Gujarat High Court
G.C. Patel And Ors. vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 16 March, 1992
Equivalent citations: (1992)2GLR1119
JUDGMENT K.G. Shah, J.
1. The petitioners were, at the lime the petition came to be filed Assistant Lecturers in different Government Engineering Colleges and Government Polytechnic Institutions in the State of Gujarat. Their subjects Of teaching were Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Humanities, English and Industrial Organisation, these subjects have been styled as non-technical subjects and the petitioners have been styled as teachers teaching non-technical subjects. Of course, the petitioners do not admit that these subjects are non-technical subjects. Their case is that the standard of education in these subjects either in the Engineering Colleges and Polytechnic institutions or in the Arts, Science and Commerce Colleges is the same. According to the petitioners, even in the Engineering Colleges and Polytechnic Institutions, teaching of these subjects is very intensive and is done keeping in view the engineering basis or slant. It is further the case of the petitioners that these subjects form basic foundation on which engineering courses could be successfully and efficiently learnt, and highest importance to the teaching of these subjects should be attached and unless that is done and good foundation in these subjects is laid, it is extremely difficult to train competent engineers in the modem sense of the term.
2. Upto 1958 the pay scale of the Assistant Lecturers teaching technical subjects or engineering subjects and those teaching non-technical subjects was the same. That pay scale was Rs. 160-10-250/-. However, the then Bombay Government, by its resolution dated July 4, 1958, Annexure B', to the petition revised the scales inter alia of the Asstt. Lecturers in engineering subjects, i.e., technical subjects from Rs. 160-10-250/- to Rs. 250-20-350/-. By that resolution, the pay scales of the Asst. Lecturers teaching non-technical subjects were not revised. That resolution in terms said that the revised scales should be made applicable to those posts only, the incumbents of which are required to possess technical qualifications and the revised scales would not, therefore, be admissible to the incumbents of posts in subjects such as English, Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Economics and Industrial Organisation, at the Government Engineering Colleges and Government Polytechnic Institutions in the State.
3. The Government of Gujarat by its resolution dated October 10, 1963, Annexure 'C to the petition, revised the pay scales of the Asst. Lecturers in non-technical subjects in Government Engineering Colleges and Polytechnic Institutions from Rs. 160-10-250/- to Rs. 245-10-395-15-470/-. By Govt. Resolution dated December 30, 1964, annexure 'D', to the petition, the pay scales of the Assistant Lecturers in non-technical subjects were again revised to Rs. 225-235-245-10-395-15-470/-, with effect from October 10, 1963. By Govt. Resolution dated May 30, 1964, Annexure 'E' to the petition, the Government revised with effect from June 12, 1963, the pay scales of Assistant Lecturers in technical subjects from Rs. 250-20-350/ to Rs. 320-20-420-EB-20-520/-. Just as the Government Resolution-Annexure 'B'-to the petition dated July 4, 1958, excluded the admissibly of the revised pay scales, the Assistant Lecturers teaching non-technical subjects, this resolution Annexure 'E' dated May 30, 1964 also similarly excluded the admissibility of the revised pay scales to the Assistant Lecturers teaching non-technical subjects. While spelling out that exclusion in paragraph 2 of this resolution Annexure 'E' to the petition, it was further staled that "the question of revising the pay scales of these posts is separately under consideration of Government and necessary orders will be issued in due course". This last mentioned statement was made in the resolution Annexure 'E' with reference to the Assistant Lecturers teaching non-technical subjects, That resolution annexure 'E' to the petition further states that as a consequence to the revision of the pay scales of the teachers in technical institutions, separate cadres for Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics of the State should be constituted. However, Government Circular Annexure 'r' 10 the petition, date December 1, 1972, by classificatory note No. 10 provided that me cadres of Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics are common and common seniority and experience should be counted.
4. Before the first Pay Commission (Sarela Pay Commission), the argument to grant party or pay 10 the Assistant Lecturers teaching nontechnical subjects with the Assistant Lecturers teaching technical subjects, did not find favour.
5. During the erstwhile Bombay State, a Committee was appointed and that committee also recommended the maintenance of parity of pay between the Asst. Lecturers of technical subjects and the Asst. Lecturers of non-technical subjects. The Committee appointed by Government of Gujarat under the Chairmanship of Mr. S.K. Katrak made a similar recommendation and that Committee under the Chairmanship of Mr. S.K. Katrak drew largely on the recommendations made by the Committee appointed by the erstwhile Bombay Government. The grievance of the petitioners in this petition is that inspite of these recommendations, the Government of Gujarat did not choose to implement them and the disparity in the pay scales between the technical subjects teaching staff and the non-technical subjects teaching staff continues. In this petition, the petitioners have also relied upon the advise given by the Government of India to the State Government wherein also the Government of India had emphasised the need to teach the non-technical subjects like physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, etc., to engineering students, and had advocated the parity of pay between the teachers teaching technical subjects and those teaching non-technical subjects.
6. It appears that persons like the petitioners who are the teachers teaching non-technical subjects in Engineering Colleges and Polytechnic Institutions were all throughout clamouring for parity of pay scales with the pay scales admissible to the teachers teaching technical subjects. The Government of Gujarat, on March 3, 1972, passed a resolution annexure 'J' to the petition, and thereby granted parity between the pay scales of teachers in non-technical subjects in Govt. Engineering Colleges/Government Polytechnics, and such teachers in Government Arts and Science colleges. By that resolution, the pay scales of Lecturers in non-technical subjects and Assistant Lecturers in non-technical subjects were sanctioned at Rs. 300-600/- in UGC Scale and Rs. 350-850/- for the Lecturers and Rs. 325-575/- for the Asst. Lecturers governed by the GCS Pay Rules, 1969. Options were required to be exercised under that resolution. The petitioners by this petition, want the implementation of the resolution Annexure 'J', to the petition and they want parity of their pay with the present pay given to their counter-parts teaching non-technical subjects in Arts and Science Colleges.
7. By Government Resolution dated March 18, 1969, Annexure 'N' to the petition, the Government had unified the two groups of Senior Lecturers and Junior Lecturers in Government Arts, Science, etc. Colleges and designated them as Lecturers. Government by its resolution annexure 'M', dated March 9, 1970, in so far as the Government Arts, Science, Commerce, Law and Secondary Training Colleges were concerned, amalgamated the pay scales of Senior Lecturers and Junior Lecturers, with effect from April 1, 1966 and fixed them at Rs. 300-25-600/-.
8. The petitioners in this petition also rely upon the recommendations contained in the report of the Second Pay Commission (Desai Pay Commission). According to the petitioners, the second pay commission also in principle agreed to the restoration of the parity in the pay scales of the Assistant Lecturers teaching non-technical subjects with the pay scales of the Assistant Lecturers teaching technical subjects. However, according to the petitioners, having in principle accepted that parity, the second pay commission went wrong in the mathematical calculations of the pay scale to be recommended for Asstt. Lecturers teaching nontechnical subjects for the correct data about the earlier pay structure was not fed to the Second Pay Commission. It is the case of the petitioners that if correct data about the earlier pay structure had been fed to the Second Pay Commission, that Pay Commission would have recommended for the petitioners and the persons similarly situated, the pay scale of Rs. 650-1040/-.
9. Then the petitioners have referred to the Sen Committee report in paragraph 19 of the petition, and have stated that the Government accepted that report, and the Government have, consequently, fixed the pay scales of the Lecturers in University or in the affiliated Colleges at Rs. 700-40-1100-50-1300-Assessment-50-1600/-.
10. In paragraph 19 of the petition, the petitioners have also referred to the earlier removal of the distinction between Senior and Junior Lecturers in the Government Arts and Science, etc. Colleges. According to the petitioners, therefore, though there is distinction in the nomenclature so far as Assistant Lecturers in Government Engineering Colleges and Polytechnic Institutions are concerned, their posts would be equivalent to the posts of Lecturers in Government Arts, Science, etc. Colleges. According to the petitioners, under the Sen Committee report, the pay scales of Lecturers in Arts & Science Colleges have been sanctioned Rs. 700-1600/-. However, by Annexure 'B', the Government Resolution dated 25th October, 1977, the Government have fixed the pay scales of Assistant Lecturers teaching non-technical subjects in Government Engg. Colleges and Polytechnic Institutions, at Rs. 550-25-700/-EB-25-750-30-900/-. Thus, grievance of the petitioners is that though the teachers teaching similar subjects in Arts and Science Colleges have been sanctioned the pay scale of Rs. 700-1600/-, the petitioners have been sanctioned the pay scale of Rs. 500-900/- and that according to the petitioners is illegal discrimination against them. On that basis, the petitioners have, in paragraph 30 (A) of the petition prayed for a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondent to treat the petitioners equally as per Annexure 'J' dated March 3, 1972, and to give them the benefits of the resolution Annexure 'Q' to the petition, dated 23th November, 1976, whereby the pay scales of Lecturers teaching the subjects similar to those which are taught by the petitioners, in Arts, Science and other Colleges have been fixed at Rs. 700-1600/-.
11. According to the petitioners, even in the Government Engg. Colleges and Polytechnic Institutions, the pay scales of the Lecturers in non-technical subjects is the same, viz., Rs. 700-1600/-. Therefore, according to the petitioners, they are entitled to be treated in the matter of pay scales similarly as the teachers teaching the same subjects in Government Arts, Science, etc. Colleges and in the alternative, they should be treated equally with the Lecturers teaching non-technical subjects in the Engg. Colleges and Polytechnics. On the premise, the petitioners have, in paragraph 30(B) of the petition, prayed for the benefits of the resolution dated 25th October, 1977 (Annexure 'R' to the petition) and to get, on that basis, the pay scale of Lecturers in the Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics teaching non-technical subject, i.e., the pay scale of Rs. 700-1600/-.
12. It is the grievance of the petitioners that the Government has illegally discriminated them in the matter of their pay scale, by not granting them the pay scale which is granted to the teachers teaching similar subjects in Arts, Science, etc. Colleges and also by not granting them parity of pay scales with the Lecturers teaching non-technical subjects in Engineering Colleges and Polytechnic Institutions.
13. The State Government, respondent No. 1 has strenuously opposed this petition.
14. On behalf of the petitioners, reliance was placed on the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work". In the petition, various resolutions referred to by me hereinabove have been referred to. Copies of those resolutions have been annexed to the petition.
15. On behalf of the Government, it was submitted that teaching by the petitioners of the subjects like Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, English, etc. to the students studying in Engineering Colleges and Polytechnic Institutions is not that intensive as the teaching of the technical subjects to those students. It was contended on behalf of the Government that though the students in Engineering Colleges and Polytechnic Institutions are taught these non-technical subjects, the level of that teaching is only preliminary and not in-depth, and extensive studies of those subjects are not supposed or required to be done by the students in Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics, while the students in Engineering and Polytechnic institutions are required to study the technical subjects like Engineering subjects in details and therefore, the teachers teaching technical subjects have to teach their subjects in greater details. Those teachers are therefore, required to keep themselves upto-date in knowledge with their subjects. The quality of teaching by the teachers teaching technical subjects is materially different from the quality of teaching by the teachers teaching non-technical subjects. According to the Government, therefore, the teachers teaching non-technical subjects cannot claim equality with the teachers teaching technical subjects. So far as the claim of the petitioners for parity in their pay scales with the pay scales of teachers teaching similar subjects in Arts, Science and Commerce Colleges is concerned, the argument of the Government is that there also there is disparity and inequality between the level of teaching. It was argued by Miss Doshit, the learned A.G.P. that whereas the teachers teaching these non-technical subjects in Arts, Commerce, Science, etc. Colleges have to teach those subjects right upto graduation and post-graduation and therefore, qualitatively their work is of high level, the teachers teaching these subjects in Engineering Colleges and Polytechnic Institutions have to teach these subjects only upto a preliminary level. Therefore, there cannot be any equation between the work done by the teachers teaching similar subjects in Arts, Science, etc. Colleges on one hand and the petitioners on the other.
16. In the affidavit-in-reply, there is a categorical denial of the assertion of the petitioners that the standard of teaching in Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics, and Arts and Science Colleges is the same, According to the Government, so far as the Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics are concerned, these non-technical subjects are taught only upto a level which is below the degree level. The Government has also denied the allegation that the petitioner impart intensive education in their subjects to the students in the Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics. The Government has also denied the allegation that these non-technical subjects form the basic foundation of sound engineering education. It is the case of the Government that the engineering students are required to possess only the basic knowledge of the non-technical subjects which may be useful to them for their application in Engineering & Technological studies. It is contended by the Government that prior to 1959, teachers in non-technical subjects were freely available, while teachers of technical subjects were scarce. It is the case of the Government that to attract personnel with engineering qualifications to the teaching posts in technical subjects the pay scales were revised by the Resolution dated July 4, 1958. According to the Government, the post of Lecturer is a Class-It post while the post of Assistant Lecturer is a Class-111 post, and there cannot be any equation between the post of a Lecturer and that of an Assistant Lecturer.
17. In State of Gujarat v. Thakorbhai Vallabhbhai Naik and Ors. 1972 (XIII) GLR 708, it has been held that possession of a higher educational qualification is a relevant consideration for fixing higher pay scale. Therefore, fixation of different pay scales of Assistant Lecturers who are Degree-holders and Assistant Lecturers who are experienced Diploma-holders is not violative of Article 16 of the Constitution.
Thus, this judgment makes it clear that even as between the Assistant Lecturers, those who possess higher qualifications can, without violating Article 16 of the Constitution, be granted higher pay scale as compared to the pay scale granted to Assistant Lecturers possessing lower educational qualifications. Degree-holder Assistant Lecturers, without violating Article 16 of the Constitution can be given a pay higher than that admissible to Diploma-holder Assistant Lecturers, even though such Diploma-holders may be experienced Diploma-holders. Of course, in the present case, I am, not concerned with the comparison of educational qualifications, that is, the educational qualifications of the petitioners on one hand, and the educational qualifications of the teachers with whom the petitioners claim parity of pay. But it cannot be denied that the teachers teaching technical subjects or engineering subjects would certainly have materially different educational qualifications than the educational qualifications of the petitioners who teach the non-technical subjects in Engineering Colleges and Polytechnic Institutions. If, on the basis of the difference between the educational qualifications, different pay scales are prescribed, that would not be violative of Article 16 as has been clearly laid down in the decision reported in 7972 GLR 708. Coming to the petitioner's claim for parity of their pay scale with the pay scale of the teachers teaching similar subjects in Arts, Science, etc. Colleges, the claim has got to be negatived without much discussion for, as it is clear from the record, the teachers teaching these subjects like Physics, Chemistry, English, Mathematics, etc. in Arts, Science, etc. Colleges have to teach these subjects right upto Graduate level, while the petitioners who have to teach these subjects in Engineering Colleges and Polytechnic Institutions have to teach these subjects at levels lower than the Graduate level. It, therefore, could not be gain-said that the level of teaching by the petitioners is not the same as the level of teaching of similar subjects by the teachers in Arts, Science, etc. Colleges. With the difference in the level of teaching, there could justifiably be a difference in qualification"? too. Even if there is no difference in qualifications, the difference in the level of teaching itself would be a ground on which different pay scales could be sanctioned, without violating Article 16 of the Constitution.
18. That there could justifiably be different pay scales for persons holding different qualifications is a proposition which has been enunciated in Mewa Ram Kanojia v. AH India Institute of Medical Science and Ors. . In that decision it has been held that the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' is not expressly declared a fundamental right under the Constitution. But Article 39(d) read with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution declares the constitutional goal enjoining the State not to deny any person equality before law in matters relating to employment including the scales of pay. Article 39(d) read with Articles. 14 and 16 of the Constitution enjoins the State that where all things are equal and person holding identical posts, performing identical and similar duties under the same employer should not be treated differently in the matter of their pay. (Emphasis supplied). The doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' is not abstract one, it is open to the State to prescribe different scales of pay for different posts having regard to educational qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the post. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is applicable when employees holding the same rank perform similar functions and discharge similar duties and responsibilities, are treated differently (Emphasis supplied). The application of doctrine would arise where employees are equal in every respect, but they are denied equality in matters relating to the scale of pay. While considering the question of application of principle of 'equal pay for equal work' it has to be borne in mind that it is open to the State to classify employees on the basis of qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the posts concerned. If the classification has reasonable nexus with the objective sought to be achieved, efficiency in the administration, the State would be justified in prescribing different pay scales but if the classification does not stand the test of reasonable nexus and the classification is founded on unreal, and unreasonable basis, it would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Equality must be among the equals, unequal cannot claim equality. Even if the duties and functions are of similar nature, but if the educational qualifications prescribed for the two posts are different and there is difference in measure of responsibilities, the principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' would not apply. Different treatment to persons belonging to the same class is a permissible classification on the basis of educational qualifications."
Thus this judgment in the case of Mewa Rain Kanojia also postulates that there can be different pay scales for persons having different educational qualifications, even though they otherwise might be belonging to the same class. This judgment also clearly postulates that there can be different pay scales dependent upon the measure of responsibilities.
19. In the instant case, as indicated hereinabove, it could not be disputed that though the petitioners might be teaching non-technical subjects like Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, English, etc., the level of teaching is certainly lower than the level of teaching of those very subjects in Arts, Science, Commerce, etc. Colleges, and certainly the level of teaching by the petitioners of their respective subjects can have no equation with the level of teaching of the technical subjects in Engineering Colleges and Polytechnic Institutions. In the affidavit-in-reply, it has clearly been made out that the teaching of technical subjects to the students in Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics is of a very high and intensive level for, those technical subjects are real subjects which the Engineers or the Technicians to be, have to learn. Of course, for the better learning of those subjects, they may have incidently to learn the basics of Physics, Chemistry, English, etc. But there could be no denying that those students do not have to learn Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, etc. in such a depth or to such an extent as they have to learn the subjects like Engineering mechanics and other technical subjects. Therefore, the claim for equality by the petitioners with the teachers leaching technical subjects in Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics is wholly untenable. Their claim for equality with teachers teaching similar subjects in Arts, Science, Commerce, etc. Colleges also cannot be accepted for, whereas the petitioners have to teach their subjects to the students of Engineering Colleges and Polytechnic Institutions only upto the level below the degree level, the teachers teaching similar subjects in Arts, Science, Commerce, etc. Colleges have to teach those subjects upto graduation or degree level. Therefore, there is difference in the level of teaching. There is also difference in the intensity of teaching. In that view of the matter, there is qualitative difference between the work done by the petitioners, and that done by the persons with whom they claim equality. And that qualitative difference can justify difference in pay scales, without in any manner violating the guarantee of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. When the equality clause speaks of equal treatment, as has been said in a number of judgments, there has to be equal treatment amongst equals. If equals are unequally treated, there would be discrimination. Similarly, if unequals are treated equally, that also cannot be countenanced under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Here, it is demonstrated that the petitioners have to teach their subjects upto the level which is lower than the level upto which the persons with whom the petitioners claim equality, teach their subjects. The petitioners are, therefore, unequals as compared to the persons with whom they claim equality. The constitutional guarantee cannot be extended to the granting of equality to the petitioners with the persons with whom they are not equals.
20. In V. Markendeya and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. , once again, it has been posited that non-graduate Supervisors cannot claim parity with Graduate Supervisors regarding pay scales. In that decision it has been held:
Where two class of employees perform identical or similar duties and carrying out the same functions with the same measure of responsibility having same academic qualifications, they would be entitled to equal pay. If the State denies them equality in pay, its action would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and the Court will strike down the discrimination and grant relief to the aggrieved employees. But before such relief is granted the Court must consider and analyse the rationale behind the State action in prescribing two different scales of pay. If on an analysis of the relevant rules, orders, nature of duties, functions, measure of responsibility, and educational qualifications, required for the relevant posts, the Court finds that the classification made by the State in giving different treatment to the two class of employees is founded on rational basis having nexus with 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 class 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.
Thus, this judgment also points out that aggrieved party has to demons-trably show that he is doing the work, which should be considered equal to the work of a person with whom he claims parity of pay, and he should further show that though he does equal work with others, he is illegally discriminated. In the present case, though the petitioners have put on record, several Government Resolutions referred to by me hereina-bove, and they have in the petition contended that teaching of their subjects by them is intensive, they have not shown that the level of teaching of their subjects to their students is the same as the level of teaching done by the teachers leaching technical subjects in Engineering Colleges and Polytechnic Institutions, and they have also not shown as to how the level of teaching by them of their subjects is, in any manner, equal to the level of teaching of similar subjects by the teachers in Arts, Science and Commerce, etc. Colleges. On the contrary, the Government in their affidavit-in-reply and the material placed on record, have shown that the level of teaching by the teachers teaching technical subjects in Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics, is of much higher order as compared to the level of teaching of non-technical subjects by the petitioners, and the Government have also pointed out that the level of teaching of similar subjects by the teachers in Arts, Science, Commerce, etc. Colleges is of a higher order than the level of teaching of similar subjects by the petitioners in Engineering Colleges and Polytechnic Institutions. Therefore, what is demonstrated on record is inequality between the petitioners on one hand and the persons with whom they want parity of pay, on the other. Two groups, if unequal, there cannot be equality in their pay structure. Government in prescribing different pay scales, therefore, cannot be accused of having violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
21. In Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognised) and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. , this is what has been held:
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, if 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 of 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 to be sought for, 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 at mala fide either in law or in fact.
In that case, the Stenographers working in Customs and Central Excise Department claimed parity of pay with the Stenographers working in the Central Secretariat. The Supreme Court in that judgment, after referring to a number of earlier judgments, in paragraph 10 of the report said as follows:
As is evident, the facts of the instant case are entirely different. Here the differentiation is (sic) sought to be justified on the similarity of the functional work, but on the dissimiliarity of the responsibility, confidentiality and the relationship with public, etc. In paragraph 11 of the report, this is what the Supreme Court has said 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 of 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 to be 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 at mala fide either in law or in fact.
In that case, in the affidavit-in-reply filed by one Shri S.P. Kundu, Under Secretary to Government of India, it was demonstrated as to how the Secretariat of Ministries/Departments of the Government of India together constitute Headquarters Organisation, and how in the administrative hierarchy of the Central Government, the Secretariat occupy a key position, and the main role of the Secretariat is to help the Government in the tasks of formulation of policies, to prepare programmes in order to translate these policies into co-ordinated action and to ensure the effective execution of Government policies through periodical review. In that affidavit it was pointed out that the Secretariat also helps Ministers to discharge their accountability to Parliament including the various Parliamentary Committees, and that the detailed execution of Government's policies specially in the field is left to the agencies outside the Secretariat which are called attached or subordinate offices of the Ministiies, but they are always subject to supervision by the Secretariat. In that affidavit it was also pointed out that to man the various stenographic posts in the Headquarters, the Government constituted the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service which also caters to the needs of such posts in several attached offices which are known as participating offices. But none of the attached offices, of the Department of Revenue are participating offices. Therefore, keeping in view the importance and the nature and the type of the work performed in the Ministries/Departments of the Government of India vis-a-vis those in the attached and subordinate offices and consequently the nature of stenographic assistance required, the Third Pay Commission recommended different scales of pay for the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service and those in the non-participating attached and subordinate offices. Before the Supreme Court, reliance was also placed on behalf of the Government on the report of the Third Pay Commission which recommended different and lower scales of pay for the Stenographers of non-participating attached and subordinate offices in comparison with those in the Central Secretariat. In that report, the Third Pay Commission observed as follows:
As a general statement, it is correct to say that the basic nature of a stenographer's work remains by and large the same whether he is working with an officer in the Secretariat or with an officer in the subordinate office. We feel, however, that the position needs to be examined a little more critically because the size of a Stenographer's job is very much dependent upon the nature of the work entrusted to that officer. It would not be correct therefore to go merely by status in these matters and disregard the functional requirements. By the very nature of Secretariat working the volume of dictation and typing work can be expected to be heavier than in a subordinate office. Also the requirement of secrecy even in the civil offices of the Secretariat can be very stringent. Considering the differences in the hierarchical structure and in the type of work transacted in the Secretariat and in the subordinate offices, we are not in favour of adopting a uniform pattern-Once the functional requirements are seen to be different for the Secretariat and the subordinate office, it will not be worthwhile to aim for absolute parity in the pay scale of Stenographer working on the two sides.
These observations of the Third Pay Commission also seem to have been approved by Their Lordships of the Supreme Court, in the above judgment.
22. This decision in the case of the Stenographers was heavily relied upon by Miss Doshit, the learned A.G.P. while opposing this petition. Having gone through that judgment, I find that that judgment in a large measure supports the case of the respondent-State. In that case, the Stenographers working with the officers in the Customs and Central Excise Department claimed parity of pay with the Stenographers working in the Central Secretariat. The argument on behalf of the petitioners there appear to be that both the groups are Stenographers and they perform similar duty and therefore, there should be parity of pay. The argument was negatived firstly by the Third Pay Commission and secondly by the Supreme Court on the ground that merely the status 'Stenographer' cannot be decisive. Nature of the work, volume of work, consideration of secrecy to be maintained by the stenographer in the Secretariat and a host of other considerations would go into fixation of pay and unless that fixation, which is to be done by the Executive is shown to be arbitrary, the Court will not interfere.
23. In the case before me, though the petitioners might be Assistant Lecturers teaching non-technical subjects, they cannot claim parity with the Assistant Lecturers teaching technical subjects, merely on the ground that both are Assistant Lecturers. The petitioners' claim for parity of pay with the teachers teaching similar subjects in Arts, Commerce etc. Colleges has, in my opinion, no basis, as indicated hereinabove.
24. In Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers Union v. Union of India and Ors., Judgments Today, Vol. I, Issue No. 9, dated January 12, 1991 (page 60):
(, it has been held that unless two employments are comparable, the claim for parity of pay cannot be accepted in a Court of law.
25. On behalf of the petitioners, the decision in the case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India and Ors. , was very heavily relied upon. That judgment, in my opinion, does not help the petitioners. That was a case of Drivers in different departments of the Government. Petitioner Randhir Singh in that case was a Driver-constable in the Delhi Police Force under the Delhi Administration and he demanded that his scale of pay should at least be the same as the scale of pay of the driver in the service of Delhi Administration. The Supreme Court there examined the pay scales of drivers of different departments and ultimately found that there was no justification in denying petitioner Randhir Singh the pay scale which was admissible to a driver in Railway Protection Force. I fail to see how this judgment can help the petitioners. The facts in that case were quite different. There the parity was claimed by one driver with the pay scale of a driver in another department. Nonetheless, both were drivers and more or less the nature of duty was the same. Here, as indicated hereinabove, the nature of duty performed by the petitioners cannot, by any stretch of reasoning, be said to be equal or identical with the nature of duty performed by the teachers teaching technical subjects in Engineering Colleges and Polytechnic Institutions, nor can it be said to be same, identical or comparable with the nature of duty performed by the teachers teaching the subjects of Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, English, etc. in Arts, Science etc. Colleges. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners based on the doctrine of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" cannot be sustained.
26. True, the Government have from time to time passed certain resolutions relied upon by the petitioners. But none of those resolutions, exactly help the case of the petitioners as has been put up in this petition. So far as the claim based on the Resolution Annexure 'Q' dated November 23, 1976 is concerned, that resolution in terms excludes Government assistance to Medical, Agricultural, Ayurvedic, Vetenary, Science and Engineering Colleges. That resolution, therefore, cannot help the petitioners. So far as the resolution Annexure 'R' is concerned, it definitely lays different pay scales for Lecturers on one hand and Assistant Lecturers on the other, and that resolution cannot be recruited for, it could not be gainsaid that Lecturers can legitimately have higher pay scales than Assistant Lecturers.
27. The argument that the report of the Katrak Committee which largely drew upon the report of the Committee appointed by the Bombay Government as also the recommendations made by the Second Pay Commission, favours parity of pay between Asstt. Lecturers teaching nontechnical subjects, with the pay scale admissible to Asstt. Lecturers, teaching technical subjects, also cannot be accepted for, whether or not it should accept such recommendations would be the policy decision of the Government, and it would not be for the Court to enjoin the Government with the duty to accept such recommendations. In the present case, the Government has thought it fit not to accept those recommendations and it would not be for the Court to say that the Government should accept such recommendations.
Having considered the matter from all possible angles, I think the claim made by the petitioners in this petition cannot be sustained. The petition is therefore, dismissed with no orders as to costs. Rule is discharged.