2009 Supreme(SC) 1318

2009(6) Supreme 342
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. B. Sinha, G.S. Singhvi and Deepak Verma, JJ.
State of Madhya Pradesh & others — Appellants
versus
Ramesh Chandra Bajpai — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5058 of 2009
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No. 25682 of 2008)
Decided on : 28-07-2009

IMPORTANT POINT
Illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetrated by invoking the doctrine of equal pay for equal work

Headnote:Service Law – Madhya Pradesh (Indian Systems of Medicine and Homeopathy)Class III Ministerial Services Recruitment Rules, 1987 – Madhya Pradesh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990 – Writ Petition by respondent working as Physical Training Instructor in Government Ayurvedic College claiming parity of pay with teachers who had been granted UGC scale of pay – Allowed by High Court – Writ appeal- Dismissed by Division Bench on the ground that a large number of Physical Training Instructors had already been granted U.G.C. scale and an order declining relief to the respondent would result in discrimination – Appeal – Respondent could not derive any benefit from the fact that in compliance of the orders passed by the Tribunal and High Court, State Government extended the benefit of UGC scale of pay to some of the Physical Training Instructors of Ayurvedic and other colleges – Illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetrated by invoking the doctrine of equal pay for equal work – Again it is now well settled principles of law that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom- In the case of P.S. Ramamohana Rao v. A.P.Agricultural University and another Apex Court, having regard to the nature of duties and functions of Physical Director, held that that post comes within definition of teacher as contained in Section 2(n) – The proposition laid down in that case should not have been automatically extended to other case like the present one, where employees were governed by different sets of rules-Hence impugned judgment held liable to be set aside – Appeal allowed. (Paras 9 to 14, 20 to 24)

        1997 (8) SCC 350 – Distinguished.

        Doctrine of equal pay for equal work – It is well settled that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work can be invoked only when the employees are similarly situated – Similarity in the designation or nature or quantum of work is not determinative of equality in the matter of pay scales – The Court has to consider the factors like the source and mode of recruitment/appointment, qualifications, the nature of work, the value thereof, responsibilities, reliability, experience, confidentiality, functional need, etc – In other words, the equality clause can be invoked in the matter of pay scales only when there is wholesale identity between the holders of two posts. (Para 14)

       Facts of the Case :

        1. Writ Petition was filed by respondent working as Physical Training Instructor in Government Ayurvedic College claiming parity of pay with teachers who had been granted UGC scale of pay herein in the instant case. Said writ petition was allowed by High Court. Writ appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by Division Bench on the ground that a large number of Physical Training Instructors had already been granted U.G.C. scale and an order declining relief to the respondent would result in discrimination.

        2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

        Held Respondent could not derive any benefit from the fact that in compliance of the orders passed by the Tribunal and High Court, State Government extended the benefit of UGC scale of pay to some of the Physical Training Instructors of Ayurvedic and other colleges. Illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetrated by invoking the doctrine of equal pay for equal work..Again it is now well settled principles of law that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. In the case of P.S. Ramamohana Rao v. A.P.Agricultural University and another Apex Court, having regard to the nature of duties and functions of Physical Director, held that that post comes within definition of teacher as contained in Section 2(n). The proposition laid down in that case should not have been automatically extended to other case like the present one, where employees were governed by different sets of rules. Hence impugned judgment was held liable to be set aside. Appeal was allowed.

       Result : Appeal allowed.