
(Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 6635 OF 2005)
Decided on : 01-11-2007
1993 Supp.(1) SCC 153; (1989) 1 SCC 121; (2000) 8 SCC 580; (2002) 6 SCC 72 – Relied upon.
(b)Constitution of India –Articles 14 and 39(d) – Article 14 in other will have no application where the persons are not similarly situated or when there is a valid classification based on a reasonable differentia – Article 39(d) r/w Article 14 cannot be applied in a vacuum – The constitutional scheme postulates equal pay for equal work for those who are equally placed in all respects. (Paras 20 and 21)
(2004)1 SCC 347; (2006) 9 SCC 82; (2006) 9 SCC 321 – Relied upon.
1991 Supp.(2) SCC 565; (1999) 4 SCC 408 – Distinguished.
(c)Service Law – Pay fixation – Respondent not opting for her services to be placed on deputation but for staying in the Government service as a surplus – Her pay scale was determined at Rs.6500-10500 which was the revised scale of pay and her case was not considered by the Fifth Pay Revision Commission – If a scale of pay in a higher category has been refixed by an expert body, no exception thereto can be taken – High Court judgment not sustainable. (Para 24)
(2003)6 SCC 250; (1988) 4 SCC 571 – Distinguished.
(d)Service Law – Equivalence of posts – Tribunal holding that the incumbents to the post of Research Assistants in the Bureau and Institutions like Central Hindu Directorate and Central Institution of Indian Languages etc. are similarly qualified and they have been performing similar functions without any factual foundation – Thus the said conclusion was wrongly drawn by the Tribunal and approved by High Court – Not sustainable. (Para 26)
(e)Service Law – Recovery – Respondent was paid the difference of salary for a very short period – Appellant directed not to make recovery of the amount. (Para 27)
(2002) 6 SCC 72; (2006) 8 SCC 647 – Relied upon.
Facts of the case :
1.Respondent herein was appointed as Technical Assistant of Urdu Language in the Bureau of Promotion of Urdu Language. She was placed in the pay scale of Rs.425-700. She was promoted as Research Assistant in the scale of pay of Rs.550-900. The said scale of pay was revised to Rs.1640-2900 on the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Revision Commission.
2.The Central Government constituted National Council for Promotion of Urdu Language (NCPUL) in place of the Bureau of Promotion of Urdu Language. NCPUL started functioning from 1.4.1996. Respondent opted for Government service. Her name was, therefore, referred to surplus cell for redeployment. She was redeployed as Librarian in National Gallery of Modern Art and designated as Assistant Librarian and Information Assistant. Her pay was upgraded in the scale of Rs.6500-10500.
3.Consequent upon the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, Respondent filed a representation for upgradation of her pay-scale which was not acceded to. She thereafter filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal which was allowed.
4.A writ petition filed by the appellant herein against the said order has been dismissed by the High Court.
Findings of the Court :
Equivalence of post wrongly arrived at by the Tribunal and approved by the High Court.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.—
1.Leave granted.
2.Applicability of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 19.08.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in Civil Writ Petition No.3719 of 2002 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant questioning an order dated 11.9.2000 passed in Original Application No.52 of 2000 by the Central Administrative Tribunal directing to consider the question of grant of replacement pay-scale of Rs.6500-10500 to the respondent, with consequential benefits in her favour.
3.Basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.
4.Respondent herein was appointed as Technical Assistant of Urdu Language in the Bureau of Promotion of Urdu Language. She was placed in the pay scale of Rs.425-700. She was promoted as Research Assistant in the scale of pay of Rs.550-900. The said scale of pay was revised to Rs.1640-2900 on the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Revision Commission.
5.The Central Government constituted National Council for Promotion of Urdu Language (NCPUL) in place of the Bureau of Promotion of Urdu Language. NCPUL started functioning from 1.4.1996. Employees of the Bureau were given an option either to continue to work in the Government Department or get themselves transferred to NCPUL. Respondent opted for Government service. Her name was, therefore, referred to surplus cell for redeployment. She was redeployed as Librarian in National Gallery of Modern Art and designated as Assistant Librarian and Information Assistant. Her pay was upgraded in the scale of Rs.6500-10500.
6.Indisputably, the scale of pay of Rs.1640-2900 was revised to Rs. 5500-9000.
7.Consequent upon the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission, Respondent filed a representation for upgradation of her pay-scale which was not acceded to. She thereafter filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. By reason of an order dated 11.9.2000, the learned Tribunal allowed the said application opining :
“In the above view of the matter the application succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the grant of the replacement scale of Rs.6500-10500/- to the applicant, keeping in view the similarity in essential qualification, functions in responsibilities with those in CHD, CIIL, CSIT w.e.f 01.01.96, with consequential benefits. This should be done within four months from the receipt of this order. Parties to bear their own costs (sic manner).”
In arriving at the said conclusion, the Tribunal held :
“All the institutes including BPU were functioning on 01.01.1996 when the recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission were implemented. BPU came to be abolished only on 31.3.1996, and, therefore, there is no reason why the Research Assistant in BPU should have been treated in a different matter.”
8.A writ petition filed by the appellant herein against the said order has been dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment stating :
“The case of the respondent in her OA was that the post of Research Assistant in the Bureau of Urdu and also in the other sister departments was in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 upto 31.12.1995 and that qualifications required for the incumbents also were the same and that duties, functions performed were also similar in nature and, therefore, if post of Research Assistant was placed in the pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 in those Department under the same Education Department, she was also entitled to the same pay scale on the principle of equality. We find that there is no specific denial or rebuttal to this by the petitioners in their reply to the OA. Their stands seems to be couched in general terms. They also seem to be suffering from some misconception that since the post of Research Assistant was abolished in the Bureau of Urdu (NCPUL) and, therefore, the analogy of the pay scale granted to Research Assistant in other sister Departments could not be applied to her
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
