SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(SC) 658

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR & H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.
HUKUM CHAND GUPTA -Appellant
VERSUS
DIRECTOR GENERAL, ICAR & ORS. -Respondent
Civil Appeal No.3580 of 2009
Decided On : 25-09-2012.

IMPORTANT POINT
Principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied mechanically.

Headnote:(a) Service Law – Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme – Appellant getting due promotions in time and reaching the post of AAO – Not entitled to ACP – Sri Madan on the other hand was direct recruit as Assistant – Promoted to Superintendent – However due to merger of Assistant and Superintendent the said promotion got nullified – On the verge of retirement he got only one promotion to AAO whereafter there was no scope of any promotion – ACP given – Thus the difference in pay of appellant and Sri Madan – No infirmity. (Para 16, 19)

       (1989) 4 SCC 635; (2004) 9 SCC 65 – Relied upon

       (b) Service Law – Conditions of service – Headquarter and Institutional level – Distinction – Equal pay for equal work – Equal pay must be for equal work of equal value – Cannot be applied mechanically – Posts at the two levels governed by different sets of rules – Prescribing different pay scales – Not violative of Articles 14, 16 and 39D. (Para 20)

       (2009) 9 SCC 514 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant was initially appointed as a Laboratory Assistant in Group D in the National Dairy Research Institute (‘NDRI’). He was promoted as a Lower Division Clerk (Junior Clerk). He was further promoted as a Senior Clerk. At that stage, his pay scale was Rs.1200-2040/-. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of Superintendent in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/-. He was promoted as Assistant Administrative Officer. The respondent revised the pay scale of Assistants from Rs.1400- 2600 to Rs.1640-2900/-. However, the pay scale of Superintendent was not revised.

       The appellant submitted a representation requesting that his pay scale may be revised on the ground that in Headquarters of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), the post of Superintendent is a promotional post from that of Assistant which carries the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/-. The representation not having been decided, the appellant filed OA before the Chandigarh Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal disposed of the OA.

       The appellant again moved the Tribunal. The appellant claimed that Shri J.I.P. Madan being junior to him cannot be put in a higher pay scale. The OA was dismissed.

       Appellant’s writ petition was also dismissed.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no merit in the appeal.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Surinder Singh Nijjar, J.-On 25th September, 2012, we passed the following order:

“Having heard the appellant-in-person and the counsel for the respondent, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. The detailed reasons with conclusions shall follow.”

2. Here are the reasons.

3. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No.9595-CAT of 2004 decided on 8th August, 2008.

4. The appellant was initially appointed as a Laboratory Assistant in Group D on 29th December, 1961 in the National Dairy Research Institute (hereinafter referred to as ‘NDRI’). On 13th January, 1966, he was promoted as a Lower Division Clerk (Junior Clerk) after qualifying limited departmental competitive examination. He was further promoted on 10th May, 1973 as a Senior Clerk, again after qualifying limited departmental competitive examination. At that stage, his pay scale was Rs.1200-2040/-. Subsequently, on 15th June, 1988, he was promoted to the post of Superintendent in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/- after passing the departmental examination. On 17th March, 1994, he was promoted as Assistant Administrative Officer on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. The respondent revised the pay scale of Assistants on 17th June, 1995 from Rs.1400- 2600 to Rs.1640-2900/- w.e.f. 1st January, 1986. However, the pay scale of Superintendent was not revised.

5. At that stage, the appellant submitted a representation on 24th October, 1995 requesting that his pay scale may be revised on the ground that in Headquarters of Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), the post of Superintendent is a promotional post from that of Assistant which carries the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/-. The representation not having been decided, the appellant filed OA No.567-HR-96 before the Chandigarh Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). By order dated 20th May, 1997 the Tribunal disposed of OA with the following observations :

“In this application, the agitation is for revision of pay scale of the applicant who is Superintendent in the scale of Rs.1640-2900/- to that of Rs.2000-3500/- on the ground that the duties and responsibilities of Superintendent are much higher than the Assistants working at Headquarters office of ICAR and he should be given the higher pay scale. As per the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI and Anr. vs. P.V.Hariharan and Anr. O.A.No.7127 of 1993 arising out of OA 391/91, has precluded the Tribunals from adjudicating the matters of parity of pay or pay scales in the Government Department unless some discrimination is brought to the notice of the Court. This is a matter regarding parity of pay scales between two sets of posts, therefore, it is squarely covered by the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court. In view thereof, this matter cannot be adjudicated by this Tribunal.

2. However, it was also brought to our notice that the matter is engaging the attention of the authority concerned and the representation filed by the applicant on 24.10.1995 (A-3) is under active consideration.

3. In view thereof, the OA is disposed of with a direction that respondents shall expedite the decision in the matter. OA disposed of accordingly.”

A perusal of the aforesaid shows that the Tribunal declined to entertain the claim of the appellant by relying upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Union of India Vs. P.V.Hariharan & Anr. [(1997) 3 SCC 568] The Tribunal, however, directed that the respondent shall expedite the decision on the representation submitted by the appellant. Subsequently, NDRI sent a copy of the memorandum to the appellant on 2nd April, 1998 which reads as under:

MEMORANDUM

“With reference to the Court Case filed by Sh.Hukum Chand Gupta Asstt. Administrative Officer, NDRI, Karnal, under OA No.567/HR/96 in the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh, reg



























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top