STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus MINISTERIAL KARAMCHARI SANGH

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 484 · Decided: 15-10-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
v. 
MINISTERIAL KARAMCHARI SANGH 
OCTOBER 15, 1997 
B 
[K. VENKATASWAMIANDV.N.KHARE,JJ.] 
•· 
Service Law : 
Parity in pay scale of employees appointed after a cut off date-Prior 
C to cut off date there were parity in the pay scales and other conditions of 
service-Employees of Department of Information & Secretariat separated on 
the basis of mode of recruitment, qualification and promotion from a cut off 
date-Those appointed prior to cut off date used to get the earlier pay which 
was higher than the one appointed after the cut off date-Held, this ground 
D is sufficient for fz:;ing different scales-Equal pay for equal work-Not always 
easy to apply-Constitution of India-Article 39(d)-Equal pay for equal 
work. 
Before 1.4.1965, the ministerial employees of the Directorate of 
Information and U.P. Secretariat were in the same pay scales because there 
E was a joint set-up of these two departments. A committee was appointed in 
1964 by the Government for rationalization of the pay scales and other 
conditions of various grades of the State Government employees. One of the 
recommendations of the Committee was that the pay scales of the employees 
of the Directorate ofinformation should be like the pay scales of the employees 
p 
working under other Heads of Department This recommendation was accepted 
and was given effect to w.e.f. 1.4.1965 (cut off date). Those appointed after cut 
off date in the Directorate of Information were paid in the revised pay scale 
something less than what it was before the cut off date. At the same time, the 
pay scale of the employees who were already there prior to the cut off date 
were protected. 
G 
A Writ Petition was filed by the respondent on earlier occasion pointing 
out the discrimination in the pay scale on the basis of date of appointment. 
High Court directed the State to consider the cases of Upper Division and 
Lower Division Assistants for the same pay scale as that of the employees of 
H the Secretariat. By an Office Memorandum, the State, by a considered and 
484 
STATE. v. MINISTERIAL KARAMCHARI SANGH 
485 
reasoned order, rejected the demand of the respondent. 
Hence the respondent-Association again moved the High Court for the 
issue of writ of mandamus directing the appellant to give them the pay scale 
A 
of Lower Division and Upper Division Assistants at par with employees 
working in Secretariat. The writ was allowed by the High Court. The reasons 
given by the High Court for issuing the writ were mainly (i) that the academic B 
qualifications for most of the Lower/Upper Division Assistants were similar; 
(ii) that the employees appointed prior to the cut-off date were paid on a higher 
scale than those appointed after the cut off date and such discrimination was 
not properly explained, and (iii) lhat the unequal scales of pay was based on 
no classification or irrational qualifications. Hence this Appeal by the State. C 
Allowing the Appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. In the light of long line of decisions of this Court the principle 
· of 'equal pay for equal work' is not always easy to apply. There may be any 
educational or technical qualification which may have a bearing on the scales D 
which the holders bring to their job although the designation of the job may 
be the same. The High Court was not justified in issuing the mandamus. 
(491-C) 
2. It is settled proposition that the evaluation of such jobs for the purpose E 
of pay scales must be left to expert body and unless there is any malafide, its 
evaluation should be accepted. [491-D) 
Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers 
(recognized) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., (1988] 3 SCC 91 and State of 
Haryana & Ors. v. Jasmer Singh & Ors., [1996) 11 SCC 77, relied on. 
F 
3. In the instant case, the mode of recruitment, qualification, promotion 
are totally different in the case of appointments of Lower Division & Upper 
Division Assistants in the Secretariat and in the case of Lower Division & 
Upper Division Assistants (Clerical cadre) in the Directorate of Information. G 
This ground is sufficient to fix different scales. The impugned Office 
Memorandum gives convincing and acceptable reasons for retaining the pay 
scales of those Lower Division & Upper Division Assistants appointed in the 
Directorate of Information prior to the cut off date. In the circumstances, none 
of the reasons given by the High Court to issue writ of mandamus as prayed 
for 

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