UNION OF INDIA versus TARIT RANJAN DAS

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 339 · Decided: 08-10-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA 
A 
v. 
TARIT RANJAN DAS 
OCTOBER 8, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law : 
"Equal pay for equal work"-Fifth Central Pay Commission Report-
Stenographer in Secretariat and non-secretariat organisation-Parity in C 
pay-scales-Claim of-Held, the person claiming parity has to prove 
equality of work-On facts, it is not proved-Hence claim rejected. 
Review-Scope of-Held, is very limited-Review forum cannot act 
as an appellate authority in review and decide afresh on merits. 
Respondent was working as a Stenographer Grade-II in the office 
D 
of the Geological Survey of India and was placed on the pay scale of 
Rs. 1400-40-1800-EB-50-2300 based on the recommendations of the 
Fifth Central Pay Commission. Respondent with other similarly placed 
employees claimed absolute parity of their pay scales with that of E 
Stenographer Grade C of the Central Secretariat. A Board of 
Arbitration constituted for the purpose, rejected the claim holding that 
there was no parity in the pay scale of Stenographer in the subordinate 
offices and the Secretariat but however recommended that the scale 
should be Rs. 1400-50-2300-EB-60-2600, by an award dated 18.8.1989. 
The Union of India issued an Office Memorandum <lated 31.7.1990 F 
accordingly. Subsequently, it issued another Office Memorandum 
revising the pay scale of stenographer Grade C in Central Secretariat 
to Rs. 1640-60-2600-EB-75-2900 with effect from 1.1.1986. The 
respondent made a representation seeking parity with the revised pay 
scale of Rs. 1640-60-2600-EB-75-2900 as given to Stenographer Grade G 
C in Central Secretariat by Office Memorandum dated 31.7.1990. The 
respondent filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal 
seeking parity of pay scale. The Tribunal dismissed the petition of the 
respondent holding that the nature of work, duties and responsibilities 
of the two categories of Stenographers were not the same. In review, H 
339 
340 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2003] SUPP. 4 S.CR 
A the Tribunal held that Stenographer Grade II should be given the same 
pay scale as given to Stenographer Grad'! C in the Central Secretariat 
by applying the logic of 'equal pay equal work'. The Tribunal held that 
the Central Pay Commission in its Report had riot based its conclusion 
on any data for disparity of the pay scales. The High Court dismissed 
B the appeal of the Union of India. 
In appeal to this Court, Union of India contended that the onus 
to prove non-application of 'equal pay for equal work' is on the 
respondent-employee who is asserting that right; and that the dismissal 
of Special Leave Petitions in some of the cases cannot be a ground to 
C extend the benefit to the respondent. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The Central Administrative Tribunal and the High 
D Court have completely lost sight of the fact that the Fifth Central Pay 
Commission in its report specifically considered the question of parity 
and held that there is no question of any equivalence. [345-G] 
1.2. It is trite law that it is not open for a~y Court to sit in 
judgment a:s on appeal over the conclusion. of the Commission. Further, 
E the Tribunal and the High Court proceeded as if it was the employer 
who was to show that there was no equality in the work. On the 
contrary, the person who asserts that there is equality has to prove 
it. The equality is not based on designation or the nature of work alone. 
There are several factors like responsibilities, reliabilities, experience, 
F confidentiality involved, functional need and requirements 
commensurate with the position in the hierarchy, the qualifications 
required which are equally relevant. [346-G-H, 347-A) 
Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Dey, [2000) 8 SCC 580; State Bank 
of India v. MR. Ganesh Babu, [2002) 4 SCC 556; State of Haryana & 
G Anr. v. Tilak Raj & Ors., [2003] 6 SCC 123; Orissa University of 
Agriculture & Technology Anr. v. Manoj K. Mohanty, (2003] 5 SCC 188; 
State of WB. & Ors. v. Hari Narayan Bhowal & Ors., (1994] 4 SCC 78; 
State of UP. v. J.P. Chaurasia, [1989) 1 SCC 121; State of MP. v. 
Pramod Bhatiya, [1993) 1 SCC 539 and Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of 
H India, [1994] 2 sec 521, referred to. 
U.0.1. v. T.R.DAS [PASAYAT, J.] 
341 
2. The Tribunal passed the impugned order by reviewing the A 
earlier order. A bare reading of the two orders shows that the order 
in review application was in complete variation and disregard of the 
earlier order and 

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