Back
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
P. V. Dixit, C. J. and R. J. Bhave, J.
RAMCHANDRA KOTASTHANE - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH - Respondents
Misc. Petn. 78 Of 1964
Decided On : 07/04/1967
After giving the history of the absorption and fixation of pay scales of the District and Sessions Judges in the various regions of the newly formed State of Madhya Pradesh under various Rules and Notifications it is held.
The petitioners contention that he should have been given the benefit of fixation of pay in accordance with Section II of Schedule II of the IAS (Pay) Rules, 1954, in effect amounts to saying that the unified scale of pay, namely, the IAS Senior Scale, should have been made applicable to him not from 1st April 1958 but from an anterior date, namely, from the date on which he was promoted as District and Sessions Judge. This contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that when the unified scale of pay was made applicable from 1st April 1958 under the M.P. Unification of Pay Scale and Fixation of Pay on Absorption Rules, 1959, the petitioner cannot claim that he is entitled to the benefit of the unified scale in any way even before the unified scale came into force. He cannot claim as of right that the unified scale should have been made applicable to him from a date earlier to 1st April 1958.
(Para 5)
It is true that as the petitioner's initial pay in the unified scale was fixed in accordance with Rule 9, a disparity arose between the pay received by him from 1st April 1958 and the pay received from that date by persons promoted as District and Sessions Judges before 1st November 1956 in the Mahakoshal region and persons who were promoted as District and Sessions Judges on or after 1st April 1958. But this difference in the matter of pay is not violative of article 14 or article 16 of the Constitution.
The difference that arose after 1st April 1958 in the pay of allocated permanent District and Sessions Judges was not because of the 1959 Rules or the Notification dated 5th October 1960 but because of the fact that in the old Madhya Pradesh the pay scale of permanent District and Sessions Judges was already the IAS Senior Scale and therefore, the fixation of their initial pay was governed by Rule 7 of the M.P. Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1955. In the Madhya Bharat region from where the petitioner hailed, the scale of pay was Rs. 800-1200 (ordinary) and Rs. 1250-1500 (Select Grade).
(Para 6)
(2) Constitution of India–Article 14–discrimination and differentiation–based all historical reasons–are not unconstitutional–what is equal protection prospective or retrospective law–effect of–equal pay for equal work–doctrine not applicable to Article 14.
It is well settled that a differentiation arising from historical reasons and geographical classification based on historical reasons cannot be held violative of Article 14. 1964 JLJ 334 (SC), 1964 JLJ 369 (SC) and 1967 JLJ 1041 (SC) relied on.
(Para 6)
Equal protection under article 14 means a right to equal treatment in similar circumstances. That article does not require things or persons of different type and nature in tact to be treated in law as though they were the same.
(Para 6)
The abstract doctrine of equal pay for equal work has nothing to do with article 14. AIR 1962 SC 139 relied on.
(Para 6)
The question whether any law offends article 14 does not depend upon whether it is prospective or retrospective. A law operating retrospectively as well as prospectively can contravene the provisions of article 14.
(Para 6)
( 1 ) THE petitioner in this case, who was in the service of the former Madhya Bharat state as District and Sessions Judge on 1st November 1956 when the new State of Madhya Pradesh comprising of the Madhya Bharat State came into existence, continued to serve in the State of Madhya Pradesh as District and Sessions-Judges till he retifed on 30th December 1960. His case is that when he was integrated and absorbed in the new State as District and Sessions Judge, he became entitled under the Madhya Pradesh Unification of Pay Scales and Fixation of Pay on absorption Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) to have his pay fixed according to the Indian Administrative Service Senior Scale and the pay rules governing the service according to the Government's Notification No. 356. 31029/ i-Integ. , published in the Gazette dated 7th October 1960; that the Unified scale of pay, namely, the L A. S. Senior Scale, was made applicable to all the district and Sessions Judges in the new State from 1st April 1958, and, therefore, from that date he was entitled to get his pay fixed in accordance with the principles laid down in Section 2 of Schedule 2 of the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954; and that if this had been done, he would have got an increment of Rs. 320 in his basic salary and would have thus received a monthly salary of Rs. 1120 from 1st April 1958. The grievance of the applicant is that the Government denied him this increment and that when he and some other District and Sessions Judges similarly placed as he was made a representation, a memorandum was issued by the Law department of the Government (No. 25065-3048/xxi-B dated 13-7-1964) saying that "judicial officers drawn from units other than the old Madhya Pradesh, who were promoted as District and Sessions Judges on or after 1st April 1958 and are hereinafter promoted as District and Sessions Judges, be allowed the benefit of pay fixation in the I. A. S. Senior Scale in accordance with illustration II below schedule II to the I. A. S. (Pay) Rules, 1954, which benefit is permissible to officers of the old Madhya Pradesh by virtue of rule 7 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rule. 1955. "
( 2 ) THE petitioner says that by refusing to fix the initial pay of a permanent allocated District and Sessions Judge drawn from units other than the old Madhya pradesh area in accordance with the principles laid down in Section 2 of Schedule 2 of the I. A. S. (Pay) Rules, 1954, and by giving the benefit of that fixation of pay only to those judicial officers from units other than the old Madhya Pradesh who were promoted as District and Sessions Judges on or after 1st April, 1958 according to the Memorandum dated 13th July 1964, persons who were serving as permanent District and Sessions Judges in units other than the old Madhya pradesh and who were integrated and absorbed as permanent District and sessions Judges in the new State of Madhya Pradesh were discriminated against in the matter of pay fixation and that persons from the old Madhya Pradesh area who were promoted before and even on or after 1st April 1958 as District and Sessions judges were given a higher salary. The petitioner has described this discrimination as "without any reasonable basic, disclosing vividly partiality and mala fides on the part of the Government and purposeful". He seeks a declaration that the Memorandum dated 13th July 1964 in so far as it withholds the benefit of initial pay fixation from District and Sessions Judges promoted prior to 1st April 1958 be declared to be void and unconstitutional as repugnant to articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. His further prayer is that a direction be issued to the opponents to fix his pay from 1st April 1958 according to the principles laid down in Section 2 of Schedule 2 of the I. A. S. (Pav) Rules, 1954.
( 3 ) BEFORE dealing with the petitioner's contention it is necessary
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
