Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.26 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Mewa Ram Kanojia vs All India Institute Of Medical Sciences ... on 9 March, 1989
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."
V. Markendeya & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 April, 1989
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:
Randhir Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 22 February, 1982
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.
State Of Gujarat vs Thakorbhai Vallabhbhai Naik And Ors. on 14 March, 1972
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.
1