RANDHIR SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1982] 3 S.C.R. 298 · Decided: 22-02-1982 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Case Allowed
Cited by 11 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
• 
298 
RANDHIR SINGH 
v. 
UNION OF \_NOIA & ORS. 
February 22, 1982 
(0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, A.P. SEN AND BAHARUL !SLAM, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, Articles 14, 19 and 3~( d) "Equal pay for equal work" 
is not an abstract doctrine but one of substance. 
The petitioner is a driver constable in the Delhi Police Force under the 
Delhi Administn1tion. The scale of pay in the Delhi Police Force is for non-
matriculate drivers Rs. 210-270 and for m.atricuh.te drivers 225-308. The scare of 
pay of a driver in the Railway Protection Force is Rs. 260-400. The scaie of pay 
of drivers in the r..on·secretariat offices in Delhi is Rs. 260-6-326~EB-8-351), while 
that of Secretariat offices in Delhi is Rs. 260-6-290-EB-6-326-8-366-EB-8-8-8-390-10 
400. The scale of pay of drivers in the office of the Language Commission is Ri. 
260-300 while the drivers of heavy vehicles in the Fire Brigadge and the Department 
of Light House is Rs. 330-480. The petitioner and other driver constabl1es made 
a representation to the authorities that their case was omitted to be considered 
separately by the Third Pay Commission and that their pay sca1es should be the 
same as the drivers or heavy vehicles in other departments. As their claims for 
better scales of pay did not meet with success, the present application has been 
filed by the petitioner for the issue of a· writ under Article 32 of the Consti-
tution. 
Allowing the petition, the Court 
HELD: 1:1. The petitioner was appointed as a driver in the Delhi 
Police Force. After his discharge from the army question of his employment as 
a drive:.- in Delhi Police Force was considered, he was asked to appear for a· test 
of proficiency in driving, directed to produce a Civil Heavy Tran.sport Driving 
Licence, selected thereafter as a driver in Delhi Police Force under the category 
"Employment of Ex-serviceman in Delhi Police as N.T. Driver (Con~table)." 
He was desigoate..:i as Constable, because for the purposes of th~ discipline of the 
Force and appointment as driver in the Ddhi Police Force he had 10 be made a 
member of the Delhi Police Force and bad to be as~igned· a rank in the Force. 
The investiture of the petitioner with the "powers, fun,;tion-; and privileges of a 
police Officer" was a consequence of his becoming a member of the Force. 
' 
[302 H, 303 A-CJ 
1:2. The petitioner and other drivers in the Delhi Police Force perform 
the same functio1':s and duties as other drivers in the service of the Delhi Adminis-
tration and th~ Central Government. If anything, by reason of their investiture 
with the "power, f11nctions and privilegeS of a police Officer'', their duties and 
~sponsibilities ~re more ardqous. 'J'.he clarifi,catioQ. that the driver$ of the 
RANDffiR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA 
299 
Delhi Police Force and the other drivers belong to different departments and 
that the equal pay for equal work is not a prinCipTe which the courts may 
recognise and act upon is irrational. [306 A, B, C, DJ 
2:1. No doubt, equation of posts and equation· of pay are matters 
primarily rOr the Executive Government and expert bodies and not for the 
courts, but where all thing~ are equal that is, where all relevant considerations are 
the san1e, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differentially in the 
matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments. Of 
course, if officers of the same rank perform dissimilar functions and the powers, 
duties and responsibilities of the posts held by them vary, such officers may not 
be heard to complain of dissimilar pay merely because the posts are of the same 
rank alld the nomenclature is the same. [303 G-H, 304 A] 
3:1. The principle "equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract 
doctrine but one of substance. There can be and there ar'e different grades in a 
service., with varying qualifications for entry into a particular grade, the higher 
grade often being a promotional avenue fqr officers of the lower grade. The 
higher qualifications or experience based on length of service, reasonably sustain 
the classification of the ~fficers into two grades with di'ffer.ent scales of pay. The 
principle Or equal paf for equal work would be an abstract doctrine not attract· 
ing Article 14 if sou11ht to be applied to them. [304 C-E] 
3:2. It is true that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is not ex· 
pressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is 
a Const
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.