1989 (3) TMI 376 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Payment of less salary to a senior than his junior in the same cadre.
2. Violation of the Principle of "equal pay for equal work" under Article 39(d) read with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
3. Justifiability of higher pay to juniors under Fundamental Rules.
4. Application of Rule 27 of the Fundamental Rules.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Payment of less salary to a senior than his junior in the same cadre:
The primary issue in these appeals is whether paying a senior less salary than a junior in the same cadre, having the same pay scale, violates the Principle of "equal pay for equal work" enshrined in Article 39(d) read with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Various cases were considered where juniors were drawing higher salaries due to specific circumstances, such as pay fixation under Fundamental Rules, selection grades, and other increments.

2. Violation of the Principle of "equal pay for equal work" under Article 39(d) read with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India:
The Supreme Court observed that the abstract doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" cannot be read into Article 14. Reasonable classification based on intelligible criteria having a nexus with the object sought to be achieved is permissible. The Court noted that "equal pay for equal work" does not mean all members of a cadre must receive the same pay irrespective of their seniority, source of recruitment, educational qualifications, and other incidents of service. The Court cited previous judgments to support the view that differentiation based on rational criteria does not amount to discrimination.

3. Justifiability of higher pay to juniors under Fundamental Rules:
In all the cases, the pay fixation of juniors was done under the Fundamental Rules, and there were justifiable reasons for fixing juniors at a higher pay than their seniors in the cadre. The pay fixation was in conformity with the Fundamental Rules, and the validity of these rules was not challenged. The Court held that the High Court and the Tribunal erred in concluding that whenever a junior is given higher pay, the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is violated. The Court emphasized that higher pay to juniors can be justified under various circumstances, such as pay protection, selection grades, and other legitimate incidents of service.

4. Application of Rule 27 of the Fundamental Rules:
The argument based on Rule 27, which permits the competent authority to grant a pre-mature increment to a government servant on a time-scale of pay, was not raised before the High Court/Tribunal. The Court found no material or justification to direct the appellant authorities to act under Rule 27. The respondents may approach the appropriate authorities for relief under Rule 27 if so advised.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the Andhra Pradesh Tribunal. The writ petitions/applications of the respondents before the High Court/Tribunal were dismissed. The Court directed that the additional salary paid to the respondents as a result of High Court/Tribunal judgments up to 31-3-1989 shall not be recovered from them, considering it would be too harsh to refund the salary already paid. The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.