STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR. versus PRAMOD BHARTIYA AND ORS.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 904 · Decided: 08-10-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR. 
v. 
PRAMOD BHARTIYA AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 8, 1992 
(KULDIP SINGH, N.M. KASLIWAL AND 
B.P. JEEVEN REDDY, JJ.) 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
C 
Article 14-Equal pay for equal work : 
Ingredients-Persons who plead to prove. 
Civil Service : 
D 
Lecturers of Higher Secondary Schools governed under Madhya 
Pradesh Non-gazetted Class III Educational Service (Non-Collegiate Branch 
Service)Recmitment and Promotion Rules, 1973 and Non-technical lecturers 
of technical schools governed under M.P. Education Department (Technical) 
Class III (Non-Ministerial) Recmitment Rules, 1980-Scale of pay-Dis-
E parity-Legality of 
F 
G 
H 
Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 : 
Sections 1(3), 2 (h)-Application and object of-''Same work or work 
of a similar nature''-Relevance of definition to the case of school teachers. 
The service conditions of the Respondents lecturers working in Higher 
Secondary Schools were governed by Madhya Pradesh Non-gazetted Class 
III Educational Service (Non-Collegiate Branch Service) Recrnitment and 
Promotion Rules, 1973. In the State there was another set of schools called 
'Technical Schools', which were also Higher Secondary Schools. 
In Technical Schools, lecturers were categorised as technical lec-
turers and non-technical lecturers. Their service conditions were governed 
by M.P. Education Department (Technical) Class III (Non-Ministerial) 
Recruitment Rules, 1980. 
The case of the Respondents before the Administrative Tribunal was 
904 
STATEOFM.P. v. PRAMODBHARTIYA 
905 
that in the year 1981 the scale of pay admissible to non-technical lecturers In A 
technical scitools and lecturers in Government Higher Secondary Schools 
was identical viz., Rs.925-1500, that subseqoently a distinction came to be 
made between them to the prejudice of the lecturers in Higher Secondary 
Schools; that qualifications prescribed for both the posts and the service 
conditions were identical though both of them were governed by different B 
sets of Rules; that they taught more number ,,f hours every week than the 
non-technical lecturers in technical schools; that since tbe qualifications, 
service conditions and status of the non-technical lecturers in technical 
schools and the lecturers in Government Higher Secondary Schools were the 
same, they too were entitled to the scale of Rs.2000-3500 with effect from 
1.1.1986. 
c 
The appellant State opposed the respondent's claim. Tbe State con-
tended that the distinction between the lecturers in Government Higher 
Secondary Schools and the non-technical lecturers I!' the Govermneot 
Technical Schools was based upon the report of the Pay Commission; that 
the Choudhary Commission bad maintained a distinction betwf\!n the pay D 
scales of technical lecturers and non-technical lecturers working in tech-
nical schools and bad kept the non-technical lecturers in technical schools 
on par with the lecturers in Government Higher Secondary Schools but as 
a result of the decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in M.P. No. 
2277 of 1985 disposed of on 29.7.1988, the non-technical lecturers in the E 
technical schools bad to be placed in the same scale of pay as the technical 
lecturers; that though the qualifications for both the posts were the same, 
the service conditions and their mode of recruitment were different. 
The Tribunal allowed the application, against which the present 
appeal was preferred by the State. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1. Equal pay for equal work, it is self evident, is implicit in 
F 
the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14, it flows from It. Because G 
clause (d) of Article 39 spoke of 'equal pay for equal work for both men 
and women' it did not cease to be a part of Article 14. To say that the said 
rule having been stated as a directive principle of State policy Is not 
enforceable in a Court of Law is to indulge in sophistry. Parts IV and Ill 
of the Constitution are not supposed to be exclusionary of each other. They 
are complementary to each other. The rule Is as much a part of Article 14 H 
906 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
as It Is or clause (1) or Article 16. Equality or opportunity guaranteed by 
Article 16(1) neeessarlly means and involves equal pay for equal work. It 
means equally that it Is neither a mechanical rule nor does It mean 
geometrical equality. The concept or reasonable classiDcatlon and all other 
Rules evolved with respect to Articles 14 and 16(

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