LexSTATE OF U.P. & ORS. versus J.P. CHAURASIA & ORS,
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
v.
J.P. CHAURASIA & ORS,
SEPTEMBER 27, 1988
[G.L. OZA AND K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, JJ.]
Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Service and Con-
duct) Rules 1975: Rule 8-Whether it is permissible to have two pay
scales in the same cadre for persons having same responsibilities-
Whether that is violative of constitutional right of "equal pay for equal
work".
Articles 14 and 39(d)-'Equal pay for equal work'-Concept of-
Whether permissible to have two pay scales in same cadre for persons
having same duties and responsibilities-Question of pay and equation
of posts-Must be left to the Executive Government-To be determined
by expert bodies like Pay Commission.
Prior to 1955, the Bench Secretaries in the Allahabad High Court
were on a higher pay scale than that of the Section Officers. In 1965, the
.
'
State Government appointed a Pay Rationalisation Coml)littee to con-
sider the duties and responsibilities of different categories of posts and
recommend changes. The Committee recommended for the Bench Sec-
retaries a pay-scale lower than that of the Section Ufficers. The Bench
Secretaries made a representation to the Government that they be put
a:t par with the Section Officers if not on a higher scale.
The Government appointed Pay Commission (1971-72). The
Pay Commission _did not accept the claim of the Bench Secretaries. The
Bench Secretaries· again moved the Government reiterating their
demand, whereupon an "Anomalies Committee" was constituted. The
Committee rejected the claim of the Bench Secretaries for placing them
at par witli the Section Officers, but suggested ihat ten posts of Bench
Secretaries be upgraded. The Government accepted the recommenda-.
lion and issued orders upgrading ten posts of Bench Secretaries to be
called Bench Secretaries grade I, giving the nomenclature of Bench
Secretaries grade II to the rest of Secretaries. The Bench Secretaries
grade II moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution,
challenging the bifurcation of their cadre into grade I & grade II. The
High Court quashed the notification which created Bench Secretaries
grade I. The State of{; .P., aggrieved by the decision of the High Court,
appealed to this Court.
288
--------------- - ---- ------- ---------~----~-
STATE OF U.P. v. J.P. CHAURASIA
.·289
Two questions arose for consideration (I) whether· the Bench
Secretaries were entitled to pay-scalu admissible to Section Officers,
and (II) whether the creation of two grades with different pay scales In
the cadre of Dench Secretaries doing the same or similar work was
vlolatlve_of the right to have "equal pay for equal work". ·
Allowing the appeal, the Court,
HELD: ( 1) It requires evaluation or duties and responsibilities or
the respective posts. Functions of two posts may appear to be the same
or 1lmllar, but there may be a difference In the performance. Quantity
or work may be the same but quality may be different. The equation ·or
posts of equation or pay must be determined by expert bodlu, like pay
commissions. Ir there ls any such determination by a Commission or
Committee, the Court should normally accept It and not tinker with It
unle:o_, It ls shown to be made with extnureou, consldcratlon. [2?SG-H; 29'.IA·Bl
The Dench Secretaries were. paid more emoluments than the Sec•
tlon Officers,- but II was not known on what basis and how they were
treated nuperlor to Section Officers. The Successive Pay Commission
and the Pay Rationalisation Committee found no 1upport to their
superior claim. The Court could not go against that opinion. Tho Bench
Secretarlu could not claim as of rl;:ht the pay 1cale admbslblc to the
Section Officen. [299C·D J
(2) The second quutlon formulated affected tho dvll nrvlces In
i;eneral. All the Dench Secretaries concerned were Indisputably havln11
the same duties. They had been bifurcated Into two grades with dlffe·
rent pay scales-grade I with higher pay scale and grade II-which wu
sa!d to offend the constitutional principle of "equal pay for equal
A
B
c
D
E
work". [299E-G)
F
Article 39(d) of the Constitution, which proclaims "equal pay for
equal work" and other like provisions In the Directive Principles, are
rooted In Social Justice, Intended to bring about a socio-economic trans·
formation In society, In m:itters of employment, It mustbe ensured that
there ls' no exploitation of tbe ~oor and Ignorant. It ls the dExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.