CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. versus NAURANG SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 965 · Decided: 11-03-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

y 
.. 
CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
NAURANG SINGH AND ORS. 
MARCH 11, 1997 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Equal pay for equal work-Parity in employment-Applicability 
of-Under a notification Union Territory (UT) required to follow pattern of C 
State Government with respect to nature of post, pay scale and revision 
thereof-Accordingly, existing storekeepers in Engineering College given pay 
scale of clerks-However, at the instance of Principal of College, UT revised 
pay scale of storekeepers upwards-Subsequently, UT accepted recommenda-
tions of Second Pay Commission, inter alia, for panty in pay scales of clerks D 
and storekeepers-But, by .that time existing storekeepers in said "College 
placed in pay scale higher than that recommended by Second Pay Commis-
sion-Realising the mistake, UT gave to newly recruited storekeepers the pay 
scale recommended by Second Pay Commission-:-But higher pay scale given 
to old storekeepers not withdrawn, treating same Cis personal pay to them 
only-Held: In the circumstances of the case, the doctrine "equal pay for equal E 
work" could not be invoked by the newly recruited storekeepers to claim higher 
pay scale given to old storekeepers-An evident mistake could not constitute 
a valid ground to repeat the same-Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 39(d). 
The respondents were newly recruited storekeepers of an Engineer-
F 
ing College. By a Notification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, 
Government of India, the appellant was required to follow the pattern of 
the State Government with respect to the nature of the post, pay scale and 
revision thereof. Accordingly, the appellants gave the pay scale of clerks 
to five old storekeepers of the Engineering College. However, at the in-
stance of the Principal of the Engineering College the appellants revised G 
the pay scale of the said five storekeepers upwards. Subsequently, the 
appellants accepted the recommendations of the Second Pay Commission, 
inter alia, for parity in the pay scales of clerks and storekeepers. But, by 
that time the said live storekeepers, as a result of the unscheduled and 
unwarranted upward revision of their pay scale at the instance of the H 
965 
966 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997} 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Pri~cipal, were placed in a pay scale higher than that recommended by the 
Second Pay Commission. The appellants realised that the unscheduled 
upward revision of the pay scale of the said five storekeepers was a 
mistake. Accordingly, the appellants gave to the respondents the pay scale 
recommended by the Second Pay Commission. However, the appellants did 
B not withdraw the higher pay scale of the said five storekeepers, treating 
the same as personal pay to them only. 
Being aggrieved the respondents filed an application before the 
Central Administrative Tribunal claiming the same pay scale as given to 
the said five storekeepers. The respondents invoked the principle "equal 
C pay for equal work". The Tribunal upheld the respondents' claim. Hence 
this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. The mistake committed by the appellant cannot furnish a 
D valid or legitimate ground for the Court or the Tribunal to direct the 
appellant to go on repeating the mistake. The doctrine of "equal pay for 
equal work" has no application in such a situation. An evident mistake 
cannot constitute a valid basis for compelling the appellant to keep on 
repeating that mistake. Personal pay cannot furnish a ground for invoking 
the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work". [968-C·E, 968-F .ff, 969·A·B] 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4005 of 
1993. 
From the· Judgment and Order dated 6.3.91 of the Central Ad· 
F ministrative Tribunal, Chandigarh, in 0.A. No. 697/CH of 1989. 
~G 
Ranjit Kumar for the Appellants. 
S. Ujagar Singh, Davendcr Verma and Salish Vig for the Respon-
dents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
8.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. This appeal is 
preferred against the 
judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh allowing the 
Original Application filed by respondents 1 to 5 herein. The respondents 
H are storekeepers in the Punjab Engineering College. Their claim before the 
-
-
"y 
CHANDIGARH ADMN. ,._ NAURANG SINGH [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.J 
967 
Tribunal was that they are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 570-1080 as A 
has been given to five other storekeepers in the same College. The 
respondents invoked the principl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.