GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL versus TARUN K. ROY AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 656 · Decided: 18-11-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL 
v. 
TARUN K. ROY AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 18, 2003 
B 
[V.N. KHARE, CJ., S.B. SINHA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JI.] 
Service Law : 
C 
W.B. Services (Revision of Pay and Allowances) Rules, 1970: "Equal 
pay for equal work"-Doctrine of-Applicability-Two categories of posts 
viz., Sub-Assistant Engineer and Operator-cum-Mechanic existed in State 
Irrigation Department-Sub-Assistant Engineers were Diploma holders in 
Engineering whereas Operators-cum-Mechanics were Matriculates with 
certificate from JTJ-Operators-cum-Mechanics claimed nomenclature of Sub-
D Assistant Engineers and pay scale prescribed therefor on the basis of 'equal 
pay for equal work '-Validity of-Held: Art. 14 read with Art. 39(d) envisaged 
applicability of the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work '-But such doctrine 
not automatically applicable merely on the basis of same nature of work 
irrespective of educational qualifications, source of recruitment or other 
E relevant considerations-Persons with higher educational qualifications 
could be considered as a separate class and treated differently----Further, 
parity in duties of these two categories of employment not substantiated--
Moreover, it was for the executive to lay down the prescribed qualification 
for a post and not for the courts-Hence, claim of such Operators-cum-
mechanics rejected-Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 14 and 39(d). 
F 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 142-Re/ief-Orant of-Held: A relief in violation of statutory 
rules could not be granted. 
G 
Article 226-Writ petition-Maintainability of-Delay and Laches-
C/aim for parity in pay scales on the basis of 'equal pay for equal work'-
First two writ petitions filed in 1976-But certain similarly affected employees 
filed writ petition 16 years later-Jn between not only these two writ petitions 
decided one way or the other but also even the matter was considered by 
H 
Supreme Court-Held: Jn such circumstances, the affected employees not 
656 
GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL v. TAR UN K. ROY 
657 
entitled to any relief on the ground of gross delay and !aches. 
Article 141-Precedent-Binding nature of-Held: Judicial discipline 
demanded that court followed its earlier binding precedent-A decision of 
Single Judge binding on another Single Judge of the same High Court-
Practice and Procedure. 
Doctrines: 
Doctrine of "Equal pay for equal work". 
A 
B 
In the Irrigation Department of the appellant-State there existed, inter 
alia, two posts - Operator-cum-Mechanic and Sub-Assistant Engineer. The C 
Sub-Assistant Engineers were directly recruited through Public Service 
Commission whereas no such procedure was laid down for appointment in 
the post of Operator-cum-Mechanic. The Sub-Assistant Engineers were 
required to possess the qualification of Diploma in Engineering. 
Some Operators-cum-Mechanics who possessed the qualification of D 
Diploma in Engineering claimed the nomenclature of Sub-Assistant Engineers 
and the scale of pay prescribed therefor. This claim was upheld by this Court 
in Debdas Kumar's case. 
Another group of Operators-cum-Mechanics who did not possess 
Diploma in Engineering and were mere graduates or Matriculates, relying E 
on the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' filed a similar claim before the 
High Court in Nemai Chand Ghosh 's case. The said claim was rejected by a 
Single Judge and appeal therefrom was pending before the Division Bench of 
the High Court. 
Subsequently, in Nazimuddin 's case, a Single Judge allowed the writ 
petitions despite the fact that the writ petitioners therein were not diploma 
holders in Engineering, subject to the result of the appeal in Nemai Chand 
Ghosh 's case. 
F 
Thereafter, the respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court G 
seeking similar relief. The respondents were Science graduates and did not 
hold diploma in Engineering. Following the Nazimuddin 's case a Single Judge 
allowed the writ petition. The Division Bench upheld this decision on the 
ground that the judgment in Nazimuddin 's case had become final since it was 
not challenged. Hence the appeal. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
658 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the order passed in 
Nazimuddin 's case could no.t be treated as a precedent as the said judgment 
was subject to the order passed in Nemai Chand Ghosh 's case; and that, in 
any event, non-filing of an appeal could not be a ground to pass the same order 
withou

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