9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 668X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Article 309 of the Constitution of India made rules known as 'Madhya Pradesh Revision of Pay Rules, 1983'. Rule 3 of the said rules reads as under :-- 3. Revised Scale of Pay.--The revised scale of pay applicable to any post carrying existing scale shown in columns 2 and 3 of Annexures I and II respectively shall be the corresponding pay scale shown in column 4 thereof respect of that post. 3. By reason of the provisions of the said Rules, two different scales of pay were prescribed, namely, Rs. 575-880/- for non-graduates (Dying scale) and Rs. 635-950/-for fresh recruitment and for existing B.Sc./ 13.Sc. Agriculture. By reason of an executive instruction dated 2/5.3.1984, the decision of the State Government was communicated to the Director, Agriculture, the relevant portion whereof is to the following effect :-- Essential educational qualification for the post of Rural Agricultural Extension Officer being graduation (for all departments) be fixed and all the graduates so employed be paid by the pay-scale of Rs. 635/950. All those graduate employees who were working to the posts in all departments prior to 1.4.1981 should be paid given a salary at the rate of Rs. 635-950/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o are carrying out the same work and have undergone the same training could not have been placed in two different classes only on the basis of educational qualification, the learned counsel submitted. Dr. Dhavan would contend that as despite having been given several opportunities, the respondents herein failed to file return, they must be deemed to have admitted the contentions raised by the appellant herein before the Tribunal as correct and, thus, the Tribunal misdirected itself in refusing to grant any relief to the appellant despite arriving at a finding that the State has committed a hostile discrimination against the appellant. Educational qualification. Dr. Dhavan would urge, can be a valid criteria only where new cadre is treated and where no minimum qualification was fixed at the time of initial appointment, but in a situation where the employees irrespective of their qualification had been performing the same functions in the same grade, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work would be applicable. 7. Drawing our attention to the report of the Pay Revision Commissions made on or about 13.10.1982 as also in the year 1999, the learned counsel would submit that the State sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recommended that the same scale of pay be given to the Extension Officers irrespective of their educational qualification, but it is not in dispute that the recommendations of the Pay Commission were not accepted by the State. The relevant portion of the recommendations of the Pay Commission and the Order of the State Government thereupon respectively are as under :-- Sl. No. Report of Pay Commission Chapter/Para Recommendations of Pay Commission Order of the State Government 5. Twelve's 17 and 18 (One) the present pay scale of Gram Sewak Rs. 169-300 the said pay scale was recommended to be revised at S. No. live and this suggestion was proposed (fiat all the Gram Sewak who passed the 3rd months training course should be upgraded to pay scale of Rs. 195-330 as being revised grade. According to the amendment In the recruitment rules of this department the minimum qualification being graduation with Science or Agriculture and Gram Sewak be placed on pay scale Rs. 635-950. This pay scale will be given to Gram Sewaks who were only Agriculture graduate or Science graduate but other Gram Sewaks will be given the revised pay scale Rs. 575-880 as accepted pay scale. 11. We have notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nterpretation is a difficult task. Its concept varies from statute to statute, fact to fact, situation to situation and subject matter to subject matter. A classification based on educational qualification has been applied by a Constitution Bench of this Court as far back as in 1968 in P. Narasinga Rao, (supra), wherein it was observed :-- It is settled that though Article 14 forbids class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. When any impugned rule or statutory provision is assailed on the ground that it contravenes Article 14, its validity can be sustained if two tests are satisfied. The first test is that the classification on which it is founded must be based on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things grouped together from others left out of the group, and the second test is that the differentia in question must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory provision in question. In other words, there must be some rational nexus between the basis of classification and the object intended to be achieved by the statute or the rule. As we have already stated. Art ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the objects sought to be achieved, the classification must be upheld. Principle of equal pay for equal work is applicable among equals, it cannot be applied to unequals. Relief to an aggrieved person seeking to enforce the principles of equal pay for equal work can be granted only after it is demonstrated before the Court that invidious discrimination is practised by the State in prescribing two different scales for the two classes of employees without there being any reasonable classification for the same. If the aggrieved employees fail to demonstrate discrimination, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be enforced by Court in abstract. The question what scale should be provided to a particular class of service must be left to the executive and only when discrimination is practised amongst the equals, the Court should intervene to undo the wrong, and to ensure equality among the similarly placed employees. The Court however cannot prescribe equal scales of pay for different class of employees. 18. A Bench of three Judges in which two of us were parties reiterated the same principle in Tarun K. Roy and others, (supra). 19. The aforementioned decisions are authorities f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Bench of this Court did not notice the earlier binding precedents of this Court. In fact one of them, K.N. Singh, J., as the learned Chief Justice then was, was a party to the subsequent decision in Mewa Ram Kanojia, (supra). In that case no material was brought on records on the basis of which it could be contended that there was any substantial difference at that time between the two classifications although they were described differently. It was in that situation observed :-- It was argued that a diploma is a higher qualification than a certificate. But neither there is any curriculum on record nor any other material to draw that inference. On the contrary this circumstance that at the time when respondent was recruited a diploma holder or a certificate holder both were entitled to be recruited as an Instructor on the same pay scale indicates that in those days the two were considered to be alike. 23. In Pramod Bhartiya, (supra), Jeevan Reddy, J. categorically held that burden to prove that a discrimination has been committed is upon the petitioners. In that case petitioners failed to discharge their burden. 24. Yet again in Shyam Babu Verma, (supra), N.P. Singh, J. speaking ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
