BHAGWAN DASS AND OTHERS versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 714 · Decided: 31-07-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.P. THAKKAR · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
BHAGWAN DASS AND OTHERS 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 
JULY. 31, 1987 
[M.P. THAKKAR AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Arts. 14 and 16--Doctrine of "Equal 
work equal pay"-When it is established that the work performed is 
similar, there can be no discrimination with regard to scale of pay on 
the ground that the mode of recruitm.ent was different or the nature of 
C appointment was temporary. 
The Education Department of the State of Haryana which was 
administering Adult Education Centres for providing functional , 
literacy to illiterates in the age-group of 15·35 years and Non-Formal 
D Education Centres to impart learning by Special Contact Courses to 
student drop-outs from schools in the age-group of 6· 15 y~ars, 
appointed the petitioners as supervisors from time to time since the 
years 1978 on a fixed salary and continued to treat them as temporary 
government servants by giving them a deliberate break in service 
of one day after the lapse of every six-months. Contending that this 
E. 
was violative of Arts. 14 and 16 since they were discharging similar 
duties as other Supervisors such as respondents 2·6 in the Educa· 
lion Department who had been absorbed as regular government 
servants, the petitioners prayed for issue of a Writ directing the State 
Government to give them the same scale of pay and benefits of conti· 
nuous service, etc. by declaring them to be permanent government 
F servants. 
The State Government contended that the petitioners were not 
full time employees, that their mode of recruitment was different from 
the mode of recruitment of regular Supervisors, that the nature of 
0 
functions discharged by them was different from those of the latter r· 
and that they had been appointed on six-monthly basis as the posts 
were sanctioned from year to year in view of the temporary nature of 
the schemes. 
The documentary evidence placed on record established that the 
H petitioners were functioning as full-time Supervisors and had been 
714 
>-· 
BHAGWAN DASS v. HARYANA 
715 
_.) 
given the status equivalent to masters of formal schools and their A 
functions were also like the Block Education Officers offormal schools. 
Allowing the petition partly, 
HELD: The petitioners "are entitled to be paid on the same basis 
B 
~ of same pay scale as per which respondents 2 to 6 who are discharging 
similar duties as Supervisors just like the petitioners, are being 
y 
paid. 
(i) The Respondent-State has failed to establish its plea that the 
-
nature of the duties are different. In the regular cadre, the essen-
tial qualification for appointment is B.A., B.ED. Petitioners also c 
possess the same qualification viz., B.A., B.ED. In faci many of 
them even possess higher degrees such as M.A., M.ED. In what 
manner and in what respect are the duties and functions 
discharged by those who are in the regular cadre different? The 
petitioners having discharged the initial burden of showing 
D 
similarity in this regard, the burden Is shifted on the Respon-
,...(" 
dent-State to establish that these are dissimilar in essence and 
in substance. We are unable to uphold the bare assertion made 
in this behalf by the State of Haryana in its Counter-am-
davit. [723F-G] 
(ii) So long as the petitioners are doing work which is similar to E 
r 
the work performed by respondents 2 to 6, from the stand point of 
'Equal work for equal pay' doctrine, the petitioners cannot be 
discriminated against in regard to pay scales. Whether equal 
.. ., 
work is put in by a candidate, selected by a process whereat 
candidates from all parts of the country could have competed or 
whether they are elected_ by a process where candidates from only F 
a cluster of a few villages could have competed Is altogether 
irrelevant and immaterial, for the purpose of the applicability of 
'Equal work for equal pay' doctrine. A typist doing similar work 
as another typist cannot be denied equal pay on the ground that 
the process of selection was different inasmuch as ultimately the 
__,_ 
work done Is similar and there Is no rational ground to refuse G 
equal pay for equal work. It Is quite possible that if he had to 
compete with candidates from all over the country, he might or 
might not have been selected. It would be easier for him to be 
selected when the selection Is limited to a cluster of a few villages. 
That however is altogether a different matter. It is possible that he 
H 
might not have been selected at all if he

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.