PURNA CHANDRA NANDA versus STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 235 · Decided: 01-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
PURNA CHANDRA NANDA 
A 
v. 
STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR. 
MAY 1, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Equal pay for equal work-Dairy Overseer under Government of Oris-
sa-<:laiming to have been promoted as Dairy Supervisor in 1969 and posted C 
as Fam1 Manager-Claim for pay as Fann Manage,-.ffeld, Fann Manager 
is a Class II post-Claimant obtained B. V.S. degree in 1977 and on its basis 
he was given the pay scale applicable to class II Gazetted post - He can not 
claim pay equivalent to Fann Manager from 1969 to 1977-f'rinciple of equal 
pay for equal work cannot be used as a shield to reach higher cadre of service. · D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 509 of 
1992. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.9.91 of the Orissa Ad-
ministrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in T.A. No. 302 of 1986. 
E 
P.N. Misra for the Appellants . 
.. 
~-
AK. ?!nda for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
• 
. This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Orissa 
Administrative Tribunal made on September 13, 1991 in T.A. No. 302/86. 
F 
The admitted position is that the appellant.was appointed as a Veterinary 
Extension Officer on 10.10.1958. Thereafter in 1965, he was posted as a G 
Supervisor in Milk Service Scheme at Rourkela as In-charge of animals 
stationed at Khapuria. In 1969 also, he was posted as Dairy Overseer. The 
appellant claimed to have been promoted to the rank of Dairy Supervisor 
on 26.11.1969 and was posted as a Farm Manager in District Livestock 
breeding Firm. He claimed that he is entitled to equal pay for equal work. H 
235 
236 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
from 1969 to 1974 and from 1974 to 1977 as From Manager. It is an 
admitted position that in 1977, he obtained B.V.S. degree and on his 
securing the degree he was given the pay-scale of Rs. 525-975 applicable 
to Oass II Gazetted scale from 1.7.77. Farm Manager is Class II post. The 
Tribunal has pointed out in the order that though the Farm Manager is an 
B inter-changeable post, it is not an intermediary between Gazetted cadre 
and the immediate post held by the appellant. It has pointed out that in 
the Dairy Department of Dairy wing, the service consists of Diary Over-
seer, Diary Snpervisor and Dairy Inspector last of which is equivalent to a 
Gazetted post. The Farm Manager post is held by both Class II and Class 
C I officers depending upon the exigencies of the post. 
Shri Misra, Learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the 
High Court in Writ Petition OJ.C. No. 1189m and other matters had held 
that the Farm Manager post is an intermediary post for promotion to the 
D Gazetted cadre. All person who hold that post are entitl~d to equal pay. 
The order came to be final by dismissal of the SLP by this Court. Conse-
quently, the appellant having held the post of a Farm Manager is entitled 
to equal pay. In the counter-affidavit filed in the Tnbunal as well as in this 
Court, the Government has pointed that the holders of the post are having 
E different scale of pay. Mere exigency of holding the post as a Farm 
Manager do not per se entitle the incumbant to the same scale of pay which 
was not admissible to the person who held that post as a Dairy Supervisor. 
It is pointed out that the scale of pay varies according to the Gazetted or 
non-Gazetted cadre. In paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit filed in this 
F 
Court, they have reiterated the distinction between the various posts held 
by the persons in the Farm Branch and Dairy branch. Merely because the 
post' are inter-changeable as Fann Manager, they do not automatically 
became entitled to be the holder of the post and for the same scale of pay. 
The meet of the matter is that scales of pay are different and direction to 
G grant equal pay is to allow the appellant to jump the queue and land in a 
higher ladder. The Tribunal, therefore, was right in refusing to grant the 
same scale of pay to the appellant on the day on which be was not entitled 
as per his seniority. Though Shri Misra contended that the appellant was 
promoted to the post of a Farm Manager, we do not find any acceptable 
H 
material on record to conclude that be was holding Class II Gazetted post 
t 
• 
P.C. NANDA v. STAIB 
237 
in his own right. Under these circumstances, the principle of equal pay for A 
equal work cannot be used as a shield to reach higher cadder of service in 
accordance with rules of promotion and sen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.