LexV. MARKENDEYA & ORS. versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-l r A V. MARKENDEYA & ORS. v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH APRIL 6, 1989 B \ [K.N. SINGH AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.] • Civil Services: Andhra Pradesh Engineering Service Rules, 1967: Graduate and non-graduate supervisors-Two different scales of pay- Whether legal and permissible-Whether violative of principle of' equal pay for equal work'. c Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 16, 32, 39 and 226--- ~ Classification of employees into two categories-Perform indentical or similar duties and carry out same functions-Entitled to equal pay- Higher qualification and experience based on length of service-Valid D consideration for prescribing different pay scales for different cadres- Court cannot prescribe equa.l scales of pay for different class of employees. The appellants are members of the Andhra Pradesh Engineering r Subordinate Service as Supervisors. The cadre of supervisors includes E degree holders in Engineering and diploma or licence holders. The appellants are diploma holder supervisors. Their two-fold grievance was: ( 1) discrimination in the matter of promotion in asmuch as the - quota of promotion is four to oite from amongst the graduate super- visors and non-graduate supervisors, respectively; and (2) disparity in the matter of grant of different pay scales to graduate supervisors and ~ " non-graduate supervisors. For the redressal of their lirst grievance, the non-graduate .... supervisors had earlier, in Mohd. Sujat Ali v. Union of India, (1975] 1 SCR 449, challenged the validity of the Andhra Pradesh Engineering Service Rules,. 1967 which gave preferential treatment to graduate G supervisors for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. They had ,... contended that this amounted to denial of equal opportunity to non- graduate supervisors thus violating the equality clause enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court rejected the challenge, holding that the graduate supervisors had always been treated as a distinct and separate class from non-graduate supervisors H and that they were never fused into one class. ~n >. -: .. • V. MARKENDEYA v. STATE OF A.P. 423 The constant appeal relates to their second grievance ·and arises ont of the writ petition tiled. by the non-graduate supervisors in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging discrimination in the matter of grant of different pay scales to graduate and non-graduate supervisors. Their contention was that they were entitled to the same scale of pay as prescribed for the graduate supervisors on the principle of equal pay for equal work, as they constituted the same service and performed the same duties and functions as those performed by graduate supervisors. The State Government contested the case on the pleading that graduate supervisors and diploma supervisors always remained separate and they were never fused into one service. It was further contended that even though the two class of employees discharged the same functions and carried out similar duties, the State was justified in prescribing different pay scales for historical reasons, and also on the basis of difference in the educational qualifications. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. On appeal by A B c the State, the Division Bench set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition on the linding that the D State practised no. discrimination and the appellants were not entitled to relief on the principle of equal pay for equal work. Before this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants that (1) the graduate and non-graduate supervisors constituted the .same class as they belonged to the same service and both the class of officers were fused into one, as the two posts were inter-changeable; (2) even if the two class of officers constituted two different categories, since they had been carrying out of the same work and performing the same duties carrying the same responsibility, without any distinction, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work was fully applicable, and it was not neces- sary that the two class of officers must belong to one integrated service; and (iii) even if the appellant's grievance regarding violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution was not sustainable, the appellants were entitled to the same scale of pay as granted to the graduate supervisors on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' enshrined un
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.