UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH versus KRISHAN BHANDARI

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 270 · Decided: 31-10-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.C. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH 
v. 
KRISHAN BHANDARI 
OCTOBER 31, 1996 
[S.C. AGRA WAL AND G.T. NANA VA TI, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Union Territory of Chandigarh Employees Rules, 1966: Rule 2 Second 
C proviso. Equal pay for equal work-Science Supervisor in the Institute of 
Education, Union Territory-Pay scale of-Lower than that of District 
Science Supervisor in State prior to pay revision notification-Parity in 
pay scale-Held: not entitled to same pay scale as given to District Science 
Supervisor as second proviso to R.2 did not apply to such a case. Equal 
pay for equal work-Equivalence of two posts for purpose of-Held: Onus 
D to prove lay on employee not on employer. 
Equal pay for equal work-Equivalence of two posts for purpose 
of-Held: post of Science Supervisor in the Institute of Education, Union 
·Territory not equivalent to post of District Science Supervisor in State. 
E 
Appointment-Nature of-Science Master appointed on temporary 
basis in Union Territory in his own pay scale-Later on confirmed informer 
post and his name shown in gradation list for Masters-Held: In such 
circumstances, his appointment to post of Science Supervisor not 
substantive-Hence, could not claim salary higher than that of Science 
Master. 
F 
' 
G 
Equal pay for equal work-Applicability of principle of-Held: not 
applicable when discrimination was between acts of two different authorities 
functioning as State under Article 12-Constitution of India, 1950 Arts. 
12, 14, 16 and 39(d). 
The respondent was appointed as Science Master on temporary 
basis. At that time the respondent was having the qualifications of 
B.Sc. (III Class) and B.Ed. In connection with the implemenatation 
of UNICEF Aided Science Education Programme on temporary post 
of Science Supervisor was created. The respondent was transferred as 
H Science Supervisor in his own pay scale in the State Institute of 
270 
-
UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH v. KRIS HAN BHANDARI [S.C. AGRA WAL, J .] 2 7 l 
Education, Union Territory against the newly created post under A 
UNICEF Scheme. The respondent was subsequently confirmed on 
the post of Science Master. 
In the State there existed the Class III post of District Science 
Supervisor. The pay scale of the said post was higher than that 
prescribed for the post of Science Master. Ever since his transfer on B 
the post of Science Supervisor the respondent had been drawing pay 
as per the pay scale prescribed for the post of Science Master. The 
respondent filed an application before the Central Administrative 
Tribunal claiming for the scale of pay fixed for the post of District 
Science Master. 
c 
The case of the respondent was that he was performing the same 
duties which were performed by a District Science Supervisor in the 
State and that the scales of State Government employees had been 
adopted by the Administration of the Union Territory and that the 
action of the Administration in not granting to him the revised pay 
scale as was given to the District Science Supervisor in the State was D 
wholly discriminatory. 
The case of the appellants was that there was no post of District 
Science Supervisor under the Administration and that the post of 
District Science Supervisor in the State was a Class II post and the E 
qualification required for the post of District Science Supervisor in 
the State was M.Sc. (Second class) and the duties of the said post 
were different from the duties of the post of Science Supervisor In the 
Union Territory. Moreover, the respondent was actually holding the 
post of Science Master and had been placed at serial No. 114 in the 
seniority list for the Science Masters and he was only transferred to F 
the post of Science Supervisor in his own pay scale. 
The Tribunal allowed the application on the ground that the 
appellants had not produced any rules or instructions to prove that 
the qualification prescribed for the post of District Science Supervisor G 
was M.Sc. (Second Class) and that there was no justification in refusing 
equal pay for equal work to the respondent. Being aggrieved the 
appellants preferred the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellants It was contended that the. principle 
of 'equal pay for equal' work could be applied only where there was H 
272 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A discrimination in the pay scales of two equivalent posts under the 
same employer and that the said principle had no application in the 
case of posts held under differ

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