Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Balwant Singh Parihar And Anr. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 24 March, 2006
Equivalent citations: RLW2006(3)RAJ1987, 2006(3)WLC598
Author: Prem Shanker Asopa
Bench: Prem Shanker Asopa
JUDGMENT Prem Shanker Asopa, J.
1. By this writ petition the petitioners working as Assistant Public Prosecutor/Public Prosecutor are seeking appropriate writ order or direction for grant of parity in pay with retrospective effect to that of their counter parts in CBI, Delhi Police and Union Territories. The other prayers have also been made but this Court while admitting the writ petition on 3.5.1994, limited the case to the question for grant of equal pay for equal work from the date of writ petition.
2. Briefly stated the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioners are working as Assistant Public Prosecutor/Public Prosecutor in Railway Protection Force and are conducting the case under the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 and Rules, 1987. The main grievance of the petitioners is that they are entitled to pay parity with their counter parts working in Delhi Administration, CBI working under the Ministry of Home Affairs and Union Territories on the basis of equal pay for equal work as envisaged under Articles 14 and 21 read with Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India. The petitioners in their writ petition have further submitted that Railway Board is under the Union of India and their services under the Railway Protection Force consists of Executive Branch, Prosecution Branch and Fire Services Branch. Their main job is to conduct criminal cases under the Railway Protection Force and to give advice to the Railway Administration which is equivalent to that of Assistant Public Prosecutor/Public Prosecutor working in the Delhi Administration, CBI working under the Ministry of Home Affairs and Union Territories for which pay scale is on higher side and their pay scale has not been revised equal to them neither by the 3rd Pay Commission nor by the 4th Pay Commission, although their qualification, designation, duties, responsibilities are same. As regards mode of recruitment, it has been submitted that they are recruited in the service by Railway Board whereas their counter parts working in Delhi Administration, CBI working under the Ministry of Home Affairs and Union Territories are being recruited by the Union Public Service Commission with difference of experience.
3. The Railway Administration has filed reply to the writ petition and submitted that although the educational qualification is the same but there is difference in experience which required more in the Delhi Administration, CBI working under the Ministry of Home Affairs and Union Territories. As regards duties and responsibilities, the respondents have submitted that the petitioners have very limited duties and responsibilities as they are required to scrutinize the cases under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 whereas their counter parts discharged more onerous duties on account of dealing the cases under the various Penal Acts. They have further submitted that there is qualitative as well as quantitative difference as regards duties and responsibilities and further Article 14 permits reasonable classification on the basis of different duties and responsibilities and field of work in the matter of grant of pay. It has also been submitted that pay Commission is an independent expert body and is the best Judge to evaluate duties and responsibilities. The petitioners have neither submitted any representation to the 3rd Pay Commission nor to the 4th Pay Commission despite invitation. The petitioners have also not submitted any representation to the Union Government. Thus, they have slept over their rights and did not exhaust appropriate remedy available to them.
4. The submission of Shri A.K. Bhandari, Sr. counsel for the petitioners is that the appointment of the Assistant Public Prosecutors/Public Prosecutors are notified in accordance with Sections 24 and 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and educational qualification is same. The duties and responsibilities cannot be limited on the ground of dealing with specified nature of cases. Shri Bhandari further submits that Union of India has failed to justify the difference in the pay of the Assistant Public Prosecutors/Public Prosecutors of different departments. Therefore, on the basis of the principle of equal pay for equal work as envisaged under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India which has been raised to the pedestal of fundamental rights under Article 14, they are entitled for parity in pay to that of Assistant Public Prosecutors/Public Prosecutors working in the Delhi Administration, CBI working under the Ministry of Home Affairs and Union Territories. In support of the aforesaid submissions, Shri Bhandari cited the judgments of the Supreme Court, Calcutta High Court and of this Court in (1) Randhir Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (2) Natwar Lal Thanvi v. State of Raj. and Ors. 1988 (1) RLR 932 para No. 24 (3) Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union v. Union of India and Ors. , (4) Employees of Tannery & Footwear Corporation of India Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. , (5) All India Judges' Association v. Union of India and Ors. , (6) Samir Bhattacharya and Ors. v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. 1992 (4) SLR 119, para No. 14, (7) State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Harendra Nath Bhowmick and Ors. 1993 (1) SLR 353, para Nos. 14 and 16, (8) Paschimbanga Rajya Krishi Prajukti Sahayak Sasmity and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors. 1993 (2) SLR 606, para No. 4 and (9) The State of Bihar and Ors. v. Bihar State Workshop Superintendents Federation and Ors. 1993 (4) SLR 383.
5. Although none appeared on behalf of the respondents to oppose the writ petition, however, their written reply is on record. Therefore, the submissions made in the reply have been taken as contentions on behalf of the respondents.
6. We may refer that the basic judgment of Randhir Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (supra), wherein it has been held that equal pay for equal work is not a mere demagogic slogan, it is constitutional goal capable of attainment through constitutional remedies, by the enforcement of constitutional rights and further the Directive. Principles e.g. Article 39(d) of the Constitution, have to be and have been read into the Fundamental Rights for example Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Simultaneously it was held that equation of posts and equation of pay scales are matters primarily for executive Governments and expert bodies like Pay Commission and not for the Courts. The said principles have been explained in many subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court and some of them are (1) Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (2) State of M.P. v. Pramod Bhartiya , wherein the same view of Pay Commission and the Government was relied by three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court, (3) Secy. Finance Deptt. v. W.B. Registration Service Assn. 1993 Supp (1) SCC 153, (4) State of Haryana and Ors. v. Jasmer Singh and Ors. , para No. 5, (5) State of Haryana and Anr. v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association , (6) Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das . It has been held in the aforesaid judgments that principles of 'equal pay for equal work' is not always easy to apply. It is a complex matter to be under taken by expert body like the Pay Commission. There are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating work done by different persons in different organization, or even in the same organization. Even the Government servants holding same post and performing similar work on the basis of difference in the degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality would be a valid differentiation. In the aforesaid judgments it has also been held that the same designation is of no consequence and it is for the Pay Commission/Government to evaluate the work for granting equal pay and not for the Court. Otherwise also, in the instant case, neither any representation has been given to the Pay Commission/Union of India nor both of them suo moto considered the claim of parity in pay scale of the Assistant Public Prosecutors/Public Prosecutors working in the Railway Protection Force with Assistant Public Prosecutors/Public Prosecutors of CBI, Delhi Police and Union Territories. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief from this Court.
7. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners, gone through the record of the case and considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and further considered the submissions made in the reply taking the same as the contentions on behalf of the respondents.
8. In view of the subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court wherein Randhir Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (supra), has been explained, we wound first like to consider the question whether in absence of any representation by the petitioners and finding of the Pay Commission or Union of India and its functionaries in Railway Department, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can make an enquiry with regard to the relevant factors for consideration for equation of the post and grant of parity in the pay scale as claimed by the petitioners.
9. In the basic judgment of Randhir Singh's case (supra), cited by the counsel for the petitioners, the Supreme Court has considered the fact that equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the Executive Government and expert bodies like the Pay Commission and not for the courts. The relevant paragraph No. 6 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
6. ...We concede that equation of posts, and equation of pay are matters primarily for the Executive Government and experts bodies like the Pay Commission and not for the courts but we must hasten to say that where all things are equal that is, where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differentially in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments. Of course, if offices of the same rank perform dissimilar functions and the powers, duties and responsibilities of the posts held by them vary, such offices may not be heard to complain of dissimilar pay merely because the posts are of the same rank and the nomenclature is the same.
10. In another judgment of the Supreme Court in All India Judges' Association v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) cited by the counsel for the petitioners, the Supreme Court has issued direction is para No. 60(iv) that as and when the Pay Commission/Committees are set up in the State and Union Territories, the question of appropriate pay scales of judicial officers be specifically referred and considered. The relevant paragraph No, 60(iv) of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
60. ...(iv) As and when the Pay Commission/Committees are set up in the States and Union Territories, the question of appropriate pay scales of judicial officers be specifically referred and considered.
11. In other judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioners, either there was recommendation of the Pay Commission which was arbitrarily not accepted or the persons belong to the same category of same service under the same employer. In respect of the petitioners and their counter parts, neither there was any recommendation of the Pay Commission nor they belong to the same category of the same service under the same employer. Therefore, the said judgments are also of no help to the petitioners.
12. Apart from above, in the other judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioners, it is no where laid down that the Court should evaluate the job for the purpose of grant of equal pay for equal work. On the contrary, in the said judgments cited on behalf of the petitioners and other judgments it has been held that it is not for the Court to make job evaluation for the purpose of grant of equal pay for equal work and it is for the Pay Commission, the expert body and the Government. Therefore, we need not to traverse other case law cited by the counsel for the petitioners.
13. As referred above, the principles laid down in Randhir Singh v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) case, have been summarized in Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) in para Nos. 7, 8 and 11 which are as follows:
7. Equal pay for equal work is a fundamental right. But equal pay must depend upon the nature of the work done, it cannot be judged by the mere volume of work, there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference. One cannot deny that often the difference is a matter of degree and that there is an element of value judgment by those who are charged with the administration in fixing the scales of pay and other conditions of service. So long as such value judgment is made bona fide, reasonably on an intelligible criterion which has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation, such differentiation will not amount to discrimination. It is important to emphasise that equal pay for equal Work is a concomitant of Article 14 of the Constitution. But it follows naturally that equal pay for unequal work will be a negation of that right.
8. We may briefly note the principles evolved by this Court in this respect in the backdrop of varied set of facts. Differentiation in implementing the award or the recommendations of Pay Commission without rational basis may amount to discrimination. In Purshottam Lal v. Union of India , it was held that implementation of the revised pay scale in a particular category of servants from a date later than that recommended by the Pay Commission and thus non-implementation of its report only in respect of those persons amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the Constitution Bench held. In Laljee Dubey v. Union of India this principle was reiterated again. This Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India had to deal with the case of a driver constable in the Delhi Police Force under the Delhi Administration, The scale of pay in the Delhi Police Force was for non-matriculate drivers Rs. 210-270 and for matriculate drivers Rs. 225-308. The scale of pay of a driver in the Railway Protection Force was Rs. 260-400. The Scale of pay of drivers in the non-secretariat offices in Delhi was 260-6-326-EB-8-350, while that of Secretariat offices in Delhi was Rs. 260-6-290-EB-6-326-8-366-EB-8-8-8-390-10-400. The scale of pay of drivers in the office of the Language Commission was Rs. 260-300 while the drivers of heavy vehicles in the Fire Brigade and the Department of Light House was Rs. 330-480. The petitioner and other driver constables made a representation to the authorities that their case was omitted to be considered separately by the Third Pay Commission and that their pay scales should be the same as the drivers of heavy vehicles in other departments. As their claims for better scales of pay did not meet with success, the said application was filed by the petitioner for the issue of a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution. It was allowed by the Court. Chinnapa Reddy, J. speaking for a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court reiterated the following principles:
(a) 'Equal pay for equal work is not a mere demagogic slogan but a constitutional goal capable of attainment through constitutional remedies by the enforcement of constitutional rights (under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
(b) The stand (of the Government of India) that the circumstance that persons belonging to different departments of the government is itself a sufficient circumstance to justify different scales of pay irrespective of the identity of their powers, duties and responsibilities, is unacceptable and untenable.
(c) While equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the Executive Government and expert bodies like the Pay Commission and not for the courts, where all thing are equal i.e. where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differentially in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments.
(d) The principle of equal pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine when applied to government servants performing similar functions and having identical powers, duties and responsibilities.
(d) As matter of interpretation, the Directive Principles, e.g. Article 39(d) of the Constitution, have to be and have been read into the Fundamental Rights, e.g. Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. So read, the principle of equal pay for equal work, though not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right, is a constitutional goal. Construing Articles 14 and V in the light of the Preamble and Article 39(d), the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is deducible from those articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scale of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer.
11. In this case the differentiation has been sought to be justified in view of the nature and the types of the work, done, that is, on intelligible basis. The same amount to physical work may entail different quality of work, some more sensitive, some requiring more tact, some less-it varies from nature and culture of employment. The problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula. If it has a rational nexus with the object sought for, as reiterated before a certain amount of value judgment of the administrative authorities who are charged with fixing the pay scale has to be left with them and it cannot be interfered with by the court unless it is demonstrated that either it is irrational or based on no basis or arrived mala fide either in law or in fact. In the light of the averments made in the facts mentioned before, it is not possible to say that the differentiation is based on no rational nexus with the object sought for to Be achieved. In that view of the matter this application must fail and it is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
14. The aforesaid case is of different pay scale fixed for Stenographers working in the Central Government Secretariat and stenographers attached to the subordinate officers on the basis of recommendations of Pay Commission and it was held that the same is not violation of Articles 14 and 39(d) on account of qualitative difference in their reliability and responsibility.
15. In State of Haryana and Ors. v. Jasmer Singh and Ors. (supra) Randhir Singh's case (supra) has been further explained and degree of responsibility, reliability held to be valid differentiation. Para Nos. 5 and 8 of the aforesaid judgment are as follows:
5. The principle of "equal pay for equal work" is not always easy to apply. There are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating work done by different persons in different organizations, or even in the same organization. The principle was originally enunciated as a part of the Directive Principles of State Policy in Article 39(d) of the Constitution. In the case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India , however, this Court said that this was a constitutional goal capable of being achieved through constitutional remedies and held that the principle had to be read into articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In that case a Driver-constable in the Delhi Police Force under the Delhi Administration claimed equal salary as other Drivers and this prayer was granted. The same principle was subsequently followed for the purpose of granting relief in Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P. and Jaipal v. State of Haryan 1988 (3) SCC 354. In the case of Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognised) v. Union of India , however, this Court explained the principle of "equal pay for equal work" by holding that differentiation in pay scales among government servants holding same posts and performing similar work on the basis of difference in the degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality would be a valid differentiation. In that case different pay scales fixed for Stenographers (Grade I) working in the Central Secretariat and those attached to the heads of subordinate offices on the basis of a recommendation of the Pay Commission was held as not violating Article 14 and as not being contrary to the principle of "equal pay for equal work." This Court also said that the judgment of administrative authorities concerning the responsibilities which attach to the post, and the degree of reliability expected of an incumbent, would be a value judgment of the authorities concerned which, if arrived at bona fide, reasonably and rationally, was not open to interference by the Court.
8. It is, therefore, clear that the quality of work performed by different sets of persons holding different jobs will have to be evaluated. There may be differences in educational or technical qualifications which may have a bearing on the skills which the holders bring to their job although the designation of the job may be the same. There may also be other considerations which have relevance to efficiency in service which may justify differences in pay scales on the basis of criteria such as experience and seniority, or a need to prevent stagnation in the cadre, so that good performance can be elicited from persons who have reached the top of the pay scale. There may be various other similar considerations which may have a bearing on efficient performance in a job. This Court has repeatedly observed that evaluation of such jobs for the purposes of pay scale must be left to expert bodies and, unless there are any mala fides, its evaluation should be accepted.
16. In State of Haryana and Anr. v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Associations (supra) in para No. 9, the Supreme Court has considered the earlier judgment in Secy. Finance Deptt. v. W.B. Registration Service Assn. (supra) and laid down certain principles. In the said judgment it has also been held designation cannot be the basis of equal pay for equal work and merely because averments in the writ petition had not been specifically rebutted, the High Court is bound to consider the averment on its true merits, the Court should avoid declaration of grant of particular scale. Para Nos. 9 and 10 of the aforesaid judgment are as follows:
9. This court in the case of Secy. Finance Deptt. v. W.B. Registration Service Assn. 1993 Supp (1) SCC 153 dealing with the question of equation of posts and equation of posts and equation of salaries of government employees, made the following observations: (SCC PP. 165-67, para 12)
12. We do not consider it necessary to traverse the case law on which reliance has been placed by counsel for the appellants as it is well settled that equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily courts will not enter upon the task of job evaluation, which is generally left to experts bandies like Pay Commission etc. But that is not to say that the court has no jurisdiction and the aggrieved employees have no remedy if they are in justly treated by arbitrary state action or inaction. Courts must, however, realize that job evaluation is both a difficult and time- consuming task which even experts bodies having the assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found difficult to undertake sometimes on account of want of relevant data and scales for evaluating performances of different groups of employees. This would call for a constant study of the external comparisons and internal relativities on account of the changing nature of job requirements. The factors which may have to be kept in view for job evaluation may include (i) the work programme of his department (ii) the nature of contribution expected of him (iii) the extent of his responsibility and accountability in the discharge of his diverse duties and functions (iv) the extent and nature of freedoms/limitations available or imposed on him in the discharge of his duties (v) the extent of powers vested in him (vi) the extent of his dependence on spurious for the exercise of his powers (vii) the need to coordinate with other departments, etc. We have also referred to the history of the service and the effort of various bodies to reduce the total number of pay scales to a reasonable number. Such reduction in the number of pay scales has to be achieved by resorting to broad banding of posts by placing different posts having comparable job charts in a common scale. Substantial reduction in the number of pay scales must inevitably lead to clubbing of posts and grades which were earlier different and unequal. While doing so, car must be taken to ensure that such rationalization of the pay structure does not throw up anomalies. Ordinarily a pay structure is evolved keeping in mind several factors, e.g. (i) method of recruitment, (ii) level at which recruitment is made, (iii) the hierarchy of service in a given cadre, (iv) minimum educational/technical qualifications required, (v) avenues of promotion, (vi) the nature of duties and responsibilities, (vii) the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs, (viii) public dealings, (ix) satisfaction level, (x) employer's capacity to pay etc. We have referred to these matters in some details only to emphasize that several factors have to be kept in view while evolving a pay structure and the horizontal and vertical relativities have to be carefully balanced keeping in mind the hierarchical arrangements, avenues for promotion etc. Such a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well. It is presumably for this reason that the Judicial Secretary who had strongly recommended a substantial hike in the salary of the Sub-Registrars to the Second (State) Pay Commission found it difficult to concede the demand made by the Registration Service before him in his capacity as the Chairman of the Third (State) Pay Commission. There can, therefore, be no doubt that equation of posts and equation of salaries is a complex matter which is best left to an expert body unless there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error had crept in while fixing the pay scale for a give post and courts' interference is absolutely necessary to upto the injustice.
10. It is to be kept in mind that the claim of equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right vested in any employee though it is a constitutional goal to be achieved by the Government. Fixation of pay and determination of parity in duties and responsibilities is a complex matter which is for the executive to discharge. While taking a decision in the matter, several relevant factors, some of which have been noted by this Court in the decided case, are to be considered keeping in view the prevailing financial position and capacity of the State Government to bear the additional liability of a revised scale of pay. It is also to be kept in mind that the priority given to different types of posts under the prevailing policies of the State Government is also a relevant factor for consideration by the State Government. In the context of the complex nature of issues involved, the far reaching consequences of a decision in the matter and its impact on the administration of the State Government courts have taken the view that ordinarily courts should not try to delve deep into administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity. That is not to say that the matter is no justificable or that the courts cannot entertain any proceeding against such administrative decision taken by the Government. The courts should approach such matters with restraint and interfere only when they are satisfied that the decision of the Government is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees and the Government while taking the decision has ignored factors which are material and relevant for a decision in the matter. Even in a case where the court holds the order passed by the Government to be unsustainable then ordinarily a direction should be given to the State Government or the authority taking the decision to reconsider the matter and pass a proper order. The Court should avoid giving a declaration granting a particular scale of pay and compelling the Government to implement the same. As noted earlier, in the present case the High Court has not even made any attempt to compare the nature of duties and responsibilities of the two sections of employees, one in the State Secretariat and the other in the Central Secretariat. It has also ignored the basic principle that there are certain rules, regulations and executive instructions issued by the employers which govern the administration of the cadre.
17. In the said para No. 9, it has also been held that task of job evaluation is generally left to the expert bodies like Pay Commission but that is not to say that the Court has no jurisdiction and interfere only when the decision of the Government is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial to the Section of employees.
18. In Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das (supra) in para Nos. 9, 10, and 11, it has been held that equality is not based on designation or nature of work alone and parity in pay scale must be determined by expert body like the Pay Commission and the Government. There are several other factors like responsibility, reliability, experience, confidentiality involved, functional need and requirements commensurate with the position in the hierarchy, the qualifications required which are equally relevant. Here in the instant case there is no recommendation of the Pay Commission. Para Nos. 9, 10 and 11 of the aforesaid judgment are as follows:
9. Strangely, the Tribunal in the review petition came to hold that the Commission had not based its conclusion of any data. It is trite law that it is not open for any court to sit in judgment as on appeal over the conclusion of the Commission. Further the Tribunal and the High Court proceeded as it is was the employer who was to show that there was no equality in the work. On the contrary, the person who asserts that there is equality has to prove it. The equality is not based on designation or the nature of work alone. There are several other facts like responsibilities, reliabilities, experience, confidentiality involved, functional need and requirements commensurate with the position in the hierarchy, the qualification required which are equally relevant.
10. In State of W.B. v. Hari Narayan Bhowal it was observed: (SCC P. 83, para 10).
10. This Court in the case of Delhi Veterinary Assn. v. Union of India said that in addition to the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' the pay structure of the employees of the Government should reflect many other social values. It was said:
The degree of skill, strain of work, experience involved, training required, responsibility undertaken mental and physical requirements, disagreeableness of the task, hazard attendant on work and fatigue involved are, according to the Third Pay Commission some of the relevant factors which should be taken into consideration in fixing pay scales. The method of recruitment, the level at which the initial recruitment is made in the hierarchy of service or cadre, minimum educational and technical qualifications prescribed for the post, the nature of dealings with the public, avenues of promotion available and horizontal and vertical relativity with other jobs in the same service or outside are also relevant factors.
11. In the case of State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia , it was pointed out that whether two posts are equal or should carry equal pay, depends on several factors. It does not depend just upon either the nature of work or the volume of work done. Primarily it requires among others, evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts by the competent authorities constituted for the purpose and courts cannot ordinarily substitute themselves in the place of those authorities. The quantity of work may be the same but the quality may be different. That cannot be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parties. It must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission and the Government, who would be the best judges, to evaluate the nature of duty, responsibility and all relevant factors. The same view was reiterated in the case of State of M.P. v. Pramod Bhartiya by a three Judge Bench of this Court. In the case of Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India a claim for equal pay by a group of pharmacists was rejected saying that the classification made by a body of experts after full study and analysis of the work, should not be disturbed except for strong reasons which indicate that the classification made was unreasonable.
19. From the record of the writ petition it appears that the petitioners have neither given any representation to the Pay Commission nor to the Union of India nor Railway Administration nor given any notice for demand of justice and straightway filed the writ petition for seeking mandamus in the matter of pay parity contrary to the well established principle of law that giving notice for demand of justice is sine qua non for seeking writ of mandamus. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone as there was no occasion for the respondents to consider the grievance of the petitioners of claim of parity in pay scale and also consider the objection of the respondents in reply of interference by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such matters. In the judgments cited by the counsel for the petitioners, it is no where laid down that the Court should evaluate the job for the purpose of grant of equal pay for equal work. On the contrary, in some of the judgments of the Supreme Court cited on behalf of the petitioners also and in the other judgments, it has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court that it is not for the Court to make job evaluation for the purpose of considering the equation of post and parity in pay scale and it is for the Pay Commission, the expert body and the Government to consider and decide. Thus, it would not be proper for this Court to make an enquiry in the matter of equation of post as well as grant of equal pay scale in absence of any representation to the respondents or Pay Commission and findings thereon. Therefore, we may observed that it is open for the petitioner to make a representation to the respondents/Pay Commission as and when it is constituted in the matter of parity in pay scale and it is further expected from the respondents/Pay Commission to consider the same and pass the appropriate order.
20. The writ petition stands dismissed with the observations as indicated above.