2009 Supreme(SC) 996

Supreme Court Of India
S.B.Sinha,Mukundakam Sharma
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD
Versus
GULSHAN LAL
Decided On : 05/06/2009

IMPORTANT POINTS
For holding a public office, an employee must possess the requisite prescribed qualification.
Doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 would not mean equating unequals.
Decree granted by a competent court of law binding on the employer, but, when in a subsequent litigation the absurd result emanating from cascading effect thereof becomes apparent before another court and it is found that the said judgment is illegal, similar relief should not be granted.
Right to obtain same remuneration does not carry with it the designation.
The doctrine of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied automatically.
Nobody should suffer owing to the mistake on the part of the court – Actus curiae neminem gravabit.

Headnote:(a) Service law – Public office – For holding a public office, an employee must possess the requisite prescribed qualification – Qualifications for Foreman Grade-I (Scale Rs. 700/1250, SG 750/1450 for 20% posts) – Matriculates with ITI two years course with eight years experience or 8th Class with ITI two years Course and eleven years experience – Most of employees not fulfilling minimum qualification criteria, being non-matric – Some of them only 2nd pass – Further, those who had been occupying the position of Foreman Grade -I and/ or Foreman grade - II and other employees who were far below them either for the purpose of seniority or otherwise could not have been treated equally – Employees Conditions of service are governed by statutory rules – Violation thereof not permissible. (Para 27)

       (b) Service law – Public office – Appellant a State in terms of Article 12 of the Constitution of India – Bound by doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 – That would not mean equating unequals – Other employees given equal benefits as permitted by court to Anil Kapoor – Facts of differences in qualifications of other employees an Anil Kapoor not considered. (Para 27)

       (c) Administration of justice – Precedent – Decree granted by a competent court of law binding on the employer – But, when in a subsequent litigation the absurd result emanating from cascading effect thereof becomes apparent before another court and it is found that the said judgment is illegal, similar relief should not be granted – Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not apply in such situation. (Para 27)

       (d) Service law – Equal pay for equal work – Right to obtain same remuneration – Does not carry with it the designation – Promotion to a higher post cannot be claimed as a matter of right – A person ineligible to hold a promotional post – Cannot be directed to be promoted thereto – So called equality doctrine inapplicable. (Para 28)

       (e) Constitution of India – Articles 39(d) and 14 – Equal pay for equal work – Does not mean granting a higher status to which the person is not eligible otherwise. (Para 31)

       (f) Service law – Equal pay for equal work – The doctrine cannot be applied automatically – Involves consideration of several factors – Qualification, experience etc, are relevant factors apart from similar nature of work – a (Para 32, 34, 36)

       JT 2004 (10) SC 320 : (2005) 2 SCC 286; (2008) 1 SCC 368 – Relied upon

       (g) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Similar SLP dismissed in limine or there was no appeal – Does not bar the Supreme Court from considering similar matter on merits subsequently – Nobody should suffer owing to the mistake on the part of the court – Actus curiae neminem gravabit. (Para 37, 40)

       JT 1995 (9) SC 310 : (1995) 4 SCC 683; 1984 (Supp) SCC 457 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       ONE Anil Kapoor and others who were working at the Faridabad Thermal Power Station in view of the discrepancies in the scale of pay of senior Technicians and Technicians vis-à-vis the scale of pay payable to the holders of the same post at Panipat, filed a suit relying on or on the basis of the doctrine of ’equal pay for equal work’. Plaintiffs of the said suit had joined their respective services prior to 1. 01. 1986.

       in the case of Gulshan Lal and Others, both the writ petition and suit were allowed subject to the decision of the High court in Anil Kapoor’s RSA No. 800 of 1992. The said second appeal was dismissed by the high Court on 9. 10. 2001. A special leave petition filed thereagainst had been dismissed. A review application filed has also been dismissed.

       In Kashmir Singh’s case, the writ petition was allowed.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgments cannot be sustained.

       Result:

       Appeals allowed.