STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. versus HARI NARAYAN BHOWAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 24 · Decided: 16-03-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 
v. 
HARi NARAYAN BHOWAL AND ORS. 
MARCH 16, 1994 
B 
[P.H. SAWANT AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 16(1), 39(d)-Equal pay for 
equal work-Agragamies recntited under the West Bengal National Volunteer 
Force Act claiming parity of pay scales with police constables-Held, they 
C form two different classes in public service-Fixing different scales of pay not 
violative of Article 14-Claimants should satisfy the Court not only that nature 
of work is identical but they belong to the same c/as;-Till claimants satisfy 
that they have not been treated as equals within parameters of Article 14, 
Courts should be reluctant to issue any writ to treat them equal. 
D 
Service Law-Whether two posts should carry equal pay, does not 
depend just upon either the nature or volume of work done; requires evalua-
tion of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts. 
E 
77te West Bengal National Volunteer Force Act, 1949---Concept of 
National Volunteer Force-Held, is different from that of a police force; it is 
a standby force, not only for law and order but for different emergencies to 
aid and help regular police force. 
The Respondents were 'Agragamies' employed under the provisions 
F 
of the West Bengal National Volunteer Force Act, 1949. Claiming to 
perform the duties of constables apart from other duties they demanded 
the same scale of pay and other benefits payable to police constables. The 
Pay Commission recommended different scales of pay for them. 
A single judge of the High Court, on the principle of equal pay 
G for equal work, allowed the Respondents, Writ Petition and directed the 
State Government to consider their case. A Division Bench affirmed the 
order. 
Before this Court the appellant State of West Bengal contended that 
H while Agragamies were recruited from amongst trained members of the 
24 
-~ 
) 
... 
STATEOFW. BENGAL v. BHOWAL 
25 
National Volunteer Force, constables were directly recruited by selection. A 
The qualfication for Agragamies was Class VI passed whereas for con-
stables it was Class VIII passed. There was difference in the minimum 
physical standard required for the two as well as in their duties. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. To treat the Res1rnndents and the constables of the West 
Bengal Police Force separately in matters of fixation of scale of pay, is not 
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. They form two different classes 
in public service. (32-D] 
State of West Bengal v. Madan Mohan Sen, (1993] Supp. 3 SCC 243, 
relied on. 
B 
c 
2. Whether two posts are equal or should carry the equal pay, 
depends on several factors. It does not depend just upon either the nature D 
of work or the volume of work done. Primarily it requires among others, 
evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts. The quan-
tity of work may be the same but the quality may be different. That cannot 
be determined by relying upon avern1ents in affidavits of interested parties 
but by expert bodies like Pay Commission. [31-A-R] 
Delhi Vete1ina1y Association v. Union of India, AIR (1984) SC 1221 
and State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, AIR (1989) SC 19, relied on. 
State of M.P. v. Pramod Bhartiya, (1993] l SCC 539 and Shyam Babu 
E 
Vemza v. Union of India, JT (1994) I SC 574, referred to. 
F 
3. The whole concept of the National Volunteer force, is different 
from that of the police force. In respect of the volUnteers, it can be said 
that it is a stanhy force, not only for hnv and order, but for different 
emergencies, to aid and help the regular police force or members of other 
services. (29-G] 
G 
4.1. The principlt: of 'equal pay for equal work' can be enforced, only 
after the persons clain1ing, satisfy the Court that not only the nature of 
\\'ork is identical but in all other respects they belong to the same class 
and there is no apparent reason to treat equals as unequals. (31-E] 
H 
26 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
4.2. Unless a very clear case is made out and the Court is satisfied 
B 
c 
that the scale provided to a group of persons on the basis of material 
produced before it amounts to discrimination without there being any 
justification, the Court should not take upon itself the responsibility of 
fixation of scales of pay. (31-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1741 of 
1994. 
From the Judgement of Order dated 27.8.92 of the Calcutta High 
Court in Origina
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.