LexCHATTISGARH RURAL AGRICULTURE EXTENSION OFFICERS versus STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
J CHATTISGARH RURAL AGRICULTURE EXTENSION OFFICERS A ASSOCIATION v. STATE OF M.P. AND ORS. APRIL 5, 2004 B [V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] Constitution of India, 1950-Article 14-Doctrine of equal pay for equal work-Sanction of different pay scales to employees belonging to the same cadre on the basis of educational qualification-Pay Commission recommended c equal pay scale as the nature of their work was similar-Recommendation not accepted by State and two scales of pay granted- Order challenged as discriminatory-Relief to the aggrieved employees denied by Court below- On appeal, held: A valid classification can be made on the basis of educational qualification despite the fact that employees have been performing similar D duties-The policy decision of the State ex facie cannot be termed to be I • arbitrary or irrational. 'r Employees-members of the appellant Association, whose educational qualification was matriculation were initially appointed as Village Level Workers. Their services being subsequently transferred to Agriculture E Department of State, their designation was changed to Rural Agriculture Extension Officer. State Government decided to fill up the post only by graduates and by reason of provisions of Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1983 prescribed two different pay scales for non-graduates (Dying ! scale) and higher scale for fresh recruits and existing graduates. Appellants F -~ challenging the decision of the State, filed Writ Petition before High Court, which was transferred to State Administrative Tribunal after its constitution. Tribunal despite holding that it was a case of hostile discrimination, did not grant any relief to the appellants holding that the same had to be dealt with by Pay Commission. Writ petition against the order of the Tribunal was dismissed by High Court. G In appeal to this Court appellant contended that sanction of different ..... pay scale to the employees of same cadre, on the basis of educational qualification was impermissible as their posts were interchangeable, were carrying out same work and had undergone same training; that State 821 H 822 SUPIZl-:ME COliRT REPORTS [200.Jj 3 S.CR. A should have accepted the recommendations of Pay Commission made in 1982 and 1999 for grant of scale of pay to all the officers· irrespective of their educational qualification; that doctrine of classification should not be stretched too far and the same ~annot be a basis for justifying an arbitrary action of State; and that Tribunal wrongly refused to grant any relief despite holding that State committed hostile discrimination. B Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: I. It is trite that the Pay Commission in the years 1982 and in 1999 desired and recommended that the same scale of pay be given to the Extension Officers irrespective of their educational qualification, but C it is not in dispute that the recommendations of the Pay Commission were not accepted by the State. Although the Pay Commission is considered to be an expert body, the State in its wisdom and in furtherance of a valid policy decision may or may not accept its recommendatiou. The State in exercise of its jurisdiction conferred upon it by the proviso appended to D Article 309 of the Constitution of India can unilaterally make or amend the conditions of service of its employees by framing appropriate rules. The State in terms of the said provision is also entitled to give a retrospective effect thereto. A policy decision had been adopted by the -t State that the post of Extension Officer shall be filled up only by graduates. Such a policy decision ex facie cannot be termed to be arbitrary or E irrational attracting the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A dying scale was provided by the State for the non-graduates. Fresh recruitments were to be made only from amongst the persons who held he requisite educational qualification. With a view to avoid any discrimination between the new recruits and the serving employees who F possessed the same qualification, the State cannot be said to have acted \ illegally in granting a higher scale of pay also for the existing degree >- holders. It may be that when recommendations are made by a Pay Commission, evaluation of job must be held to have been made but the same by itself may not be a ground to enforce the recommendations by issuing a writ of or in the natur
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.