LexPRABHAT KIRAN MAITHANI & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' 911 PRABHAT K1RAN MAlTHANl & ORS. v. UNION OF 1NDIA & A.Nll. February 3, 1977 [M. H. BEG, C.J. AND P. s. KAILASAM, J.] Pay ·Scales and revised pay scales of computers shown as identical in the Second Pay Commission Report-Right to be equated as Research Assistants Grade ll both in status ahd in pay is entirely within the sphere of the func- tion of the Pay Commission-Effect of the Report of the Third Pay Com- mission. Constitution of India, 1950:......Article 32" caii be resorl~d to 01ily for the enforcement of Fundamental Rights~Equation of posts is not a duty which the court under Art. 32 or the High Court under Art. 226 was competent to carry out. In the 1959 Second Pay Commission Report, the pay scales and the re• vised pay scales of the Computers were shown as· identical with that of the Research Assistants Grade II, even though the 'two posts were shown as separate classes·. The Third Pay Commission Report, however, showed that A B c the Computers not only belonged to a separate class of their own but received D less pay than Research Assistants' Grade II. The petitioners assailed this view under Art. 32 of the· Constitution as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution on the ground that they had a Fundamental Right to be equated both in status as well as in pay to that of Research Assistants, Grade II. Dismissing t)le petition tlie Court. HELD : ( 1) Equation of posts and equation of pay are matters entirely within the spli:ere of the function· of the Pav Commission. These are questions E entirely unfit for determination upon a petition for a writ for the enforce- ment of Fundamental Rights. It requires; firstly, formulation of correct criteria for each classification. and. secondly. the application of these criteria to facts relating to the functions aild the qualifications for each class. The Pay Coriimission had done thi!l in the instant case elaborately. [912 F, 913 B-C] (2) The Court. under Art. 32. neither has wider powers nor. can do it with greater facility than a High Court cannot, when exercising its writ issuing jurisdictiort. This Court had' already laid down that equation of posts is not a duiy .. Which the High Court was oompetent to· carry out in proceedings under Art. 226. (913 DJ U11io11 of India v. G. R. Ptabliavalkar & Co. [1973] (3) SCR 714, referred to. ' (:l) The question, whether thete is or there is not enough material on re- cord in a particular case to establish the basis of a particular discrimination is one of fact for the determina.tion of which no hard and fast rules can be laid down. A discrimination which involves the invocation of Art. 14 is not• G · necessarily covered by Art. 16. In the instant case, even the material relied upon by the tretitioners shows the Computers and Research Assistants Grade II are cla5siJ1ed· separately; and, tlrerefore, the validity . of ·that classification cannot be displaced by the kind ef evidence relied on. Until that classification is shown to be unjustified, no question of violating Artide 16 . can arise. [913 G-H, 914 A] Purshottam Lal and Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. [19731 (1) sec 651 B held inapplicable. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition No. 43 of J 976. S. C. Agarwal for the Petitioners. A, B c D E. F G H 912 SUJ'REME COURT REPORTS [1977] 2 §.8.R, L. N. Sinha, Sol Genl. and B. Ddtta for Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG, C.J.-The petitioners before us are employees of the Forest Research Institute and Colleges Dehra Dun in the post11 designated a11 Computers. Their grievance is that they should be treated as Re- 11earch As11istants Grade II and given the same scale of pay and other conditions of service as are applicable to Research Assistan'ts Grade II. The respondents, Union of India and the Pr1!sident of the Forest Research Institute deny that the petitioners are entitled, to bi~ treated as Research Assistants Grade II. The petitionen; rely upon certain alleged admissions on behalf of the opposite parties, on certain classi- fications of Computers in the past, prior to the recommenda1ions of the Third Pay Commission 1973 as well as on the last menti.oned re- port of the Central Pay Commission. Furthermore, learned counsel has invited our attention to the case of Purshottam Lal and Ors. Vs. Union of India and another [1973 (1) S.C.C. 651] whereupon a Writ Petition by Computers, they were shown a11 having
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.