1995 Supreme(Kar) 157
Karnataka High Court
T.J.MARIYAPPA - Appellant
Versus
CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,bangalore - Respondent
Decided On : 03-17-95
W.P. : 2607 of 1995
G.S.PANDIT, S.G.Pandit
Differentiation in pay scale based on merit and experience is permissible and not discriminatory.
Headnote:
Equal Pay for Equal Work - Discrimination in Pay Scale for District Judges - Karnataka Judicial Department - Rs. 4550-5600, Rs. 5600-6300 - The court discussed the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' and its application to the case. It referred to the Government Notifications and Supreme Court decisions to justify the differentiation in pay scale based on merit and experience. The court dismissed the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former Munsiff and Civil Judge, sought equal pay as District Judges in the higher pay scale, alleging discrimination based on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the differentiation in pay scale for District Judges based on merit and experience is not discriminatory, citing Government Notifications and Supreme Court decisions.
Issues: Alleged discrimination in pay scale based on 'equal pay for equal work' principle.
Ratio Decidendi: Differentiation in pay scale based on merit and experience is permissible and not discriminatory.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed by the court.
( 1 ) THE petitioner was appointed as Munsiff on 4-1-1971 in karnataka Judicial Department and he was promoted as Civil judge in the year 1980 and further promoted to the post of district and Sessions Judge in the year 1980, in the scale of Rs. 4550-5600. He took charge of the post of District and Sessions judge on 20-6-1990. He had worked in various capacities as additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, District Judge member, Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and Presiding Officer, labour Court, Bangalore, etc. , and retired from service on 31-12-1994.
( 2 ) IT is alleged by the petitioner that the post of Munsiff and Civil Judges carry uniform scale of pay. The post of District judges also carried uniform pay scale of Rs. 4550-5600 upto 1-6-1989. Thereafter, as per the Government Order dated 1-6-1989, 10 posts of District Judges were created in the higher scale of pay of Rs. 5600-6300. The method of appointment to these posts was also prescribed by the Government Notification dated 28-7-1989 which is produced as Annexure 'a' and these posts are called as District Judges (Super timescale ). Thereafter 10 more posts of District Judges were upgraded to supertime scale of Rs. 5600-6300 by Government Notification dated 13-8-1993 evidenced by Annexure 'b'. The pay scale attached to the post of district Judges was revised from Rs. 4550-5600 to Rs. 4700-6400 and the pay scale of supertime District Judges is revised from rs. 5600-6300 to Rs. 5825-6800 as per the revised Rules of 1984. It is alleged by the petitioner that the duties, responsibilities and functions of the District Judges are similar and identical. Both of them are being posted as Principal District and Sessions Judges. The Principal District Judge may be in the super time scale but the work performed by him and the Additional District Judge in the non-super timescale are identical. It is alleged by the petitioner that the work done by both types of District Judges are same. The Qualifications, Service conditions, responsibilities, functions and status of the District Judges are the same irrespective of the pay scales assigned to them and accordingly, there cannot be any disparity in the scale of pay of the District judges in the two categories. It is further submitted by the petitioner that, while working as District and Sessions Judge, he has discharged the same duties, responsibilities, functions and exercised jurisdictions, discharged by the District Judges in the higher Scale of pay called as super timescale of pay, but he has been paid in the lower scale of pay. According to the petitioner, it is discriminatory and the petitioner is also entitled to the same scale of pay given to the District Judge in supertime scale of pay. It is the case of the petitioner that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" has to be applied to his case and the denial of the supertime scale of pay to the petitioner is discriminatory and accordingly, he has filed this writ petition, for a direction directing the respondents to fix the pay of the petitioner, in the scale of Rs. 5600-6300 with effect from 20-6-1990 as revised from time to time and pay all arrears of salary and other allowances attached to that pay scale.
( 3 ) I heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at the Preliminary stage itself elaborately.
( 4 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, the fixation of two scales of pay for the District judges who are discharging same functions and responsibilities is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India as also against the principle "equal pay for equal work". Great stress was laid by the petitioner on the observations contained in a Division Bench Judgment of the delhi High Court in Delhi Judicial Service Association and another v Delhi Administration etc. , in which it is stated as follows:"the various Courts in the Delhi Higher Judicial service, except that of the District and