Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4115 and 4116 of 1985.

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.4.1985 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 3441 of 1984.

J.P. Goyal, Rajesh for the Appellants in C.A. No. 41 15 of 1985.

Anil Dev Singh, Mrs. S. Dikshit and Sudhir Kulshreshta for the Appellants in C.A. No. 4116 of 1985.

R. Ramachandran for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT, J.These two appeals by special leave, one pre- ferred by the State of U.P. and the other by the Cane Super- visors of the Cane Development Department, U.P., are direct- ed against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court directing the State Government to merge the posts of Ganna Gram Sewaks and Ganna Supervisors into the cadre of Ganna Sahayak in the pay scale of Rs.400- 615 with effect from 1-7-1979.

One of the Ganna Gram Sewaks, Shri Vyas Muni Mishra, the respondent No. 1, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court praying for a writ of mandamus directing the State Government to merge the posts of Ganna Gram Sewaks and Cane Supervisors into one cadre of 'Ganna Sahayak'. The High Court took the view that although the minimum educational qualifications required were High School for Ganna Gram Sewaks and Intermediate in Agriculture for Cane Supervisors, since 1975 the minimum qualification for both Ganna Gram Sewaks and Cane Supervisors became Intermediate in Agricul- ture. Further, the High Court was of the view that the nature of duties performed by the members of these two categories of posts was the same. Accordingly, relying upon the principle of equal pay for equal work, as contained in Article 39(d) of the Constitution, the High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the State Government to merge the posts of Ganna Gram Sewak and that of Cane Supervisor into one post as Ganna Sahayak in the pay scale of Rs.400- 615 with effect from July 1, 1979. The State of U.P. and the Cane Supervisors being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court have preferred the above appeals.

At the outset it may be said that the High Court exceed- ed its jurisdiction in directing the merger of the two posts. It may be that the Task Force Committee and the Review Committee had recommended for the merger, but it was for the State Government to consider whether such merger should be made or not. The State Government after considera- tion of the relevant reports and recommendations accepted the recommendation of the Second Pay Commission only with regard to the revision of the pay scale of the Ganna Gram Sewaks with the slight modification by an increase of Rs. 5 at the initial stage of the recommended pay scale. The question whether two posts should be merged into one or not is absolutely within the jurisdiction and authority of the Executive Government. However much the High Court was influ- enced by the principle of equal pay for equal work for both men and women as contained in Article 39(d) of the Constitu- tion, the High Court was not justified in exceeding its jurisdiction for giving effect to the said doctrine. The principle of equal pay for equal work requires on the face of it that the work to be performed by two groups of persons must be equal. It has been already noticed that the duties that had to be performed by the Ganna Gram Sewaks are preparation of progress report, survey of the cane areas and development programmes. On the other hand, the Cane Supervisors are responsible for plant protection, inputs godown and nurser- ies in the areas of Ganna Gram Sewaks. Thus the nature of duties that are performed by the members of these two cate- gories of posts is different. It has been observed by the Second Pay Commission that the Department has so fixed the duties of the two functionaries that both of them now func- tion more or less independently. The High Court did not discuss in detail as to whether the Ganna Gram Sewaks and the Cane Supervisors perform the same duties. The High Court has only referred to an observation in the report of the Task Force Committee that there were not much differences in the duties performed by these two categories of officers. As has been stated already, the Second Pay Commission did not accept the recommendation of the Task Force Committee for the merger of the two posts into one. It is true that the Cane Supervisors are not doing any supervision of the work of the Ganna Gram Sewaks, but in view of the nature of duties performed by both, as mentioned above, it is diffi- cult to hold that both perform the same kind of duties. We have also looked into the reports of the Task Force Commit- tee and the Review Committee. In our opinion, these two Committees have not properly dealt with the nature of duties performed by the Ganna Gram Sewaks and Cane Supervisors, although both these Committees have recommended the merger of the two posts. As soon as, therefore, it is held that the two groups of persons do not perform the same kind of du- ties, the question of equal pay for equal work does not arise.

As stated earlier, the posts of Ganna Gram Sewaks are filled by direct recruitment. So far as .the posts of Cane Supervisors are concerned, 50 per cent of the same are filled by promotion from the posts of Ganna Gram Sewaks and the remaining 50 per cent are filled by direct recruitment. Thus, the post of Cane Supervisor is a promotional post vis-a-vis the post of Ganna Gram Sewak. In our view where, as in the instant case, of the two posts, one being the promotional post and the other being the feeder post, it will be beyond the jurisdiction of the Court to implement the principle of equal pay for equal work inasmuch as such implementation will practically result in the amalgmation of the two posts leading to great administrative difficulties. Article 39(d) of the Constitution lays down the Directive Principle of equal pay for equal work for both men and women. The direc- tive principles contained in Part-IV of the Constitution are not enforceable in any court of law. It is a constitutional goal that has to be achieved at the instance of the State. Merger or bifurcation of a cadre is an executive act and normally the Court does not deal with it. It is for the State to consider whether two groups of persons working under two distinct posts perform the same kind of duties or not and whether in implementing the directive principle, as contained in Article 39(d) of the Constitution, it is neces- sary to merge these two posts into one cadre or post. If the State Government is of the view that it is necessary that there should be a merger of the two posts into one post, the State Government has to take steps in that regard by framing proper rules with regard to seniority, promotions, etc. But, when two groups of persons are in the same or similar posts performing same kind of work, either in the same or in the different Government departments, the Court may in suitable cases direct equal pay by way of removing unreasonable discrimination and treating the two groups, similarly situ- ated, equally. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, we are of the view that the High Court was not justi- fied in directing a merger of the two posts, namely, the posts of Ganna Gram Sewaks and Cane Supervisors. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the writ petition is dismissed. Both these appeals are allowed. There is, however, no order as to costs.