UNIKAT SANKUNNI MENON versus THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Citation: [1967] 3 S.C.R. 430 · Decided: 05-04-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

UNIKAT SANKUNNI MENON 
v. 
THE STATE OF·RAJASTHAN 
April 5, 1967 
(K. N. WANCHOO, V. BHARGAVA AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.J 
Constitution of India-Articles 14 and 16-Rajasthan Secretariat Ser· 
vice (Rationalisation of Pay Scales) Rules, 1956, 
providing for special 
and Higher Grade for an Assistant Secretary In the Ra/lllthan Secretariat 
Service on promotion as Deputy Secretary in the Secretariat-Also pro-
viding for a special pay but the same grade for a member of -rhe Ra/as· 
titan Administrative Service on promotion as 
Deputy Secretary In the 
Secretariat-Whether amounting to discrimination or denial of equality 
o/ opportunity. 
Under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Unification of Pay Scales) Rules 
& Schedule-;, 1950, a person serving in the Rajasthan Secretariat, on ap-
pointment as Deputy Secretary, was placed in a specified pay-scale and 
was, in addition, entitled to a Special Pay. Under the same Rules a 
member of the Rajasthan Administrative Service, on appointment as De-
puty Secretary, was also entitled to draw salary in the same pay"'lcale and 
a similar Special Pay. The 1950 Rules were superseded by the Rajas-
than Secretariat Service (Rationalisation of Pay Scales) Rules & Sche-
dules, 1956, by which it was provided that for 
Assistant Secretaries in 
the Secretariat Service there would be a 
number of selection posts of 
Deputy Secretaries on an inC'reased pay scale without 
any Special Pay 
Furthermore, the scales applicable to 
the members 
of Administrative 
Service on appointment as Deputy Secretary were also revised upwards 
though not to the same extent as for those in the Secretariat Service and 
in their case the principle of Special Pay on such appointment was con-
tinued. 
The rules were revised a~ain in 1961 and 1966 whereby higher 
pay"'lcales were introduced to apply to members of each service on ap· 
pointment to the post of a Deputy Secretary but the system of a special 
pay on such appointment, )"as continued only for members of the Admi· 
n istrative Service. 
1be appellant, who was an Assistant Secretary in the Secretariat Ser-
vice and had been promoted as a Deputy Secretary, filed a petition under 
Art. 226 of the Constitu'ion claiming that the 
words "without special 
pay" in the 1956 Rules, applicable in respect of his Service may be de· 
cla·red invalid and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The 
High Court dismissed the Petition. 
In the appeal to this Court it was contended, inter al/a,, that Articles 
14 and 16 were violated because, (i) the Rules, on the face of them, 
showed that in the case of members of the Secretariat Service appointed 
as Deputy Secretaries, no special pay was admissible, -while such par was 
admissible to members of the Administrative Service when holding similar 
posts; and (ii) the definition of ''Special Pay" in Rule 
3(31) of the 
Rajasthan Civil Service Rule•, 1951, showed 
that it 
was meant to be 
additional pay in consideraHon, inter alia, of the specially arduous nature 
of duties and that if the post of Deputy Secretary was considered as in· 
volving such duties for members of the Administrative Service, there was 
no reason to hold that the same post was not equally arduous for mem-
bers of the Secretariat Service. 
HELD : There was no discrimination under Article 14 or any denial 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SANKUNNI V. RAJASTHAN 
431 
of equality of opportunity under Arti.cle !~. (i) The Rules, as applica-
ble from time to time to members of the Secretariat Service on appoint-
ment to the posts of Deputy Secretaries, 
were, 
at no stage made Jess 
favourable than the Rules previously applicable to them and could not be 
held to be vitiated in any manner, if considered by themselves in the 
light of rights which the members of the Secretariat Service possessed 
from time to time. [435C-D; 438E-F] 
The appellant came to the post of a Deputy Secretary from the Secre-
tariat Service which is a service distinct and separate from the Adminis-
trative Service. The methods of recruitment, qualificatioo, etc., of the 
two Services are not identical. In their ordinary time-scale, the two 
Services do not carrv the same grades. 
Even the posts, for which 
re-
cruitment in the two Services is made, are to a major extent, different. The 
meml>era ot me :>eccet"1iat Service are meant to be emJ:>loyed 
in the 
Secretariat only, while members of the Administrative Service are mostly 
meant for posts which are outside the Sec

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