U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. versus SANT RAJ SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 636 · Decided: 12-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR. 
B 
v. 
SANT RAJ SINGH & ORS. 
MAY 12, 2006 
(S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
Constitution of India, 1950: 
Articles 14 and 39 (d)-Equal pay for equal work-Applicability of-
Held-/t cannot be applied in a vacuum-It applies to those who are equally 
C placed in all respects-Possession of a higher qualification is a valid basis 
for classification of two categories of employees-In the facts of the case, 
claim of higher scale of pay of employee not possessing requisite qualification 
only on the ground that others had it, rejected especially cases of other 
employees stood on different footing-Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings 
D (Acquisition) Act, 1971. 
Articles 14-Wrong decisions-Applicability to other cases-Held -
Such decisions would not clothe others with legal right-Article 14 has a 
positive concept, and nobody can claim equality in illegality. 
E 
Service law: Matter relating to grant of scale of pay-Helq-lt may be 
based upon a policy decision of State. 
Respondent was working in supervisory Grade-B in a sugar mill 
when it was nationalized in terms of Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings 
(Acquisition) Act, 1971. His services were taken over in terms of the 
F 
provisions of the Act with effect from the date of nationalisation and 
his scale of pa} stood protected in terms of Section 16 of the Act. He 
did not have Degree in Science and for that reason was not entitled to 
be placed in the Corporation pay scale and continued to be paid in the 
pay scale prescribed by the Sugar Wage Board. 
G 
One B.P.S., working in another mill which also vested in the 
Corporation, had been getting A-II grade before nationalisation thereof, 
and his pay was protected. 
With a view to remove certain anomalies a Selection Committee 
H 
was constituted by the Corporation and for the said purpose called 
636 
U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPN. LTD. v. S.R. SINGH 
637 
seven candidates for interview. S was also one of the candidates called 
A 
for interview. By reason of recommendations made by the Committee, 
four employees out of the seven called for interview, including S were 
placed in the revised pay scale meant for laboratory in-Charge in the 
Corporation. 
The Respondent continued to be placed in the Supervisory B-
Grade. The Third Sugar Wage Board was constituted. In terms of the 
said recommendations, category B-Grade was not prescribed. The 
respondent was placed in Supervisory A-Grade. He was, however, not 
placed in the Corporation Scale of Pay. 
Respondent filed a writ petition praying for grant of scale of pay 
which was being paid to B.P.S. and S. High Court directed the appellants 
to pay him similar pay scale from the date from which B.P.S. and S were 
being paid. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that (i) respondent was not possessing the 
requisite qualification and could not be placed on a higher scale of pay 
(ii) cases of both B.P.S. and S stood absolutely on different footings; 
former was already drawing a higher scale of pay and the same was 
required to be protected in terms of Section 16 of the Act and insofar 
as latter, he was placed on a higher scale of pay by a Committee. 
Respondent contended that when he entered into service, no such 
qualification was prescribed; the laboratory in-charges performed the 
same nature of duty and in that view of the matter the educational 
qualification prescribed for the siad post was wholly immaterial. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
HELD 1.1. The doctrin'e of equal pay for equal work as adumbrated 
under Article 39( d) of the Constitution of India read with Article 14 
G 
thereof, cannot be applied in a vacuum. The constitutional scheme 
postulates equal pay for equal work for those who are equally placed 
in all respects. Possession of a higher qualification has all along been 
treated to be a valid basis for classification of two categories of 
<!mployees. (643-H, 644-A] 
H 
A 
B 
638 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Shri Triloki Nath Khosa, ( 1974) 1 SCC 
19; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pramod Bhartiya, (1993) l SCC 539; 
Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, [1994] 2 SCC 521; Government of 
W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy, (2004] 1 SCC 347 and MP. Rural Agriculture 
Extension Officers Association v. State of MP., (2004] 4 SCC 646, relied 
on. 
2.1, Respondent admittedly did not possess the requisite 
qualification. He merely claimed a higher scale of pay only becaus

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