LexSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. versus RAMESH CHANDRA BAJPAI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 23 STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. A . _), v. RAMESH CHANDRA BAJPAI (Civil Appeal No. 5058 of 2009) - JULY 28, 2009 B [S.B. SINHA, G.S. SINGHVI AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.] Service Law - Pay scale - Claim by Physical Training Instructor in Government Ayurvedic College - For parity of pay with teachers who had been granted UGC scale of pay- Held: c The claim was not tenable - Equality clause could not .be invoked as there was no wholesale identity between holders of the two posts - Madhya Pradesh (Indian Systems of Medicine and Homeopathy) Class Ill Ministerial Services Recruitment RulE;s, 1987 - Madhya Pradesh Educational D Service (Collegiate Br@nch) Recruitment Rules, 1990 - . Doctrines - Doctrine of "Equal pay for Equal work" - - )c Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14. Judgment/Order - Interpretation of - Held: A decision is E . an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. Respondent was working as a Physical Training Instructor in Government Ayurvedic College. He claimed parity of pay with teachers employed in the School F Education Department who had been granted UGC scale of pay. The High Court passed order directing that the pay of Respondent be fixed in the scale prescribed for the post of teachers. Hence the present appeal. G Allowing the appeal, the Court -f HELD: 1.1. The Ayurvedic Colleges situated in the State of Madhya Pradesh are under the control of the Department of Medical Education. The recruitment to the 23 H 24 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R. A post of Physical Training Instructor is regulated by the Madhya Pradesh (Indian Systems of Medicine and Homeopathy) Class Ill Ministerial Services Recruitment Rules, 1987. In terms of rules 5, 6 and 8 read with the relevant entries of Schedules I, II and Ill of the 1987 Rules, B the post of Physical Training Instructor is categorized as Class Ill Non-Ministerial under the heading 'Establishment of Divisional Organization' and the same is required to be filled 100 per cent by direct recruitment from amongst the persons possessing the requisite educational c qualification of Diploma in Physical Training. [Para 9) (30- C-E] 1.2. A comparison of the provisions of the 1987 Rules and the Madhya Pradesh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990 clearly establish that D they not only dea~ with diffe,r~nt classes of employees but the educational qualifications and scales of pay prescribed for the posts enumerated in Schedules of two sets of Rules are entirely different. While the 1987 Rules regulate recruitment to Class Ill Ministerial and Non- E Ministerial posts in various colleges imparting education in Indian System of Medicine including Ayurveda, the 1990 rules regulate recruitment to different posts in the Educational Service (Collegiate Branch). The post of 'teacher' does not find place either in the 1987 Rules or F in the 1990 Rules. [Paras 11 and 12) [31-A-C] 2.1. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work can be invoked only when the employees are similarly situated. Similarity in the designation or nature or quantum of work is not determinative of equality in the matter of pay scales. G The Court has to consider the factors like the source and mode of recruitment/appointment, qualifications, the nature of work, the value thereof, responsibilities, reliability, experience, confidentiality, functional need, etc. In other words, the equality clause can be Invoked in the H matter of pay scales only when there is wholesale identity .• - STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH & ORS. v. RAMESH 25 CHANDRA BAJPAI betwllen the hofdets of two posts. [Para 14] [31-G-H; 32- A ~ -1.. A-B] 2.2. Article 14 of the Constitution carries with it a positive concept of equality. That Article cannot be - Invoked for perpetuating illegality. To put it differently, an illegal or wrong order passed in one case cannot be B made the basis for compelling a public authority to pass similar order in other cases. Even if the State implements an erroneous order passed by the court, it cannot be precluded from challenging similar order passed in c another case, simply because appeal was not preferred in the earlier case. [Para 17] [33-A-C] 2.3. The respondent cannot derive any benefit from the fact that in compliance of the orders passed by the Tribunal and High Court, the State Government extended D the benefit of UGC scale of p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.