TARSEM LAL GAUTAM & ANOTHER versus STATE BANK OF PATIALA, AND OTHERS

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 479 · Decided: 11-10-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

TARSEM LAL GAUTAM & ANOTHER 
v. 
STATE BANK OF PATIALA,AND OTHERS 
OCTOBER 11, 1988 
A 
[RANGANATH MISRA AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 16 and 32-'Equal pay 
/ 
for equal work'-Doctrine of-Qualitative differences in regard to 
degrees of reliability and responsibility-Applicability oF-Categorisa· 
tion of posts under various new categories-Regulations 6 and 7 State 
Bank of Patiala (Officers) Service Regulations 1979--Constitutional C 
validity of. 
State Bank of Patiala (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979--
Schedule I Regulation 7-Constitutional validity of-Fitment of existing 
officers of the Bank in new grades and scales of pay-Whether violates 
doctrine of' equal pay for equal work'. 
D 
The petitioners were working as Grade A officers on the 
appointed date, i.e., 1.10.1979 when the State Bank of Patiala (Qffi. 
cers') Service Regulation, 1979 pertaining to the placement and fitment 
of existing officers in the new grades and scales of pay became effective. 
By virtue of Regulation 7 read with Schedule I, the pre-existing Grade E 
A officers were placed in two different grades-Senior Management 
Grade and Middle Management Grade-Depending on their date of 
promotion to Grade A being before or after 31.12.1975. 
The petitioners who were placed in the Middle ··Management 
Grade have challenged in their writ petitlm1 tc !his Court the validity of F 
Regulation 7 read with Schedule I of the Regulations on the grounds 
that (i) the Regulations merely brought about a revision of pay scales; 
(ii) to divide the officers of the same cadre and doing the same nature of 
work into two groups for the purposes of mere revision of pay scales 
purely on the basis of the fortuitous circumstance of the date of their 
promotion to the existing Grade A would be arbitrary and violative of G 
Article 14; and (iii) the number of posts in the revised senior grade were 
far more than the officers arbitrarily cut-off and initially placed in that 
grade. 
P. Savita v. Union of India, [1985] Suppl I S.C.R. IOI and 
Randhir Singh v. Union of India, [ 1982] 3 SCR 298, relied upon. 
H 
479 
A 
B 
c 
D 
480 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
\ 
[1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 
On behalf of the Bank it was contended that: (i) the Regulations 
did not contemplate revision simpliciter of pay-scales of the existing 
cadres of officers; (ii) new categories of posts and new scales of pay not 
corresponding to the pre-existing categories of posts and scales had 
been created and, therefore, new criteria had to be evolved and applied 
for the placement and fitment of the existing officers into the new 
categories of posts and scales of pay; (iii) all the officers of any parti-
cular pre-existing category could not, en-bloc, be grafted on a parti-
cular new category or .scale of pay; and (iv) there was a rational 
differentia in placing certain officers in the Senior Management Posts as 
the cut-off date was fixed having regard to the number of posts vacant 
in that grade on the appointed date. 
Dismissing the petition, it was, 
HELD: (1) The Regulations did not bring about a mere revision 
of pay. [490B-C] 
(2) This was not a case to which the principle of 'equal pay for 
equal work' could straight away be applied. l490Ef 
(3) 'fhe qualitative differences in regard to degrees of reliability 
and responsibility could not be put aside as irrelevant. There could not 
be any Thumb-Rule to decide the invalidity of the provisions which 
E 
recognised and provided for differentiation on the basis of higher ex-
perience, reliability and responsibility. [490E-F] 
Randhir Singh v. Union of India, [1982] 3 SCR 298; All Customs 
& Central Excise Stenographers (recognised) v. Union of India, [1988] 
2 JT 519 and State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, C.A. ]'llo. 56of1987 dated 
F 
27.9.1988, referred to. 
P. Savita v. Union of India, [1985] 1 Supp. SCR 10!; • 
distinguished. 
( 4) The principle of classification amongst the existing Grade 
G 
A officers for purposes of fitment in the new dispensation brought 
about by the statutory regulations could not be said to be unreason-
able and arbitrarj' requiring to be struck down as violative of Article 
14. [492C-D] 
(5) If more number of posts were categorised under 'Senior 
ij Manageme11t Grade Scale IV' than the number of existing-officers 
I 
h , 
' 
T.L. GAUTAMv. STATEBANKOFPATIALA [VENKATACHALIAH,J.] 
481' 
placed into the higher scale pursuant to Regulation 7 read with 
A 
Schedule I, those e

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