UNION TERRITORY ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH & ORS. versus MRS. MANJU MATHUR & ANR.

Citation: [2011] 1 S.C.R. 883 · Decided: 14-01-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 1 S.C.R. 883 
UNION TERRITORY ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH & 
ORS. 
v. 
MRS. MANJU MATHUR & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2823 of 2009) 
JANUARY 14, 2011 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
A 
8 
Service Law - Payscale - Dietician and Senior Dietician 
under the Director Health 
Services, 
Chandigarh 
C 
Administration - Claim of, for pay scales at par with their 
counterparts under the Government of Punjab - Held: Claim 
not justified -
The nature and quantum of duties and 
responsibilities of the Dietician and Senior Dietician under the 
Director Health Services, Chandigarh Administration were not 
D 
comparable or equivalent in any way with their counterparts 
under the Government of Punjab - Doctrine of equal pay for 
equal work could not be invoked since the two sets of 
employees were not similarly situated - Doctrines - Doctrine 
of equal pay for equal work - Inapplicability of. 
E 
The President of lndla in exercise of the powers 
conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution 
made the Conditions of Service of Union Territory of 
Chandigarh Employees Rules, 1992 with retrospective 
effect from 01.04.1991. The proviso to Rule 2 of these 
Rules empowered the Administrator to revise the scales 
of pay of persons appointed to the services and posts 
under the administrative control of the Administrator, 
Chandigarh, so as to bring them at par with the scales 
F 
of pay which may be sanctioned by the Government of G 
Punjab from time to time to the corresponding categories . 
of employees. 
The Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, 
883 
H 
884 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 
A notified the revised scales for the posts carrying existing 
scales in all classes of service by notification dated 
03.01.1992 and soon thereafter, the Finance and Planning 
Officer, Chandigarh Administration, issued a Circular 
dated 08.01.1992 to all the Heads of Departments/Officers 
B in Chandigarh Administration informing them that the 
revised pay scales of various posts of their respective 
departments mentioned in the notification have been 
revised on the basis of corresponding posts which also 
exist in the State of Punjab. 
c 
Respondent nos. 1 and 2, who Were then working as 
Senior Dietician and Dietician posted in the General 
Hospital, Chandigarh under the Union Territory 
Administration, Chandigarh, made a representation to the 
Finance Secretary of the Union Territory Administration, 
D Chandigarh, that the pay scales of Senior Dietician and 
Dietician have been revised to Rs.1500 - Rs.2540 and 
Rs.1350 - Rs.2400 respectively which were not at par with 
the revised pay scales of Rs.2200-Rs.4000 and Rs.1500-
Rs.2640 of the corresponding posts of Dietician and 
E Assistant Dietician respectively under the Government of 
Punjab. Respondents, however, were informed that they 
have been allowed revised pay scales as per the 
conversion technique. 
\ 
F 
Aggrieved, the respondents filed O.A. before the 
Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed 
the O.A. holding that the claim on the basis of equal pay 
for equal work is not all pervasive as distinctions have 
to be made on the basis of number of factors as per the 
law laid down by this Court and if these factors are taken 
G into consideration, the claim of the respondents for parity 
in pay scales with their counterparts in the State of 
Punjab was not justified. 
The respondents then challenged the order of the 
H Tribunal before the High Court in a petition under Articles 
-
-
---
U.T. ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH & ORS. v. 
885 
MANJU MATHUR & ANR. 
226/227 or the Constitution. The High Court held in the A 
impugnefi judgment that the Dietician and Senior 
Dietician ,working in the Union Territory Administration, 
Chandigarh, were entitled to pay scales at par with their 
counterp'arts in the State of Punjab and accordingly 
.issued a fTlandamus to the appellants to grant pay scales 
B 
of Dietician (Gazetted) of the Directorate of Research and 
Medical Education, Punjab, to the Senior Dietician in the 
Union Tenitory Administration, Chandigarh, and to give 
pay scal$s of Dieti.cian (Non-Gazetted) of the Directorate 
of Rese~rch and Medical Education, P1.:njab, to the c 
Dietician in the Union Territory Administration, · 
Chandig~rh. 
Alloiing the appeal, the Court 
I 
. 
. 
HEL[D:1.1. When the matter was listed l;>efore this D 
Court, t~is Court granted leave and pending hearing and 
final disposal of the Civil Appeal directed

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