STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. AND ORS. versus DIBYENDU BHATTACHARYA

Citation: [2010] 13 S.C.R. 429 · Decided: 29-10-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. PANCHAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[201 OJ 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 429 
STEEL AUTHORITY OF !NOIA LTD. AND ORS. 
v. 
DIBYENDU BHATTACHARYA 
(Civil Appeal No. 9480 of 2010) 
OCTOBER 29, 2010 
[J.M. PANCHAL, DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND GYAN 
SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] 
Service law: 
A 
B 
c 
Pay scales - Parity in - Public sector undertaking -
Company's policy that every Unit/Plant would be separate and 
independent for the purpose of appointments ~ Employee 
appointed in a Plant/Unit of the company on a post in non-
executive cadre - Claim for parity with the post in executive 
0 
cadre in another plant - Held: Cannot be allowed - Law does 
not prohibit an employer to have different grades of posts in 
different units owned by him - As every unit may make 
appointments taking into consideration local needs, it is 
neither desirable nor permissible to allow the claim for parity E 
raised by the employee holding a post in non-executive cadre 
with a post in the executive cadre - It is also not permissible 
for the court to have judicial review of the reasons for which 
the said post was kept in executive cadre in another unit -
Judicial review - Constitution of India, 1950. 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Article 39(d) - Equal pay for equal work - Burden of 
establishing right and parity in employment - Held: Is only 
F 
on the person claiming such right - The equality claim can 
G 
be invoked in the matter of pay scales only when there is 
wholesome/wholesale identity between holders of two posts -
· The court must consider the factors like the source and mode 
of recruitment/appointment, the qualifications, the nature of 
429 
H 
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2010] 13 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A work, responsibilities, reliability, experience, confidentiality, 
functional need etc. - Service law - Doctrine of 'equal pay for 
equal work'. 
Article 14, 39(d) - Parity in pay sea/es - Held: It is a 
8 settled legal proposition that it is not always impermissible to 
provide two different pay-scales in the same cadre on the 
basis of selection based on merit with due regard to 
experience and seniority - Non-uniformities would not in all 
events violate Article 14 - Granting parity in pay sea/es 
depends upon the comparative evaluation of job and 
C equation of posts - In view of that, parity of pay can be 
claimed by invoking the provisions of Articles 14 and 39(d) 
by establishing that the eligibility, mode of selection! 
recruitment, nature and quality of work and duties and effort, 
reliability, confidentiality, dexterity, functional need and 
D responsibilities and status of both the posts are identical. 
Appellant no.2 invited applications for the post of 
Speech Therapist/Audiologist in its Durgapur Steel Plant 
in S-6 grade in Medical and Health Services. The 
E respondent applied for the said post. An interview was 
held and the respondent was placed at serial no.4 in the 
merit list. As none of the first three candidates joined, the 
appointment was offered to the respondent. The 
respondent joined the said post without any protest. After 
F serving for few years, the respondent started claiming 
parity with one 'BVP' an employee employed at Rourkela 
Steel Plant which was a different unit of the same 
company. 'BVP' was holding the post of E-1 grade in 
executive cadre though designated as Speech Therapist/ 
G Audiologist. The respondent made representation for 
changing the cadre, upgradation of the post, relaxation 
in eligibility and for the pay-scale of the post of E-1 grade 
from the date of his joining the service. The said 
representation was rejected by the authorities on the 
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD. AND ORS. v. 
431 
DIBYENDU BHATTACHARYA 
ground that upgradation of his post to executive cadre· A 
was not permissible under the policy of the company, 
and as the respondent was working in non-executive 
cadre, he could not claim parity with an employee in 
another unit of the company on a post of executive 
cadre. The respondent filed the writ petition before the 
B 
High Court. The Single Judge of the High Court 
dismissed the same. The Division Bench of the High 
Court, however, allowed the appeal and issued direction 
to the appellants to grant the pay-scale to the respondent 
as was being paid to the employee at the Rourkela Steel c 
Plant in the executive cadre and that too from the date 
of his initial appointment. The instant appeal was filed 
challenging the order of the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Personnel Manual prepared by the

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