FEDERATION OF ALL INDIA CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE STENOGRAPHERS (RECOGNISED) & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1988] 3 S.C.R. 998 · Decided: 05-05-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. PATHAK · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
FEDERATION OF ALL INDIA CUSTOMS & CENTRAL 
EXCISE STENOGRAPHERS (RECOGNISED) & ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
MAY 5, 1988 
B 
[R.S. PATHAK, C.J, AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.] 
Service matter-Stenographers of Grade I attached with officers in I
pay scale of Rs.2500-2750 (Level I) in the Customs and Central Excise 
Departments of Ministry of Finance, seeking pay parity with steno-
c 
graphers attached to Joint Secretaries and officers above in the Ministr;, 
alleging discrimination violative of Articles 14 and 16( 1) of Constitution 
of India, and that there being no basis for differentiation between 
petitioners and their counterparts. 
By this writ petition, Personal Assistants and Stenographers 
D 
(Grade I) in the pay-scale of Rs. 550-900 attached with officers in the 
pay-scale of Rs.2500-2750 (Level I) i.e. heads of the departments in the 
Customs and Central Excise Departments of the Finance Ministry, 
sought parity with the pay scale of the stenographers attached to the 
Joint Secretaries and the officers above. The petitioners asserted that 
·~ 
they had been and were discriminated vis-a-vis the personal assistants 
E 
and stenographers attached to the Joint Secretaries and the officers 
above in the Ministry, and claimed that they should be placed In the pay 
scale of Rs.650-1040 with effect from 1st January 1973. They contended 
that the basic qualifications, method, manner and source of recruit-
ment and grades of promotion were the same as of their counterparts 
attached to the Joint Secretaries/Secretaries and other officers In the y 
F 
Secretariat. According to them, even on the criteria adopted by the 
Third Pay Commission there was no basis for any differentiation bet-
ween the petitioners and their counterparts. While the petitioners got a 
grade of Rs.550·900, their counterparts were in the pay scale of 
Rs.650-1040. The petitioners asserted that this differentiation without 
any rational basis was discrimination violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) 
G 
of the Constitution of India. They contended for equal pay for equal 
work, and alleged discrimination in the adoption of the recommendation 
"°"· 
of the Third Pay Commission. 
The respondents denied that there was any discrimination, dlf· 
ferentiatlon without basis and referred to the Report of the Third Pay 
H 
Commission, recommending different .and low scales of pay for the 
998 
t 
ALL INDIA CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE v.U.0.1. 
999 
stenographers of the non-participating attached and subordinate offices 
A 
in comparison with those in the Central Secretariat. It was emphasised 
that the difference in the functional requirements of the work done was 
a point. In devising any scales of various posts/categories inter alia the 
degree of skill, experience involved, training required, responsibility 
taken, strain, fatigue, risk and confidentiality undertaken, mental and 
} 
physical requirements were the factors to be home in mind. 
B 
Dismissing the petition with an observation, the Court, 
i 
HELD: The petition had to be disposed of on the basis of the 
position prevailing prior to the report of the Fourth Pay Commission 
and its acceptance/implementation. [100'7Bl 
c 
Equal pay for equal work is a fundamental right. But equal pay 
must depend upon the nature of the work done. It cannot be .iudged by 
the mere voiume of work; there may be qualitative difference as regards 
reliability and respollSibility. Functions may be the same but the 
responsibilities make a difference. Often the difference is a matter of D 
degree and there Is an element of value judgment by those who are 
charged with the administration in fixing the scales of pay and other 
conditions of service. So long as such value judgment is made bonafide, 
~ 
reasonably on an Intelligible criteria, having a rational nexus with the 
, 
object of differentiation, such dl!Terentlatlon will not amount to dis· 
crlmlnatlon. Equal pay for equal work Is a concomitant of Article 14 of E 
the Constitution. But It follows that equal pay for unequal work will be 
• 
a negation of that right. [1009A·Cl 
·~ 
Differentiation In Implementing the award or the recommends· 
tlons of Pay Commission without rational basis may amount to dis· 
crlminatlon. However, In this case, there Is an element of faith, rellabll· 
F 
lty and responsibility and the functional responsibilities and the 
requirements of persons doing the same amount of physical work may 
be different In some cases, depending upon the o

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