UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus PRADIP KUMAR DEY

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 465 · Decided: 09-11-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
PRADIP KUMAR DEY 
NOVEMBER 9, 2000 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
"Equal pay for equal work" Recommendation of Directorate of CRPF 
to Pay Commission for grant of higher pay-scales to Radio Operators in C 
CRPF as applicable to Radio Operators of other Governmental agencies to 
remove disparity-Pay Commission rejected the recommendation-Whether 
employee has a right to seek direction from Court for implementation of the 
recommendation-Held, No, in the absence of material relating to other 
comparable employees, mere recommendation does not confer right to seek D 
writ of mandamus-Constitution of India-Articles 39(d) and 226. 
Respondent filed Writ Petition in the High Court seeking a writ of 
mandamus directing appellants to implement recommendations made to the 
Fourth Pay Commission by the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) to remove 
disparity in pay-scales of Naik (Radio Operator) and Radio operators E 
discharging similar nature of duties in other Central Government agencies, 
which was rejected by the Pay Commission. The respondent made this claim 
·on the principle of "equal pay for equal work". Single Judge dismissed the 
Writ Petition stating that relief cannot be granted in the absence of material 
relating to other comparable employees. Division Bench of the High Court, F 
however, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent stating that the respondent 
was performing technic~I duties and was performing more hazardous job than 
others and directed the appellants to remove the disparity applying the principle 
of"equal pay for equal work". 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the recommendations of G 
the Fourth Pay Commission had been implemented in full by the CRPF and 
that the respondent was not discriminated. The report of the Pay Commission 
shows that all Naiks of all Central Police Establishments including CRPF 
has been given the same pay scale. The claim of the respondent on the 
principle of "equal pay for equal work" was not tenable having regard to H 
465 
466 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A various distinguishable factors. The appellants further contended that the 
respondent, being in the rank of Naik, is claiming the benefits and pay-scale 
available to the promotional post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, with 
the direction given by the Division Bench of the High Court and that there 
was no material from which definite conclusion could be reached regarding 
B essential qualification, method of recruitment and other relevant factors for 
comparison between similarly placed employees of different organizations so 
as to apply the principle of"equal pay for equal work". 
The respondent contended that the appellants themselves had 
recommended to the Fourth Pay Commission for grant of pay scale to remove 
C disparity and they cannot now take conflicting positions - one before the Pay 
Commission and the other before the Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The Division Bench of the High Court was not right and 
D justified in straightaway giving direction to grant pay-scale to the respondent 
when there was no material placed before the Court for comparison in order 
to apply the principle of "equal pay for equal work" between the Radio 
Operators of CRPF and the Radio Operators working in civil side in other 
Government agencies. In the absence of material relating to other comparable 
employees as to the qualifications, method of recruitment, degree of skill, 
E experience involved in performance of job, training required, responsibilities 
undertaken and other facilities in addition to pay scales, the Single Judge 
was right that in absence of such material it was not possible to grant relief 
to the respondent. The Directorate of CRPF made recommendations to the 
Pay Commission for giving higher pay scales on the basis of.which claim is 
made by the respondent for grant of pay~scale. The factual statements contained 
F in the recommendations of a particular department alone cannot be considered 
per se proof of such things or they cannot by themselves vouch for the 
correctness of the same. The said recommendation could not be taken as a 
recommendation made by the Government. Even otherwise, mere 
recommendation did not confer any right on the respondent to make such a 
G claim for writ of mandamus. (470-C-FJ 
1.2. It is an indisputable fact that the pay-scales claimed by the 

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