1. Pay scale parity dispute between Vocational Masters and Vocational Lecturers — restriction of higher pay scales via government notification based on appointment dates and educational qualifications. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2017 Supreme(SC) 754
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dipak Misra, R.K. Agrawal, Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.
State of Punjab & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 632 of 2008
Decided On : 18-08-2017
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
Different pay scales cannot be given to employees initially having same pay scale, more so when the nature of duties of the two categories has not undergone any change.
No order having civil; consequences can be passed without affording opportunity to the employees concerned.
Different pay scales cannot be given to employees initially having same pay scale, more so when the nature of duties of the two categories has not undergone any change.
No order having civil; consequences can be passed without affording opportunity to the employees concerned.
Subject
Service Law - Pay Scales
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Service law – Pay scales – Vocational masters and vocational lecturers – enjoying same pay scale since 1978 – Nature of duties of the two categories not undergoing any change – Disparity created in 1998 wef 01.01.1996 granting vocational lecturers higher pay scale than vocational masters – Further by order dated 16.07.2003 making designation and higher pay scale applicable to only those vocational masters who were appointed before 08.07.1995 and had qualification of post-graduate or degree in engineering by 08.07.1995 – Order dated 16.07.2003 held discriminatory. (Para 11, 12, 19)
(1989) 3 SCC 191; (1989) 1 SCC 121; (1994) 2 SCC 521; (2004) 1 SCC 347; (2007) 1 SCC 408; (2003) 11 SCC 646 – Referred
(b) Administration of justice – Natural justice – Order dated 16.07.2003 having civil consequences passed without affording opportunity to concerned teachers – Liable to be quashed. (Para 20, 21)
AIR 1994 SC 2480 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The Government of Punjab, Department of Education, vide Notification dated 16.07.2003, clarified the position that only those Vocational Masters who were appointed prior to 08.07.1995 and those who acquired the qualification of post-graduate or degree in engineering by 08.07.1995 would be eligible for scale of pay of Rs. 6,400-10,640/- with effect from 01.01.1996 and also issued a direction to recover the excess amount being paid to any ineligible vocational master on the basis of the earlier Notifications.
The respondents herein preferred Writ Petition before the High Court. The single Judge of the High Court quashed the Notification dated 16.07.2003 and directed the State Government to give the benefit of Notification dated 31.03.1995 to all the Vocational Masters recruited prior to 08.07.1995.
The State Government preferred L.P.A.s which were dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
No interference is warranted.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :- Ajay Pal, Karan Bharihoke, Advocates.
For the Respondents:- Tarun Gupta, Ms. Parul Sharma, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Aditya Kumar Choudhary, Ajit Pathak, Akhil Anand, Ashok K. Mahajan, Advocates.
For the Appellants :- Ajay Pal, Karan Bharihoke, Advocates.
For the Respondents:- Tarun Gupta, Ms. Parul Sharma, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Aditya Kumar Choudhary, Ajit Pathak, Akhil Anand, Ashok K. Mahajan, Advocates.
Table of Contents
2. State contends pay scales are based on qualifications and statutory rules; employees argue identical duties and selection processes entitle them to equal pay under the equality doctrine. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
3. Vocational Masters and Lecturers form a unified cadre with identical duties and selection processes; creating a pay disparity without cogent justification violates the principle of equality. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
4. Employees treated as equals initially must continue to be treated so unless a change in duties or qualifications justifies a differential pay scale. (Para 18 , 19 )
5. Appeal dismissed; High Court order quashing the restrictive notification and granting pay scale benefits to Vocational Masters upheld. (Para 19 , 22 , 23 )
6. When is a differential pay scale between two categories of employees permissible under Article 14?
A differential scale is permissible if based on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object, such as differences in educational qualifications or responsibilities. However, if employees were initially treated as equals, a change must be justified by cogent reasons. (Para 14 , 18 )
7. How does the court determine if two different designations entitle employees to the same pay scale?
The court examines the selection process, nature of work, and whether the categories form a unified cadre. If duties are identical and selection processes are common, an artificial distinction in pay is considered arbitrary and violative of equality. (Para 15 , 16 )
8. Is a hearing mandatory before the government issues an order reducing pay or recovering excess salary?
Yes. Any order causing civil consequences, such as financial loss or reduction in pay, must comply with the principles of natural justice, requiring that the affected employees be given notice and an opportunity to be heard. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 )
JUDGMENT
R.K. Agrawal, J.
The above appeal has been filed against the impugned common judgment and order dated 23.05.2006 passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in L.P.A. No. 66 of 2006 in CWP No. 10928 of 2003 and L.P.A. No. 67 of 2006 in CWP No. 7527 of 1995 whereby the Division Bench while dismissing the appeals filed by the appellants herein upheld the order dated 27.04.2005 passed by learned single Judge of the High Court in CWP Nos. 10928 of 2003 and 7527 of 1995.
2. Brief facts:
(a) The Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association-the respondent Association represents the Vocational Masters in the State of Punjab appointed during the years 1975, 1982, 1983 and thereafter. The respondents were appointed on their respective posts by the State of Punjab in the year 1975 on ad-hoc basis. In the year 1978, the Punjab Public Service Commission advertised 132 posts of Vocational Masters to be filled up by way of regular appointment. These posts were to be filled up under the Punjab School Education (PSE) Class III (School Cadre) Rules. The minimum educational qualification for the posts of Vocational Masters was degree or post graduation except very few courses where the educational qualification was Diploma under the advertisement.
(b) In the year 1992-93, the State Government decided to revise the minimum qualification for being appointed as vocational masters and Diploma was provided as the minimum educational qualification in place of Degree for some courses. Due to revision, there were two classes of Vocational Masters in the State, viz., Diploma holder vocational masters and degree holder vocational masters or post-graduate vocational masters. The State Government, taking note of the fact that the unequals are being treated as equals due to the revision in qualification, vide Notification dated 31.03.1995, re-designated degree holder vocational masters and post-graduate vocational masters as vocational lecturers with the rider that their present responsibilities and financial matters will have no change. It is also pertinent to mention here that Diploma holder vocational masters were also provided an opportunity to re-designate as vocational lecturers as and when they acquire the degree or post-graduate qualification.
(c) The said notification dated 31.03.1995 was challenged before the High Court in CWP No. 7527 of 1995 by the remaining Vocational Masters for a direction to the appellants to grant the designation of Vocational Lecturers to all the Vocational Masters in the State of Punjab. During the pendency of the said writ petition, the State Government made rules to amend the Punjab State Education Class III (School Cadre) Service Rules, 1978 prescribing separate qualification for vocational masters and vocational lecturers.
(d) On the onset of 4th Punjab Pay Commission, the Commission had not treated Vocational Masters separate from Masters of General Studies and the Vocational Lecturers from the Lecturers of General Studies and merged the Vocational Masters with that of the School Masters and Vocational Lecturers with School Lecturers by amendment, viz., Punjab Civil Services (revised pay)(first amendment) Rules, 1998 wherein School Lecturers were granted the pay scale of Rs. 6,400-10,640/- and School Masters were given the pay scale of Rs. 5,800-9,200/-. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier the Vocational Masters and Vocational Lecturers were given the same pay scales.
(e) The respondents herein, being aggrieved by the disparity in pay scales granted by the 4th Pay Commission, approached the State Government claiming that they should be granted pay scales at par with the Lecturers. Vide Notification dated 07.11.2002, the Government of Punjab, Department of Education clarified that "the Vocational Masters appointed on or after 08.07.1995 neither can be designated as Vocational Lecturers based upon the educational qualification nor the revised scale of Rs. 6,400-10,640/- in place of Rs. 5,800-9,20
