SHRI ALVARO NORONHA FERRIERA & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 824 · Decided: 23-04-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SHRI ALVARO NORONHA FERRIERA & ANR. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
APRIL 23, 1999 
B 
[S. SAGHIR AHMED AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
"Equal pay for equal work"-Judicial Officers-Working in two different 
C Union territories-Nature of duties and responsibilities indentical-Disparity 
in pay scales-Validity of-Held, work pattern and pendency of cases at two 
different places cannot make the nature of work different-Burden to justifY 
differential treatment lies on the Government-Appellants entitled to parity 
in pay scales-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14, 16 and 39(d). 
D 
Appellants were judicial officers posted in the Union Territory of Goa. 
They were fixed in the pay scales on par with their counterparts in Union 
Territory of Delhi. However, in the year 1982, the pay scales of judicial 
officers in Union Territory of Delhi was increased while the appellants were 
not given the benefit of increased pay scales. Even the pay commission 
E recommendation did not remove the disparity. Aggrieved, the appellants filed 
a writ petition before the High Court which was dismissed on the ground that 
the appellants failed to establish that their nature of duties and responsibilities 
were identical with that of judicial officers in Delhi. Hence the present 
appeal 
F 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
G 
HELD: 1.1. The judicial officers of Union Territory of Goa are entitled 
to parity in pay scale on par with their counterparts in Union Territory of 
Delhi on the principle of'equal pay for equal work'. [829-G) 
1.2. The parameters for invoking the principles of 'Equal pay for equal 
work' would include, inter alia, nature of the work and common employer. 
There can be no two views that the nature of work of District and Sessions 
Judges is the same though in some areas pendency of cases would be higher 
than others. Difference in the backlog are not uncommon even in two different 
stations of the same territory, nay, in two different courts of the same station. 
H Such lopsidedness is hardly the ground to conclude that the nature of work 
824 
A.N. FERRIERA v. U.O.I. [THOMAS, J.] 
825 
done by one judicial officer at one place is different from the other. The duty A 
hours would be substantially the same, the powers to be discharged are in 
no way different, whether they are District Judges in Goa or in Delhi. It 
would be a futile exercise to make an endeavour for drawing a distinction 
between the work pattern at the two different places, for, such differences 
are discernible everywhere. But that would not make the nature of work B 
different. 
[828-E} 
Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) (1) SCC 612, referred to. 
1.3. B'!rden of proof cannot be cast on the appellants to establi;Sh "the 
pendency of litigation or the norms fixed for disposal of cases by the Delhi 
court to enable comparison between the nature of duties and the C 
responsibilities ,carried by the officers of the Delhi Territory and the Goa 
Territory." Till hike in the pay-scale was brought about in 1982 for Delhi 
Judges the parity was maintained between the judicial officers of Union 
Territory of Goa and Delhi. Nobody doubted till then that the nature and 
dismension of work discharged by the officers of the same cadre of judicial 
officers at two different territories were different from any perceptible D 
standard. It is for the Government to show that there was change in the 
nature of work which necessitated to keep two different levels of pay to the 
same officers working at two different pl&\:es. [829-A] 
2. Respondent Union of India is directed to disburse the arrears of pay E 
to the appellants calculating their scales of pay on par with their counterparts 
in the Union Territory of Delhi for the period 1.3.J 982 to 31.3.1987 within 
six months. (829-G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Aweal No. 1460 of 
1994. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.3.91 ofthe Bombay High Court 
in W.P. No. 228of1988. 
Ashok H. Desai and Kailash Vasdev for the Appellants. 
G 
A.S. Nambiar, S.K. Mehta, Dhruv Mehta, Fazlin Anam, Ms. Shobba, Y.P. 
Mahajan and P. Parmeswaran for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
THOMAS, J. Some Judges whose function was dispensation of justice H 
• 
826 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1999] 2 S.C.R. 
A had to approach the High Court for justice based on the celebrated doctrine 
"equal pay for equal work" but they were non-suited by a Division Bench of 
that High Court. They were Judges

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