LexSTATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. versus M.R. ALAGAPPAN AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-,p·· STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. A v. M.R. ALAGAPPAN AND ORS. APRIL 8, 1997 [S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] B Se1Vice Law : Equal pay for equal w01k-Principle-,,<_pplicability of-Two sets of employees-Substalllially discharging same type of d11ties and the posts inter- C ciumgeable--Held : Did not 11ecesswily attract the doc/line of "equal pay for eq11al work" especially when there were disti11guishi11gfeat11res like ed11catio!lal qualifications, mode of recmitme11t, status, special assig11111e11t, different seniority lists, etc.-Constitlltion of India, 1950, Arts. 14 and 16. Promotion-Chances of-Differentiation based 011 educational D qualifications-Held : Pennissible. The respondents were working as Deputy Agricultural Officers in the State Agricultural Extension Subordinate Service under the Agriculture Department of the appellant-State. The respondents who were promotee Officers claimed parity in pay scales with directly recruited Agricultural E Officers who belonged to the State Agricultural Extension Service. There was a considerable similarity between the duties and respon- sibilities of the respondents and the Agricultural Officers. There were also substantial differences between these two categories. The respondents were F non-gazetted Officers whereas the Agricultural Officers were gazetted Officers. The respondents were promoted departmentally while the Agricultural OfficL!'S were recruited directly. The minimum educational qualification for being recruited as Agricultural Officer was B.Sc. (Agricul· tnre) whereas for a promotee Deputy Agricultural Officer of minimum educational quallfication was SSLC with requisite experience as laid down G in the Rules. The Deputy Agricultural Officers performed the same duties as performed by Agricultural Officers but important assignments like drawing of samples were exclusively assigned to the Agricultural Officers. The State Administrative Tribunal held that the respondents were entitled to get the same pay scale as available to the ar•ricultural Officers on the H 717 718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) 3 S.C.R. A princi pie of Equal pay for Equal Work. Being aggrieved the appellant- State preferred the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. It is clearly laid down in two Constitution Bench B judgments in State of Mysore v. P. Narasing Rao and Mohamad Sl111jat Ali v. Union of India, that any differentiation made in the matter of pay scales or even for that matter with reference to further chances of promotion between graduate and non-graduate employees would not fall foul on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. [726-G] c 1.2. In certain circumstances even the task of drawing samples is also being entrusted to Deputy Agricultural Officers. But the special c1uality of work, which the directly recruited Agricultural Officers have to put in, substantially differs from the quality of work, which can be entrusted to Deputy Agricultural Officers like the respondents. It is im- D possible to hold that the Deputy Agricultural Officers like the respondents are required to be given the same pay scale as Agricultural Officers. This is because they do not form a similar class of employees even though they may be substantially discharging the same type of duties and their place of work may be interchangeable. In view of the distinguishing features E between the two groups of employees and especially in the light of the further fact that they form two separate cadres of gazetted and non- gazetted officers governed by different sets of service rules which in turn require maintenance of separate seniority lists, it is not possible to uphold the contention of the respondents that only on the doctrine of Equal Pay for Equal Work the pay scale available to gazetted employees like Agricul- F tural Officers must of necessity be made available to non-gazetted employees like Deputy Agricultural Officers on the pain of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. [731-E-H] State of Mysore v. P. Narasing Rao, [1968] 1 SCR 407 and Mohamad G Shujat Ali & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1975] 1 SCR 449, followed. V. Markendeya & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors., [1989) 3 SCC 191 and Sita Devi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1996) 10 SCC 1, relied on. Bhagwan Dass & Ors. v. State of Ha1yana & Ors., [1987) 4 SCC 634 H _andlaipal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., [
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.