LexSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. ETC. ETC. versus G. SREENIVASA RAO & ORS. ETC. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
Ll
c
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. ETC. ETC.
v.
G. SREENIVASA RAO & ORS. ETC. ETC.
MARCH 13, 1989
[K.N. SINGH AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ:]
Andhra Pradesh Fundamental Rules-Rule 22(a)(1)-Higher
Salary-Grant of-To a Junior Person-Whether Violative of "Equal
Pay for Equal Work"-Principle-Articles 14, 16 and 39(d)-"Equal
Pay For Equal Work"-Doctrine-Applicability of-Reasonable Clas-
sification based in intelligible criteria having nexus to object sought
to be achieved-Permissibility---{)f.
The common question that arose for decision by this Court in
these groups of matters is whether payment of less salary to a senior
than his junior in the same cadre having the same scale of pay is viola-
D live of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" enshrined in Article
39(d) read with Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The said question
in each group of matters arises thus:
The first batch in this bunch of appeals (CAs 317-30/87 etc.)
relate to the case of Assistant Section Officers of Andhra Pradesh High
E
Court. It may be pointed out that copyists and Assistants are the two
feeder-channels to the post of assistant Section Officers. Prior to 1974
the Copyists were in the pay scale of Rs. 70-130 and were entitled to
additional payment at Rs. 7 .SP every 100 words they copy in excess of
42,000 words. Consequent upon pay revision, they were given the pay
scale of Rs.250-430 w .e.f. l. l.1974 without entitlement of remuneration
F
in addition to pay. The Copyists represented that while revising their
grade, Ow udditional emoluments, which they were getting prior to
revision of pay, has not been taken into consideration. On recom-
mendation of the High Court, the State Government agreed to fix the
pay of the Copyists in the revised grade by adding lo their basic pay
Rs.83.34P, that being the average remuneration that each Copyist was
G
earning prior to l. l.74 and the Dearness Allowance admissible thereon.
The pre-revised scale of pay of Assistants was Rs.90-192 which
was revised to Rs.250-430 from I.l.1974. Even though the Scale of Pay
of Copyists and Assistants was the same, Copyists started drawing more
salary on account of addition of Rs.83.34P aforesaid. Consequently on
H
promotion to the Post of Assistant Section Officer, the salaries of those
1000
•
)
r
STATE OF A.P. v. G.S. RAO
1001
promoted from the cadre of Copyists were fixed higher than those who
were promoted from the cadre of Assistants. One Janakirama Rao, a
Copyist was promoted to the cadre of AssistanfSection Officer in 1984.
On the basis of his last pay drawn as Copyist, his pay as Assistant
Section Officer was fixed higher than those who were promoted to the
said post from the cadre of Assistants during the period 1982-84, under
F.R. 22(a)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Fundamental Rules. The Seniors filed
writ petitions in the High Court contending that the grant of higher pay
to juniors in the same cadre is violative of the principle "Equal pay for
equal work". The High Court allowed the Writ Petitions and directed
that the Assistant Section Officers seniors to Janakirama Rao be paid
the same salary as he was drawing. Division Bench held that grant of
higher pay packet to junior person than his seniors under any circums-
tances is discriminatory. Hence these appeals by the State of Andhra
Pradesh.
A
8
c
Another batch of appeals is filed by Tirumala Tirupathi Devas-
thanam. One B.V. Krisljnamurthy and 62 others working as Upper
Division Clerks in the Devasthanam had filed writ petition in the High
D
Court praying that the Devasthanam be directed to pay salary to them
at par with one D. Gopaliah, U.D.C. who was junior to them. Particu-
lars of D. Gopaliah and one of the petitioners may only be stated.
Gopaliah joined as Lower Division Clerk in 1967 and was given Selec-
tion Grade in 1974. Family Planning incentive of Rs.II was added to his
salary in 1977. He was promoted as U.D.C. in 1979 but was reverted
E
in 1981. He was given further increase in pay as L.D.C. on completion
of 15 years service, as provided in the Rules and in June 1987, he was
drawing basic pay of Rs.811. He was again promoted as U.D.C. on
l.7.1983 and in that cadre, on the basis of his pay in the lower grade,
his salary as per Rules was fixed at Rs.861. On the other hand Krish-
namurthi who joined as Lower Division Clerk in 1970, and promoted as
F
U.D.C. on 3.11.1981, his salary was fixed at Rs.615. On lst July 1983
KrishnamExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.