Y.K. MEHTA AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 604 · Decided: 26-08-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

Y.K. MEHTA AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 
AUGUST 26, 1988 
B 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND MURARI MOHON 
c 
DUTT, JJ.] 
Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 
1966: Doordarshan-Staff Artists-Whether Government Servants-
Whether entitled to parity in pay with their counterparts in Film Divi-
sion of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. 
Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16, 37 & 39(d): Equal pay for 
equal work-Two posts under two different wings of the same 
Ministry-Identical and involving performance of same nature of 
duties-Unreasonable and unjust to discriminate in the matter of pay. 
The Government by an order dated March 9, 1979 revised the fee 
scales- of certain categories of Staff Artists in Doordarshan with 
retrospective effect from January I, 1973 on the analogy of the recom-
mendations of the Third Pay Commission made in respect of regular 
Government servants but the categories of the petitioners were denied 
E the benefit by giving them junior scales. 
In these writ petitions they assailed the said order as discrimina-
tory and violative of Arts. 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. Their case is 
that the nature of work performed by them is similar to that performed 
by their counterparts in the Film Division and the qualifications 
Ii' 
required for appointment to these categories of Staff Artists are also the 
same·as required in the cases of their counterparts in the Film Division. 
They, therefore, claimed that they should be declared Government 
servants and given the same pay scales as given to their respective 
· counterparts in the Film Division of the same Ministry of Information 
and Broadcasting with effect from the respective dates of their 
O appointments. 
The petitioners' claim was contested by the respondents by con' 
tending that the Staff Artists of Doordarshan were not Government 
servants but were engaged on contract basis, that they were not of the 
same class as the employees of the Film Division and that they were 
H therefore not entitled to the s~me scales of pay. 
604 
Y.K. MEHTA v. U.0.1. 
605 
Allowing the writ petitions, 
HELD: I. The Staff Artists of Doordarshan including the 
petitioners are Government servants. They possess all the criteria of a 
Gbvernment servant. They are holding civil posts under the Govern-
ment. They are being appointed up to1the age of 55-60 years on a time 
A 
· scale like a regular Government servant. Their contract runs till the age 
B 
of retirement as in regular government service. 608E, B, 606F] 
Union of India v. M.A. Chowdhary, AIR 1987 SC 1526, applied. 
2.i The petitioners perform the same duties as those perforlned 
by their counterparts in the Film Division, under the same Ministty of C 
Iiiforniatioil aitd Broadcasting. When two posts under two different 
wings of the saine Ministry ate not only identical, but also involve the 
performance of the saine llatiire of dudes, it would.be unreasonable and 
iliijiist to discriminate between them in the matter of pay. [6090 l 
2.2 One of the Directive Principles of State Policy as embodied in 
D 
clause (d) of Art. 39 of the Constitution is equal pay for equal work for 
both men and women~ The Directive Principles contained in PartalV of 
the Constitution though not enforceable by any court, are intended ·to 
be implenieiited by the State of its own accord so as to pr<~mote the 
welfare of the people. Article 37 provides, inter alia, that it shall be the 
duty of the State to apply these principles in making law. [609E-FJ 
E 
2.3 The principle of "equal pay for equal work", if not given 
effect to in the case of one set of Government servants holding same or 
similar posts, possessing same qualifications and doing the same kind of 
work as ariotlier set of Government.servants, it would be discriminatory 
and violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitutfon. l609G1 
F 
Such discrimination :has been made in respect of the petitioners. 
They are, therefore, entitled to same scales of pay as their counterparts 
in the Film Division. [609H-6IOA] 
[The petitioners to he given the new scales of pay with effect from 
G 
the'first day of the month of the year in which each writ petition was 
tiled; except the petitioners in Writ Petition CMI No. 1756 of 1986 who 
are to be given such scales of pay with effect from December l, 1983. 
They would also be entitied to the. substituted scales of pay and conse-
quential benefits. The respondents to disburse to the petition

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