STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS versus RAMASH-YRAYA YADAV AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 707 · Decided: 15-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

I t 
--
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS 
A 
v. 
RAMASH-YRAYA YADAV AND ANOTHER 
FEBRUARY 15, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
Employment-Equality in-Equal pay for equal work-Principle 
of-Applicability-Temporary appointees-Essential qualification, mode of C 
recrnitment and duties-Different from those of regular appointees-Held : 
principle applicable only when two sets of employees similarly situated and 
discharging similar functions get different scales of pay-Hence, the fonner 
not entitled to pality in pay with latter-Constitution of India-Art. 39(d). 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 226. 
D 
Non-disclosure of material facts-Temporary appointees-Cancellation 
of appointment-Continuing in service under interim order passed by High 
Court-Without disclosing this fact, filing another writ petition seeking parity 
in pay with regular appointees-Held: such non-disclosure disentitled them E 
to any equitable relief in subsequent writ petition. 
The respondents had been appointed as Investigators-cum- Com-
puter on a fixed remuneration, such posts having been created under the 
temporary scheme only in 15 districts of the State. While selecting persons 
for filling those purely temporary posts apart from considering the cases 
F 
of names which were sponsored by the employment exchange, the ap-
propriate authority of the Directorate received many applications directly 
and finally selected the respondents. The Government having come to 
know of the irregularity, cancelled the appointments and called upon the 
authorities to select persons in accordance with the procedure prescribed. G 
The respondents-appointees moved the High Court against the 
aforesaid order of cancellation alleging that they having joined, the order 
was bad in law. The High Court passed an interim order allowing con-
tinuance of the respondents. Though the State appeared in the said 
proceedings and filed application for vacation of stay, the stay order was H 
707 
708 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996) 2 S.C.R. 
A 
not vacated and the respondents continued as such. In the meanwhile the 
respondents filed another writ petition claiming that they were entitled to 
the same salary as the Investigators-cum-Computer were getting in the 
Directorate particularly when they were discharging the similar duties as 
those of the regular employees, invoking the principle of 'equal pay for 
B equal work'. Though the State Government was noticed in that proceeding, 
no counter affidavit was filed. 
On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the respondents 
having been allowed to continue by virtue of an interim order of the High 
Court notwithstanding their appointment having been cancelled and even · 
C though the scheme under which they had been appointed not being in force, 
the High Court committed an error in directing the State to pay the 
respondents same salary as those in the regular cadre; and that the post 
of Investigator-cum-Computer to which the respondents had been ap-
pointed being of a purely temporary nature with a fixed salary the essential 
qualification for the same being much less than qualification for a regular 
D Investigator-cum-Computer, the mode ~f selection being different than 
mode of selection for the regular posts and duties being different, the High 
Court was in error in directing the State to pay the respondents the same 
scale of pay as is available to the regular Investigator-cum- Computer. 
E 
F 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that since the appel-
lants did not file counter affidavit in the High Court it had no other option 
than to accept the averments made in the writ petition; that this Court 
would not be justified in interfering with the same under Article 136 of the 
Constitution; that their nature of work was similar to the work done by 
regular Investigator-cum-Computer; and that the High Court was justified 
to follow the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The principle of equal pay for equal work is attracted 
only when two sets of employees are similarly situated and are discharging 
G similar functions but yet are getting different scales of pay. In the instant 
case the posts of Investigators-cum-Computer had been created purely on 
a temporary basis. The essential qualification for the said post was Inter-
mediate whereas the essential qualification for regular Investigator-cum-
Comp~!er is Bachelor's degree

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