SITA DEVI & ORS. ETC. ETC. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 173 · Decided: 23-08-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SITA DEVI & ORS. ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 
AUGUST 23, 1996 
(B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.) 
B 
Constitution of India, Art. 14-Equal pay for equal work-Educational 
qualifications as basis for equal pay for equal work-State of Haryana Under-
. matricuiate instrnctors in "Adult Literacy Programme"~eld, not similarly 
placed as matriculate instructorHfeld, State Govt's. refusal to extend C 
matriculate instructors' scale of pay to non-matriculate instructors, valid. 
Service Law-Equal pay for Equal work-Parity in employment-Educa-
tional qualifications-Basis and Extent,of 
The writ petitioners were working as "under matriculate instructors 
in the Adult Literacy Programme" of Govt. of Haryana on a consolidated 
salary of Rs. 200 per month. They had been working as such for 5 to 6 years 
to the satisfaction of all concerned. They had in their writ petition, sought 
D 
the following reliefs viz. (1) that the petitioners be treated to be in the 
serviee of the respondents from the date of their initial appointment ir-
E 
respective of there being artificial breaks, (2) issuance of directions to the 
respondents to put the petitioners on regular pay scales applicable to the 
primary school teachers in the education department of Haryana with 
other consequential benefits, and (3) issuance of directions to the respon· 
dents to declare the petitioners as regular teachers in the department of F 
Adult Education and non-formal Education. 
Dismissing the writ petition, this Court 
HELD : 1. The Doctrine of "Equal work for equal pay" is recognised 
by this court as a facet of the equality cause contained in Art. 14 of the G 
·Constitution and has been dealt with by this Court is several decisions. 
[176-D-E] 
Randhir Singh v. Union of India, [1982) 3 SCR 298; Dhirendra 
Chamoli v. State of U.P., [1986] 1 SCC 637 and Surinder Singh v. Engineer 
i11 Chief, CPWD, [1986) 1 SCC 639,.referred to. 
H 
173 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
174 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
2~. Where the petitioners complain of unlawful discrimination offend-
ing Art. 14, it is for them t:o satisfy the Court that the distinction made is 
irrational and baseless aml that it really amounts to unlawful discrimina-
tion prohibited by Art, 14. [177-A-B] 
21. The question is whether the Govt. of Haryana is guilty of unlawful 
discrimination in refusing to extend to non-matriculate instructors the pay 
scale which has been extended to matriculate instructors pursuant to the 
judgm1mt of this court in Jaipal. It is is not so. Classification on the basis 
of educational qualifications has always been upheld by this court as 
reasonable and permissible under Art. 14. [177-C-D] 
Jaipal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR (1988) SC 1504 = [1988] 
3 SCC 354; State of J & K v. Triloki Nath Khosa, AIR (1974) S.C.I.; P. 
Murgesan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1993] 2 SCC 340 and The State 
of Mysore & Anr. v. P. Narasinga Rao, AIR (1968) SC 349, relied on. 
4. Apart from relyin1~ upon the decision of this court in Jaipal and 
cl~iming that the benefit given to matriculate teachers should also be given 
to them, no attempt has been made in the writ petition to alleged and 
establish that their qualifications, duties and functions are similar to those 
of squad teachers. Hence the claim is unacceptable. [178-B] 
Jaipal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR (1988) SC 1504 = (1988] 
3 sec 354, referred to. 
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 584 of 
1989 Etc. 
F 
Under Article 32 of lthe Constitution of India. 
G 
S.K. Dhaen, Ms. Rekha Pandey, Subhash Sharma and M.R. Vij for 
the Petitioners. 
Prem Malhotra and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Writ Petition (C) No. 584 OF 1989 
In this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of 
H India, three reliefs are asked for by as many as 748 petitioners. The reliefs 
SlTADEVIv. STAIB [B.P.JEEVAN REDDY,J.] 
175 
sought for are : 
"(a) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any appropriate writ, 
order or direction· that the petitioners be treated to be in the 
service of the respondents from the date of their initial appoint-
ment irrespective of there bdng artificial break in their services 
during the period. 
(b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents 
A 
B 
to put the petitioners on regular pay scale to that of primary school 
teachers in the Education Departmen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.