1990 (8) TMI 392 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Equating Central Administrative Tribunal Members with High Court Judges.
2. Application of "equal pay for equal work" principle.
3. Age of superannuation for Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
4. Allegation of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Summary:

1. Equating Central Administrative Tribunal Members with High Court Judges:
The petitioner, a Judicial Member of the Central Administrative Tribunal, argued that the Tribunal should be equated with the High Court, and its Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Members should be treated as Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court respectively. The Court noted that Part XIV-A of the Constitution, containing Articles 323-A and 323-B, provides for the constitution of administrative and other tribunals distinct from High Courts. The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, clearly delineates the qualifications, term of office, and service conditions of the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Members, indicating no intention to equate them with High Court Judges.

2. Application of "equal pay for equal work" principle:
The petitioner contended that since the Vice-Chairmen and Members discharge identical judicial functions, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" should apply, and Members should receive the same pay as Vice-Chairmen. The Court found that the Vice-Chairman also discharges certain administrative functions, distinguishing their roles from those of the Members. Therefore, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" was not applicable in this context.

3. Age of superannuation for Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal:
The petitioner argued that the age of superannuation for Members should be 65 years, the same as for Vice-Chairmen, instead of 62 years. The Court observed that the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, prescribes different ages of superannuation for the Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Members, reflecting their distinct roles and responsibilities. The Court found no justification for altering these provisions.

4. Allegation of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution:
The petitioner alleged that the differentiation in pay and age of superannuation between Vice-Chairmen and Members violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court held that the differentiation was based on rational criteria, including the additional administrative responsibilities of the Vice-Chairman. The Court concluded that there was no hostile discrimination against the Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the equality claimed by the Members of the Administrative Tribunal with the Judges of the High Courts or even the Vice-Chairman of the Tribunal in the matter of pay and age of superannuation does not exist. The petitioner's claims were found to be contrary to the pattern and scheme of the parent statute establishing the Tribunal. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs.