GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR. versus M. PANDURANG AND ORS.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 487 · Decided: 20-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
M. PANDURANG AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 20, 1995 
[K RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Parity in scales of pay-Juniors drawing more-Seniors claiming 
parity-Held, not entitled to as Juniors were getting higher pay either due to 
C 
length of service or on grant of selection grade-Constitution of India-Art. 
39-A. 
In this appeal by the State of Andhra Pradesh, the issue involved 
was in regard to parity of scale of pay claimed by some of its employees. 
The appellant-State contended that since one of the junior was 
granted Selection Grade, he was drawing higher scale of pay; and that 
another junior has been drawing higher scale of pay in view of his length 
of service in the feeder cadre and so the respondents were not entitled to 
parity of scale of pay with those persons. 
On behalf of the Respondents, it was contended that the Government 
having implemented the directions of the Supreme Court and High Court 
in this regard, the same relief could not be denied to the respo.ndents. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. One of the juniors had been granted selection grade scale 
D 
E 
F 
of pay, by necessary consequence, he would draw higher scale of pay, 
though he happened to be junior to others. Another candidate was drawing 
higher scale of pay due to length of service in the feeder cadre. It would be 
granted of special pay under Rule 22(a) (i) of the Fundamental Rules for G 
the purpose of that candidate in the higher promotional post. That would 
not be a ground to grant parity of scale of pay to the seniors working in 
the cadre. [490-B-C] 
State of A.P. & Ors. v. G. Sreenuasa Rao and Ors., [1989] 2 SCC 290 
held applicable. 
l-1 
4~7 
488 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
·A 
2. It is common knowledge that when Article 371D(5) was declared 
B 
c 
D 
ultra vires, number of writ petitions were filed in the High Court and it 
entertained them and issued interim directions. In implementation of 
those interim directions, the Government issued orders but they were 
made subject to the result in the writ petitions. Ultimately, it is now settled 
law that the Tribunal has jurisdiction. No doubt, in a recent judgment, a 
Full Bench of the High Court has held that the Tribunal is not on par with 
High Court and the exclusion of the High Court's jurisdiction was uncon-
stitutional and it has also jurisdiction to decide the service matter. The 
controversy is now referred to a larger Bench of 7 Judges and the same is 
pending in this Court. In view of the flux in the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, 
several matters were entertained by the High Court. However, they will be 
subject to the final decision of this Court by the larger Bench. In view of 
the interim directions granted by the Courts, the Government has imple-
mented them. But those orders will be subject to the result in the pending 
matters. [489-F-H] 
3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 14 are reported to be dead. In spite of the 
fact that time was given to the State for impleading the L. Rs., the needful 
has not been done. Therefore, the appeal as against those two respondents 
stands abated. [486-G-H] 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11465 of 
1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.88 of the Andhra Pradesh 
Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad in R.P. No. 4442 of 1988. 
p 
Guntur Prabhakar for the Appellants. 
L. Nageshwara Rao and S. Udaya Kumar Sagar for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
G 
Leave granted. 
Respondent No. 1, namely, M. Panduranga and respondent No. 14, 
namely, R. Panduranga Rao are reported to be dead. In spite of the fact 
that time was given to the state for impleading the L. Rs., the needful has 
not been done. Therefore, the appeal as against those two respondents 
H stands abated. It is accordingly dismissed. 
\ 
GOVT. OF AP. v. M. PANDURANG 
489 
As regards the other respondents, the facts are fairly clear that they A 
were working as Junior Analysts in the Institute of Preventive Medicine, 
Public Health Labs and Food (Health) Administration which was under 
Medical and Health Department. They claimed that since their juniors 
were drawing more pay than them in the cadre of Junior Analysts, they 
invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for payment of equal pay under 
Article 39(A) of the Constitution. The Tribunal in the impugned order 
dated November 15, 1995 has allowed the writ petition and directed 
impl

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