P. SAVITA S/0 SHRI P.L. SAVITA versus UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE PRODUCTION) NEW DELHI AND OTHERS

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 101 · Decided: 01-05-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

•• 
-
i>. SAVITA S/0 SHRI P.L. SAVITA 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE 
(DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE PRODUCTION) 
NEW DELHI AND OTHERS 
May I, 1985 
(A.P. SEN AND V. KHALID, JJ.) 
tei 
A 
B 
Constitution of India, Article 14 and 39(d)-Equal pay for equal work-
C 
Senior Draughtsmen doing the same work and discharging similar functions and 
duties-Clarification into two groups on the basis of seniority with two different 
pay scales-Whether discriminatory. 
Ci\'il Service-Government servant doing same work and discharging 
similar duties-Classification based on seniority with two different pay scales-
Whether /ega/ and justified. 
D 
Sr:nior Draughtsmen in the Ordnance Factories under the Ministry of 
Defence are either directly recruited or promoted from the post Draughtsmen. 
At all relevant times all the Senior Draughtsmen throughout the above establish· 
mer.ts were drawing the same pay scale of Rs. 205-280. While revising the pay-
scale of various categories of employees, the Third Pay Commission recommcn-
E 
ded that the Draughtsmen should be placed in the scale of Rs. 330-560. The 
Pay Commission also recommended that the Senior Draughtsmen should be 
divided into two groups and half the number of posts of Draughtsmen in the 
above organisations on the present pay-scale of Rs. 205-280 be placed in the 
revised scale of Rs. 425-700 on the basis of seniority and the remaining half in 
the revised scale of Rs. 330-560. Pursuant to the aforesaid recom1nendation, 
the Government of India by its Order dated 1st July, 1978 directed that only 
F 
those senior Draughtsmen who were holding that post on 31st Decernber, 1972 
would be given the senior scale of pay i.e. Rs. 425-700. 
The appellants who are senior Draughtsmen made representation to the 
Government of India against this grouping by the Third Pay Commission. 
As the representations were not accepted, the appellants challenged the Order 
of the Government before the High Court in a Writ Petition contending that 
all the Senior Draughtsmen did the same kind of work and discharged same 
or similar duties and therefore there was no justification for distinction being 
made amongst the Senior Draughtsmen, providing two different pay-scales on 
the basis of ~eniority. The High Court dis1nissed the petition holding that it 
"was open to the Government to fix two different pay scales for Senior 
Draughtsmen and that it was for the Government to decide what pay scale 
should be provided to the different classes of employees, 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
102 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1985) SUPPL. s.c.li.. 
Allowing the appeal, 
HELD : (I) Where all relevant considerations are the same, persons 
holding identical posts and discharging similar duties should not be treated 
differently. Therefore the Order passed by the Government of India imple-
menting the impugned recommendation of the Third Pay Commission dividing 
the Senior Draughtsmen into two categories with two different pay-scales on 
the basis of seniority violates Article 14 of the Constitution and is struck 
down. 
Randhir Singh v. Union of India and Ors. [1982] 3 S.C.R. 298, followed. 
In the instant case the group of Draughtsmen entitled to the higher 
scale of pay is not selected by any process nor is it based on any merit-cum-
seniority basis, but is based only on seniority-cum-fitness. 
Moreover, the 
Senior Draughtsmen divided into two groups are in the same Department 
doing idential and same work. 
Jt is not a case of different grades created on 
the ground of higher qualification either academic or otherwise or an entitle-
ment by any other criteria. Thus the classification between the two groups 
of Senior Draughtsmen is without any basis. 
In view of the total absence of 
any plea on the side of the respondents that the Senior Draughtsmen who are 
placed in the advantageous group, do not perform work and duties more 
onerous Or different from the work performed by the appellants group, it 
will have to be held that this grouping violates Artie!' 14 of the Constitution. 
[107 E-F] 
Kishori Mohan/a/ Bakshi v. Union of India, A.I R. 1962 S.C. 1139; State 
of Punjab v. Joginder Singh, A.1.R. 1963 S.C. 913; Unikat Sankunni Menon v. 
State of Rajasthan, A.l.R. 1968 S.C. 81; State of Mysore and Anr. v. P. Narsingh 
Rao, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 349, distinguished. 
C1VIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3121 of 
1981. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28-9-1979 of the Madhya 
G 
H 
Pradesh High Court in Mis
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.