Sh Sanjeev Kumar ors Vs Union of India ors - Citation 1205101 - Court Judgment

Judgment:

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 + % SH. SANJEEV KUMAR & ORS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 27th March, 2017 .....

... Petitioner

s Through: Mr. Pardeep Dahiya, Advocate. versus .....

... RESPONDENTS

Through: Mr. B.K. Sood, Advocate with Mr. Sandeep Thukral, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. YES VALMIKI J.

MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek the application of doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟ by treating the petitioners who are employees of the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS)/respondent nos.2 to 4 as to be similarly placed with the similar employees of Government of India and thus for petitioners to be paid the same pay-scales as granted to similarly placed central government employees.

2. Originally there were total of seven petitioners.

... Petitioner

no.1 has not pressed the writ petition, and therefore, the writ petition W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 1 of 32 has to be decided so far as petitioner nos.2 to 7 are concerned. These petitioner nos.2 to 7 were appointed by the employer/respondent nos.2 to 4, and they are working at the following posts:-

"“(1) Pet. No.2 Junior Operator (Printing) 950-1500 1350-2200 (2) Pet. No.3 Offset Machine 950-1500 1350-2200 (3) Pet. No.4 (4) Pet. No.5 (5) Pet. No.6 (6) Pet. No.7 Junior Operator (Process Cameraman) Junior Operator (Offset Machine) (Retouching Paste-up) Operator & Junior Junior Operator (Plate Maker) 950-1500 1400-2300 950-1500 1350-2200 950-1500 1600-2660 950-1500 1320-2040” 3. The law with respect to claim of application of doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟ is now well settled as per the ratios of various judgments of the Supreme Court and which will be referred to hereinafter. In addition to the other guiding principles which have been laid down in the Supreme Court judgments, some of the important principles for applying the doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟ are that the eligibility criteria for appointment of the two posts must be same, scope of duties in both the posts must be the same and even in such cases in certain circumstances it is possible that doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟ will not apply, identity of hierarchy of posts have to be seen with respect to the posts where the W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 2 of 32 claimants/petitioners are working with the hierarchy of posts in the other posts which are compared to, that the issue of fixation of pay- scale is a technical and complex matter and this is best left to the expert bodies and Court should seldom embark upon this exercise, and finally that there cannot be application of doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟ within posts of different organizations and even posts in different geographical organizations located under the same management.

4. Let me now accordingly refer to the ratios of the various judgments of the Supreme Court in this regard:-

"(i) The first judgment is the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Harbans Lal and Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (1989) 4 SCC459 In this case, the carpenters who were working with an independent corporation being the Himachal Pradesh State Handicraft Corporation sought application of doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟ by seeking the same scales of employees in the Himachal Pradesh Government. In such fact the Supreme Court negated the application of the doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟ and made the following salient observations:-

"“6. With these facts, we may now turn to the principle upon which the petitioners' case is rested. The principle of "equal pay for equal work" is not one of the fundamental rights expressly guaranteed by our Constitution. The principle was incorporated only under Article 39(d) of W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 3 of 32 the Constitution as a Directive Principle of State Policy. Perhaps for the first time, this Court in Rahdhir Singh v. Union of India has innovated that it is a constitutional goal capable of being achieved through constitutional remedies. There the Court pointed out that that principle has to be read into Article 14 of the Constitution which enjoins the State not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the law and also into Article 16 which declares that there should be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Randhir Singh case was concerned with a driver-constable in the Delhi Police Force under the Delhi Administration. He claimed equal salary for equal work as that of other drivers. The Court found that the petitioner therein performed the same functions and duties as other drivers in the service of Delhi Administration. The Court, therefore, directed the Central Government to fix the pay scale of the petitioner on par with his counterparts doing identical work under the same employer. In the immediate aftermath of the decision in Randhir Singh 7. case, there were bumper cases filed in this Court for enforcement of the right to "equal pay for equal work", perhaps little realising the inbuilt restrictions in that principle. It may not be necessary here to refer to all those decisions since almost all of them have been considered and explained in the recent two decisions to which one of us was a party (K Jagannatha Shetty, J.). Reference may be made to (i) State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia and (ii) Meva Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences. In Chaurasia case the question arose whether it was permissible to have two different pay scales in the same cadre of Bench Secretaries of the Allahabad High Court who were for all practical purposes performing similar duties and having same responsibilities. The Court held that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" has no mechanical application in every case of similar work. Article 14 permits reasonable classification founded on rational basis. It is, therefore, not impermissible to provide two different pay scales in the same cadre on the basis of selection based on merit with due regard to experience and seniority. It was pointed out that in service, merit or experience could be the proper basis for classification to promote efficiency in administration and he or she learns also by experience as much as by other means. Apart from that, the Court has expressly observed that the higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues may also be allowed. Meva Ram Kanojia is the most recent decision which has 8. exhaustively dealt with all the principles bearing on the question of equal pay for equal work in the light of all the previous decisions of this Court. There the petitioner was a "hearing Therapist" in the All India Institute of Medical Sciences. He claimed pay scale admissible to "Senior Speech Pathologist", "Senior Physiotherapist", "Senior Occupational Therapist", "Audiologist", and "Speech pathologist". His case was based on the allegations that he was discharging same duties and performing similar W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 4 of 32 functions as "Senior Speech Therapist", Senior Physiotherapist", "Senior Occupational therapist", "Audiologist" and "Speech Pathologist". But the Court held that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be invoked invariably in every kind of service particularly in the area of professional services. It was also held that it is open to the State to the basis of qualifications, duties and classify employees on responsibilities of 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. the posts concerned. If Reference may also be made to the decision in Federation of All 9. India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognised) v. Union of India. There the Personal Assistants and Stenographers attached to the Heads of Department in Customs and Central Excise Department of the Ministry of Finance made a claim for parity of wages with the Personal Assistants and Stenographers attached to Joint Secretaries and Officers above them in Ministry of Finance. The Court while rejecting the claim expressed the view (SCC p.100, para 7):-

"“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 emphasize 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 the right.” 10. practically hammered out and very little remains for further innovation. Thus the law relating to equal pay for equal work has been In the light of the aforesaid principles, we may now consider 11. whether the equality claims of the petitioners could be allowed. We have carefully perused, the material on record and gave our anxious consideration to the question urged. From the averments in the pleadings of the parties it will be clear that the Corporation has no regularly employed carpenters. Evidently the petitioners are claiming wages payable to the carpenters in Government service. We do not think that we could accept their claim. In the first place, even assuming that the petitioners jobs are comparable with the counterparts in the government service, the petitioners cannot enforce the right to "equal pay for equal work". The discrimination complained of must be within the same establishment owned by the same management. A comparison cannot be' made with counterparts in other establishments with W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 5 of 32 different management, or even in establishments in different geographical locations though owned by the same master. Unless it is shown that there is a discrimination amongst the same set of employees by the same master in the same establishment, the principle of "equal pay for equal work" cannot be enforced. This was also the view expressed in Meva Ram Kanojia v. A.I.I.M.S. (SCC p.245) In the instant case, the petitioners are employed by a company incorporated under the Companies Act. They cannot claim wages payable to their counterparts in government services.” (emphasis added) A reading of the aforesaid ratio of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Harbans Lal’s case (supra) makes it abundantly clear that discrimination complained of must be within the same establishments and comparison cannot be made with counterparts in other establishments with different management or even in establishments in different geographical locations under the same master. Applying this principle, the claim for „equal pay for equal work‟ was rejected in Harbans Lal’s case (supra). (ii) The next judgment which requires to be referred to is the judgment of the Division Bench of the three Judges of the Supreme Court in the case of Official Liquidator vs. Dayanand and Others (2008) 10 SCC1 The relevant paras of the judgment in the case of Official Liquidator (supra) show that similarity in the designation or quantum of work are not determinative of equality in the matter of pay- scales and the Court must necessarily consider the mode of recruitment/appointment, qualifications, nature of work, the value W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 6 of 32 judgment, the responsibilities, experience, confidentiality, functional need etc. The relevant paras of the judgment in the case of Official Liquidator (supra) are paras 93 to 100, and these paras read as under:-

"“93. The respondents' claim for fixation of pay in the regular scale and grant of other monetary benefits on a par with those appointed against the sanctioned posts has been accepted by the High Courts on the premise that their duties and functions are similar to those performed by regular employees. In the opinion of the High Courts, similarity in the nature of work of the company-paid staff on the one hand and regular employees on the other hand, is by itself sufficient for invoking the principle of equal pay for equal work, In our view, the approach adopted by the High Courts is clearly erroneous and directions given for bringing about parity between the company-paid staff and regular employees in the matter of pay, allowances etc. are liable to be upset.

94. The principle of equal pay for equal work for men and women embodied in Article 39(d) was first considered in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India and it was held that the said principle is not capable of being enforced in a Court of law. After 36 years, the issue was again considered in Randhir Singh v. Union of India, and it was unequivocally ruled that the principle of equal pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine and can be enforced by reading it into the doctrine of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The ratio of Randhir Singh v. Union of India was reiterated and 95. applied in several cases - Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P., Surinder Singh v. CPWD, Daily Rated Casual Labour v. Union of India, Dharwad District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association v. State of Karnataka and Jaipal v. State of Haryana and it was held that even a daily wage employee who is performing duties similar to regular employees is entitled to the same pay. However, in Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recognized) Union v. Union of India, Mewa Ram Kanojia v. A.I.I.M.S., V. Markandeya v. State of A.P., Harbans Lal and Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Ors., State of U.P. and Ors. v. J.P. Chaurasia and Ors., Griha Kalyan Workers' Union v. Union of India , Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Vikram Chaudhary , State of Haryana and Ors. v. Jasmer Singh and Ors., State of Haryana v. Surinder Kumar , Union of India v. K.V. Baby, State of Orissa v. Balram Sahu , Utkal University v. Jyotirmayee Nayak, State of Haryana and Anr. v. Tilak Raj and Ors., Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das , Apangshu Mohan Lodh v. State of Tripura, State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh, Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Dan Bahadur Singh, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. L.V. Subramanyeswara and Canteen Mazdoor Sabha v. Metallurgical & Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd., the Court consciously and repeatedly deviated W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 7 of 32 from the ruling of Randhir Singh v. Union of India and held that similarity in the designation or quantum of work are not determinative of equality in the matter of pay scales and that before entertaining and accepting the claim based on the principle of equal pay for equal work, the Court must consider the factors like the source and mode of recruitment/appointment, the qualifications, the nature of work, the value judgment, reliability, experience, confidentiality, functional need etc. responsibilities, 96. Bench laid down the following principle: In State of Haryana and Ors. v. Jasmer Singh, the two-Judges “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.” In Harbans Lal and Ors. v. State of H.P. the Court held that the 97. claim of carpenters employed by an incorporated company for parity in wages payable is unsustainable. in Government service to their counterparts In Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University v. T. Sumalatha 98. it was held that the respondents who were employed under a scheme known as National Technical Manpower Information System, which was sponsored by the then Ministry of Education and Culture, cannot claim parity with the regular Government employees in the matter of pay scale. In Canteen Mazdoor Sabha v. Metallurgical & Engineering 99. Consultants (India) Ltd., another two-Judges Bench held that simply because some employees of a contractor of the alleged head employer are performing the task or duties similar to the employees of the head employer, it will not entitle such employees to claim parity.

100. As mentioned earlier, the respondents were employed/engaged by the Official Liquidators pursuant to the sanction accorded by the Court under Rule 308 of the 1959 Rules and they are paid salaries and allowances from the company fund. They were neither appointed against sanctioned posts nor they were paid out from the Consolidated Fund of India. Therefore, the mere fact that they were doing work similar to the regular employees of the office of the Official Liquidators cannot be treated as sufficient for applying the principle of equal pay for equal W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 8 of 32 work. Any such direction will compel the Government to sanction additional posts in the offices of the Official Liquidators so as to facilitate payment of salaries and allowances to the company-paid staff in the regular pay scale from the Consolidated Fund of India and in view of our finding that the policy decision taken by the Government of India to reduce the number of posts meant for direct recruitment does not suffer from any legal or constitutional infirmity, it is not possible to entertain the plea of the respondents for payment of salaries and allowances in the regular pay scales and other monetary benefits at par with regular employees by applying the principle of equal pay for equal work.” (emphasis added) It was held by the Division Bench of three Judges in the case of Official Liquidator (supra) that although contractual employees were doing the work similar to regular employees in the office of Official Liquidator, yet, in spite of this aspect, the doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟ will not apply. (iii) The next relevant judgment of the Supreme Court is the judgment in the case of S.C. Chandra and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others (2007) 8 SCC279 It has been held by the Supreme Court in this judgment that unless there is wholesale identity between two groups, parity in the pay-scale cannot be claimed. Supreme Court also held that granting of pay-scale is a purely executive function and Court should not interfere with the same as to decide the wholesale identity for applying the doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟. It is required that for applying the doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟ there should be an expert body which evaluates all the factors and aspects and Courts must not engage itself in the matters W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 9 of 32 which are best left to such expert bodies which evaluate extensive evidence, and that the writ court not being the proper forum to determine this aspect. (iv) The last judgment which requires to be referred to is the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others Vs. Jagjit Singh and Others (2017) 1 SCC148 Supreme Court has given extensively the parameters for invoking the doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟ from paras 42 to 42.17 and these paras read as under:-

"“42. All the judgments noticed in paras 7 to 24 hereinabove, pertain to employees engaged on regular basis, who were claiming higher wages, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. The claim raised by such employees was premised on the ground, that the duties and responsibilities rendered by them, were against the same post for which a higher pay-scale was being allowed, in other Government departments. Or alternatively, their duties and responsibilities were the same, as of other posts with different designations, but they were placed in a lower scale. Having been painstakingly taken through the parameters laid down by this Court, wherein the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' was invoked and considered, it would be just and appropriate, to delineate the parameters laid down by this Court. In recording the said parameters, we have also adverted to some other judgments pertaining to temporary employees (also dealt with, in the instant judgment), wherein also, this Court had the occasion to express the legal position with reference to the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. Our consideration, has led us to the following deductions:

42. 1 The 'onus of proof', of parity in the duties and responsibilities of the subject post with the reference post, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', lies on the person who claims it. He who approaches the Court has to establish, that the subject post occupied by him, requires him to discharge equal work of equal value, as the reference post (see Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology case, UT Chandigarh, Admn. V. Manju Mathur, SAIL case and National Aluminium Co. Ltd. case). 42.2 The mere fact that the subject post occupied by the claimant, is in a "different department" vis-a-vis the reference post, does not have any W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 10 of 32 Persons holding bearing on the determination of a claim, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. Persons discharging identical duties, cannot be treated differently, in the matter of their pay, merely because they belong to different departments of Government (see Randhir Singh case and D.S. Nakara case). The principle of 'equal pay for equal work', applies to cases of 42.3 irrational unequal scales of pay, based on no classification or classification (see Randhir Singh case). For equal pay, the employees concerned with whom equation is sought, should be performing work, which besides being functionally equal, should be of the same quality and sensitivity (see Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers case, Mewa Ram Kanojia case, Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union case and S.C. Chandra case). the same rank/designation (in different 42.4 departments), but having dissimilar powers, duties and responsibilities, can be placed in different scales of pay, and cannot claim the benefit of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' (see Randhir Singh case, State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association and Hukum Chand Gupta case ). Therefore, the principle would not be automatically invoked, merely because the subject and reference posts have the same nomenclature. 42.5 In determining equality of functions and responsibilities, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', it is necessary to keep in mind, that the duties of the two posts should be of equal sensitivity, and also, qualitatively similar. Differentiation of pay-scales for posts with difference in degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality, would fall within the realm of valid classification, and therefore, pay differentiation would be legitimate and permissible (see Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers case and the SBI case). The nature of work of the subject post should be the same and not less onerous than the reference post. Even the volume of work should be the same. And so also, the level of responsibility. If these parameters are not met, parity cannot be claimed under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' (see State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia and Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union case). 42.6 For placement in a regular pay-scale, the claimant has to be a regular appointee. The claimant should have been selected, on the basis of a regular process of recruitment. An employee appointed on a temporary basis, cannot claim to be placed in the regular pay-scale (see Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology case). 42.7 Persons performing the same or similar functions, duties and responsibilities, can also be placed in different pay-scales. Such as 'selection grade', in the same post. But this difference must emerge out of a legitimate foundation, such as-merit, or seniority, or some other relevant criteria (see State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia). 42.8 If the qualifications for recruitment to the subject post vis-a-vis the reference post are different, it may be difficult to conclude, that the duties and responsibilities of the posts are qualitatively similar or W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 11 of 32 comparable (see Mewa Ram Kanojia case and Government of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy). In such a case, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', cannot be invoked. The reference post, with which parity is claimed, under the 42.9 principle of 'equal pay for equal work', has to be at the same hierarchy in the service, as the subject post. Pay-scales of posts may be different, if the hierarchy of the posts in question, and their channels of promotion, are different. Even if the duties and responsibilities are same, parity would not be permissible, as against a superior post, such as a promotional post (see Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Dey and Hukum Chand Gupta case). 42.10 A comparison between the subject post and the reference post, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', cannot be made, where the subject post and the reference post are in different establishments, having a different management. Or even, where the establishments are in different geographical locations, though owned by the same master (see Harbans Lal case). Persons engaged differently, and being paid out of different funds, would not be entitled to pay parity (see Official Liquidator v. Dayanand ). 42.11 Different pay-scales, in certain eventualities, would be permissible even for posts clubbed together at the same hierarchy in the cadre. As for instance, if the duties and responsibilities of one of the posts are more onerous, or are exposed to higher nature of operational work/risk, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would not be applicable. And also when, the reference post includes the responsibility to take crucial decisions, and that is not so for the subject post (see SBI case). 42.12 The priority given to different types of posts, under the prevailing policies of the Government, can also be a relevant factor for placing different posts under different pay-scales. Herein also, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would not be applicable (see State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn). 42.13 The parity in pay, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', cannot be claimed, merely on the ground, that at an earlier point of time, the subject post and the reference post, were placed in the same pay-scale. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is applicable only when it is shown, that the incumbents of the subject post and the reference post, discharge similar duties and responsibilities (see State of West Bengal v. West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors Association). 42.14 For parity in pay-scales, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', equation in the nature of duties, is of paramount importance. If the principal nature of duties of one post is teaching, whereas that of the other is non-teaching, the principle would not be applicable. If the dominant nature of duties of one post is of control and management, whereas the subject post has no such duties, the principle would not be applicable. Likewise, if the central nature of duties of one post is of quality control, whereas the subject post has minimal duties of quality W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 12 of 32 control, the principle would not be applicable (see U.T. Chandigarh, Admn. V. Manju Mathur). 42.15 There can be a valid classification in the matter of pay-scales, between employees even holding posts with the same nomenclature i.e., between those discharging duties at the headquarters, and others working at the institutional/sub-office level (see Hukum Chand Gupta case), when the duties are qualitatively dissimilar. 42.16 The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would not be applicable, where a differential higher pay-scale is extended to persons discharging the same duties and holding the same designation, with the objective of ameliorating stagnation, or on account of lack of promotional avenues (see Hukum Chand Gupta case). 42.17 Where there is no comparison between one set of employees of one organization, and another set of employees of a different organization, there can be no question of equation of pay-scales, under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', even if two organizations have a common employer. Likewise, if the management and control of two organizations, is with different entities, which are independent of one another, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would not apply (see S.C. Chandra case and National Aluminum Co. Ltd. case” (emphasis added) Though Supreme Court in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra) gave benefit of doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟, the said benefit was given inasmuch as there was sufficient evidence that two groups of employees were doing identical work. However, Supreme Court in para 42.17 has specifically laid down the ratio that there is no comparison between one set of employees of one organization and another set of employees of different organization and in which situation there can be no question of equation of pay-scales by applying the doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟ and which would remain the position in spite of the fact that the two organizations may have a common employer. Where however the management and W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 13 of 32 control of two organizations is with different entities the principle of „equal pay for equal work‟ would definitely not apply. What is stated in para 42.17 in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra) has been stated in a similar manner in para 42.10 wherein it is stated that posts of different establishments having different managements cannot be equated for applying the doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟. Also the persons engaged differently and being paid out of different funds are not entitled to parity of pay-scales. Supreme Court has also categorically held in the case of Jagjit Singh (supra) that onus of proof with respect to parity in duty and responsibility is with the persons who claim the same i.e if the onus of proof is not discharged as required by law, then, Courts should not apply the doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟.

5. I may note at this stage that this writ petition was dismissed by the judgment dated 9.3.2015 where it was held that there cannot be equality of pay-scales under different organizations being autonomous organizations under the government such as the employer/BIS in this case and the central government employees i.e unequals cannot be treated as equals. This was stated in paras 4 and 5 of the judgment dated 9.3.2015, and which paras read as under:-

"“4. In my opinion, the argument urged on behalf of the petitioners is misconceived at the very outset because autonomous organizations‟ employees automatically do not get the pay scales of the Central Government employees. It is the Central Government through the parent W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 14 of 32 the Central Government ministry under which the autonomous organization falls, along with the Ministry of Finance, which decides the pay scales of the employees of a particular autonomous organization. In fact, the pay scales can be different between different autonomous organizations of the same government depending upon the type of the organization and work etc being done by the employees in that particular organization. There is no inherent right or any legal right of any employee of an autonomous organization of the monetary emoluments equal to an employee of the Central Government. Article 14 of the Constitution of India applies for giving equality to equals and no equality/parity can be claimed between Central Government employees and employees of autonomous organizations. Unequals cannot be treated as equals. I may note that in the counter-affidavit filed by respondent nos.

5. 2 to 4, it is stated that even the scope of work of the petitioners is not the same as the scope of work of the employees of the Government Presses, however, be that as it may in my opinion, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work applies to the employees within the same organization and not to employees of different organizations, much less to those employees who are employees of the Central Government.” to claim 6.

... Petitioner

s had also referred to certain judgments which are stated in para 2 of the judgment dated 9.3.2015 and which were distinguished as per para 3 of the judgment dated 9.3.2015, and these paras 2 and 3 read as under:-

"I have repeatedly asked the counsel for the petitioners to show “2. me even a single judgment as per which it is held that the employees who work in the autonomous organizations of the Central Government are entitled to the same pay scale as given to the employees of the Central Government, but counsel for the petitioners is not able to point out even a single judgment which lays down this ratio. Counsel for the petitioners however relies upon the following judgments:-

"I. Yogeshwar Prasad and Ors. Vs. National Inst.,Edu. Planning & Admn. & Ors. in Civil Appeal Nos.288-289/2005 decided on 21.10.2010; II. Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) and Ors. Vs. Bureau of Indian Standards Employee’s Union and Ors. in LPA No.232/1999 decided on 01.8.2000; Indian Road Constn. Corpn. Ltd. Vs. K.P.Grover & Ors. 78(1999) DLT691 III. IV. Union of India and Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Gond in SLP (C) No.17419/2009 decided on 25.7.2013; and W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 15 of 32 V. State of Mizoram & Anr. Vs. Mizoram Engineering Service Association & Anr. AIR2004SC3644 3. Unfortunately, counsel for the petitioners is not able to show to this Court any paragraph/s or line/s in any of these five judgments which holds and lays down the ratio that the pay scales and monetary emoluments of the employees in autonomous organizations of the Central Government have to be the same as the pay scales of similarly situated employees in the Central Government.” 7. The judgment dated 9.3.2015 was taken in challenge before a Division Bench of this Court and the Division Bench set aside the judgment dated 9.3.2015 by a short order on the ground that this Court did not state as to how the judgments cited by the petitioners were not applicable and specially the judgment at Serial No.II of para 2 of the judgment dated 9.3.2015 and which was a case of Bureau of Indian Standards, employer in the present case. The order of the Division Bench dated 17.9.2015 reads as under:-

"The learned Single Judge has recorded that none of the “1. We are remanding the matter to the learned Single Judge because we find that the judgments cited by learned counsel for the appellants, though noted in paragraph 2 of the impugned order, have not been considered by the learned Single Judge.

2. judgments is applicable.

3. The second judgment noted by the learned Single Judge concerns employees of Bureau of Indian Standards. Their claim for equal pay for equal work with reference to pay scales of Assistants and Stenographers succeeded. We would have expected the learned Single Judge to deal with 4. the law declared in said decision and thereafter given opinion whether the law declared therein was relevant and applicable to the appellants as well.

5. Standards.

6. No.5594/2000 is restored for hearing on merits afresh.

7. Single Judge on October 05, 2015. The writ petition shall be listed for direction before the learned The appellants are also employees of Bureau of Indian The impugned order dated March 09, 2015 is set aside. W.P.(C) W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 16 of 32 8. No costs.” 8. I have already reproduced the legal position as regards the applicability of the doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟. In addition to other aspects petitioners had to plead and substantiate the requirements of eligibility criteria for appointment to the posts of the petitioners to which petitioners are working being the same as the posts in government service, that the scope of duties of the petitioners working in BIS is identical with persons working under Government of India in the similar posts, with BIS as compared to Government of India what are the hierarchy of posts with their similarities etc etc. Supreme Court has repeatedly reiterated in various cases that the onus for discharge and seeking application of doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟ is a serious onus and persons who claim application of this doctrine must show by clear cut evidence and wholesale identity and other relevant aspects before application of the doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟ can be claimed. In the present case, however and as discussed below, it will be seen that petitioners have miserably failed to show equality, identity of eligibility criteria with respect to appointment for the posts in question with respect to the employees of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs and which is the parent ministry of the employer/BIS in the present case.

... Petitioner

s have also failed to W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 17 of 32 substantiate and show hierarchy of posts and promotions including their eligibility criteria for appointment and scope of duties being same. I will take one by one all these aspects as also other aspects.

9. The first requirement is that petitioners had to plead and prove that the eligibility criteria for appointment to the posts in which petitioners were working are identical to the posts in Government of India being the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, the parent ministry and the employer in the present case. Counsel for the respondent/employer has taken this Court through the chart given as Annexure R-1 to its affidavit dated 16.10.2001 which shows that so far as Junior Operators working at different designations with the government department is concerned, such persons for appointment as Junior Operators must have besides matriculation qualification, studying in subjects of Physics and Chemistry as regards Junior Operator whereas for similar posts with the BIS/employer in the present case the only requirement is of matriculate with three years experience in maintenance and operation of machines. Therefore, firstly it is seen that neither the petitioners have pleaded that eligibility criteria for both the posts are identical as there is no such pleading in the writ petition, but even assuming that there is such pleading and petitioners had to substantiate the same, petitioners have however miserably failed in this regard W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 18 of 32 because the eligibility criteria of the similar posts in the government department are different. Though, counsel for the petitioners sought to draw attention of this Court to running page 323 of the paper book which is a Gazette Notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Planning that Junior Machine Operator requires only a matriculate qualification, however, it is seen that the recruitment rules which are referred to on behalf of the petitioners with respect to eligibility criteria are not in the Ministry of Consumer Affairs but are in the Ministry of Health and Family Planning. In any case, and this aspect will be discussed herein below, even assuming that eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Junior Operators with BIS/employer in the present case, with Junior Operators in government services is concerned are same, yet, doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟ will not apply not only because of the fact that two group of employees under different management cannot be treated equal, but also because petitioners have failed to show complete identity of the work duties of the petitioners with similarly placed employees in government departments.

10. The next aspect to be considered is that whether petitioners have identical duties to be performed so far as their scope of duties are concerned with the Junior Operators in government services. W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 19 of 32 In this regard once again it is seen that petitioners have miserably failed to plead that the scope of duties of the petitioners as per circular of the BIS/employer are certain specific duties and which certain specific duties are identical to duties being performed by Junior Operators in the Government of India. Counsel for the petitioners sought to draw benefit from a note dated 14.2.1995 of the BIS/employer wherein it was proposed to grant petitioners same pay- scales as that of the Government of India‟s employees, but such note has no legal effect because a simple note proposal cannot entitle a claim of parity of pay-scales because a note simply states that duties performed by the petitioners in the BIS/employer are similar to staff engaged in the government offices, without actually there being a detailed and exhaustive report of an expert body findings, and hence it cannot be held that a two lines note dated 14.2.1995 will mean that identical work duties are being performed by the petitioners as compared to similar/same employees in the Government of India.

11. In fact, I may note that the BIS/employer has filed its affidavits dated 16.10.2001 and 16.11.2015 and which show that neither the eligibility criteria for appointment nor the scope of work duties of the petitioners are identical with the employees in the W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 20 of 32 Government of India. These relevant paras of the respective affidavits are as under:-

"Affidavit dated 16.10.2001 “4. It is submitted that besides the fact that the scales applicable to the case of petitioners were revised as per the 5th Pay Commission w.e.f 1.1.1996, there is no parity in so far as the nature of work and duties are concerned between those employed in the Govt. and with Bureau. The deponent submits that in the case of hours of work in a week 5. is concerned, the same are different as the employees of the government press are required to work in shifts and are further required to work on Saturdays (half day also) while in the case of respondent, Bureau of Indian Standards, there is only five working days in a week.

6. While in the case of the Government employees there is no provision of encashment of earned leave, the said facility is available to the employees of Bureau. xxxxx 13. Deponent further submits that even the conditions of service in Government of India are different than those in Bureau of Indian Standards. In Bureau of Indian Standards, only single colored off Set Printing Machine is used for printing of standards in black and white, which are of uniform nature and are in the form of booklets. However, in other presses, variety of jobs are undertaken and different varieties is produced/printed like books, magazines, forms, postal stamps and calendar etc. Involving multi-colored printing. These presses have multi colored presses and as such there cannot be any comparison between the nature of duties between the employees of Bureau of Indian Standards and those in Government of India press. Consequently the principles of parity of pay scales between the employees of Bureau of Indian Standards and Government of India press cannot be applied. The petitioner were asked by the concerned department of Bureau of Indian Standards that they must furnish the representations submitted by them but no response to the same was ever received. A copy of the letter addressed to petitioner no.7 is annexed herewith as annexure R-2.” Affidavit dated 16.11.2015 “2. I say that present affidavit is being filed in pursuance to permission having been granted by this Hon‟ble Court on October 5,2015. It is submitted that earlier also affidavit has been filed and it was stated that the Reprography Unit of the respondent, when it was fully operational, was comprising of 1-2 xerox machine, 1 duplicating machine and one offset printing machine. Three persons were employed on Xeroxing and duplicating machines and seven persons were deployed on offset machine and allied equipment. Since the year 2005, the offset machine is not operational and has already been approved for the requisite to Bureau, information in response to W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 21 of 32 Deponent submits condemnation. The employees working in the Reprography unit were being utilized in clerical seats in printing department. Only 2 xerox/duplicating machines were working which do not count to printing press. Despite these facts, seniority of Jr. Operator/Assistant Operator/Sr. Operator/Supervisor was being maintained. In the year 2008, one of the petitioners being petitioner No.4 was promoted as Assistant Operator from Junior Operator; though he has been working on administrative seat in Printing Department since the year 2006.

3. is no separate Reprography Dept./unit in BIS. Reprography activities in BIS were done in Printing Dept. However, printing dept. in BIS was decentralized w.e.f. 2013 and printing activity were distributed among various departments of BIS and only the post of Director (Printing) was retained. Presently, Printing Dept. is not functional. Employees of Printing Dept. have been posted in other departments, not related to printing/reprographic activity. Service details of all concerned petitioners is given in Annexure annexed hereto as Annexure Z. Consequently it would be seen that despite non-operational unit, all personnel have been absorbed and being utilized besides maintaining their seniority and promotions. Consequently, petitioners cannot claim the pay scales under “equal pay for equal work” doctrine.” that there 12. In fact, petitioners have in their reply-affidavit dated 4.12.2015 admitted to the aspect that petitioners are no longer working directly for the job of Junior Operators and now they are performing other clerical jobs with BIS, and this aspect is to be taken with the fact that there is only a general denial in this reply-affidavit dated 4.12.2015 of the petitioners, and general denial cannot take away the specific averments which have been made by the employer/BIS in its affidavits dated 16.10.2001 and 16.11.2015.

13. Therefore, it is held that neither there is identity so far as eligibility criteria for appointment of Junior Operators of BIS in the present case/petitioners and the employees being Junior Operators in W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 22 of 32 Central Government and nor are the work duties identical of the two posts. Also, I may note that any and every evidence or documents filed cannot be considered as sufficient discharge of onus of proof inasmuch as applying the doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟ has grave financial ramifications on the employer. It is for this reason that Supreme Court in its various judgments has observed that a writ court should not enter into this adventure and this is best left to an expert body which will go through the bulky records and evidence. In the present case, on whatever flimsy evidence which the petitioners have filed, (that too without pleading existing for the same), the same cannot be held to be discharge of onus of proof required for applying the doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟.

14. Even as regards the hierarchy posts/promotions neither there is any pleading nor are any documents filed that hierarchy of promotions are similar in the BIS/employer with that of the government departments, and in the absence of specific pleadings and categorical evidence, this Court has to hold that petitioners have failed to discharge their onus of proof for claiming parity of pay-scales even on the hierarchy of the posts, because the petitioners have thus failed to show complete identity with posts in the government departments even as regards hierarchy of the posts in the two organizational structures. W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 23 of 32 15. At this stage, at the cost of repetition, this Court would reiterate the ratios of the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Harbans Lal (supra) and Jagjit Singh (supra), and such ratios categorically state that there is no question of application of doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟ amongst two different organizations i.e Government of India is surely a different organization than an independent entity which is a State under the Government of India being the employer/BIS in the present case. In fact, this had been specifically held by this Court in paras 4 and 5 in the earlier judgment dated 9.3.2015 for dismissing the present writ petition in view of the established principles of law, and therefore this Court did not cite any judgment of the Supreme Court specifically which laid down this principle.

16. On behalf of the petitioners, great stress was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bureau of Indian Standard (BIS) and Ors. Vs. Bureau of Indian Standard Employees’ Union and Ors., LPA No.232/1999 decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 1.8.2000 along with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jute Corporation of India Officers' Association vs. Jute Corporation of India Ltd. and Anr. (1990) 3 SCC436 It was argued that these judgments hold that there has to be parity of pay-scales W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 24 of 32 between autonomous organizations which are State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India with the government employees.

17. I have gone through the judgment of Jute Corporation of India Ltd case (supra) and the judgment of a Division Bench in Bureau of Indian Standard’s case (supra), however I do not find any observations whatsoever in these judgments that the pay-scales of employees of autonomous organizations which are State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India have to be identical pay-scales with Government of India employees. In the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd (supra) Supreme Court was proceeding on an accepted basis that with respect to a pay commission report and a committee report accepting the same pay commission report that there should be identity of pay-scales between the Government of India and employees of various organizations under the government. Therefore, in such a situation of the fact that since a committee has directed giving of a parity, hence parity should be given and was given, however, there is no discussion whatsoever and there is no ratio laid down in the judgment in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd (supra) qua what is the doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟ and under which conditions such doctrine will apply etc etc. The judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.2
decided on 1.8.2000 W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 25 of 32 in Bureau of Indian Standard’s case (supra) simply adopts the ratio in Jute Corporation of India Ltd’s case (supra) and once again there is no issue which is decided in the said case before the Division Bench as to how the doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟ will apply.

18. As already stated above, if at a particular stage in a particular post year Government of India may have decided to give parity as urged in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd (supra), but that does not mean that such a judgment will be a judgment laying down the ratio of application of doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟ for all times in future and for every subsequent pay parity between employees of government organization and government employees who are central government employees. I therefore reject the argument urged on behalf of the petitioners by placing reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Jute Corporation of India Ltd’s (supra) case and Division Bench of this Court in Bureau of Indian Standard’s case (supra) that petitioners on account of ratios of such cases are entitled to benefit of doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟.

19. As a matter of abandonment caution again I would at this stage seek to refer to paras 2 to 7 of the judgment in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd (supra) as also the paras of the judgment dated 1.8.2000 of the Division Bench, and which will substantiate the W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 26 of 32 discussion hereinabove that these judgments did not decide the doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟:-

"“Paras 2 to 7 of the judgment in Jute Corporation of India Ltd Earlier, these employees had approached various High Courts 2. and this Court against the decision of the Central Government to switch them over to the Industrial Dearness Allowance pattern and the incidental steps taken to enforce the said decision. The main reliefs claimed in those petitions were that (i) the employees should be permitted to continue to draw the salary in the scales of pay applicable to them along with the Central Dearness Allowance, (ii) they should be granted all the benefits of pay revision and revision of other allowances which may be announced from time to time by the Central Government for its employees, and (iii) there should be no discrimination between them and those directly-employed by the Central Government and that they should get the same scales of pay and allowances for the same types of jobs in accordance with the principle of "equal pay for equal work".

3. During the course of the hearing, on August 24, 1984, this Court ordered the payment of three additional dearness allowance instalments from August 1, 1983, October 1, 1983 and November 1, 1983 to those employees who were on Central pattern of pay-scales and dearness allowance subject to an individual undertaking by each employee that in case such payment resulted in the employee receiving an excess, such excess would be recovered from him from future payments, if the petitions failed.

4. On February 19, 1986, the Court further ordered that all employees of public sector enterprises following the Central dearness allowance pattern and drawing a basic pay of Rs. 1000 or less, will be entitled to interim reliefs on the same basis and scale as the Government of India employees w.e.f. January 1, 1986. This was also allowed subject to similar undertaking given by each employee.

5. When the matters were posted for hearing on March 14, 1986, the Central Government expressed its willingness to refer to High Power Pay Committee the question regarding the revision of pay scales, additional dearness allowance, compensatory and other allowances and such other incidental aspects relating to the employees governed by the Central pattern of pay-scales and dearness allowance. Accordingly, the Court directed the Central Government to constitute a High Power Pay Committee to go into various aspects relating to pay-scales and other incidental matters including interim relief to the said employees, viz., the employees governed by the Central Government pattern of pay-scales and dearness allowance. The terms of reference of the High Power Pay Committee were as follows:

"I. To examine the present structure of emoluments and conditions of service taking into account the total packet of benefits in cash and kind, W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 27 of 32 available to the workers, clerical staff, supervisors and officers, below the Board level following the Central DA pattern and to suggest changes which may be desirable and feasible. II. To examine the variety of allowances and benefits in kind that are presently available to the above noted employees in addition to pay and DA and suggest rationalisation, simplification thereof with a view to promoting efficiency. III. To examine matters relating to grant of interim relief to the employees of all such public enterprises (belonging to the Government of India and following the Central DA pattern) who are drawing basic pay above Rs. 1000 per month and grant necessary relief to them, if called for. IV. While making recommendations on the above points, the Committee would keep in view other related factors such as scales of pay, DA and allowances prevailing in other public sector undertakings on Industrial DA formula, economic conditions in the country, resources available at the disposal of these public enterprises". The Committee submitted its recommendations by its Final 6. Report of November 2, 1988. However, the Central Government did not act on the said report expeditiously and hence the present writ petitions were filed on various dates praying for relief in the form of a direction to the Central Government to implement the recommendations made in the Report. The Government took several adjournments to disclose its stand on the Report and has now ultimately come out with proposals which are incorporated in the additional affidavit dated 17th April, 1990, filed on behalf of the Union of India by Shri Suresh Kumar, Additional Secretary in the Ministry of Industry, Bureau of Public Enterprises. The affidavit is taken on record. We heard the parties on the proposals contained in the affidavit 7. and found that there was not much controversy over the proposals except in regard to the date of the implementation of the House Rent Allowance. The employees insisted that the said allowance should be given from 1.1. 1986 whereas the Government contended that it can properly be implemented only w.e.f. January 1, 1989, since the Report was of 2nd November, 1988. We, however, direct as follows: (i) The scales of pay and dearness allowance as recommended in the Report will be extended to those employees who have been appointed with specific terms and conditions for grant of Central D.A. This will be equally applicable to the employees who by rules laid down by the public sector enterprises are being paid Central dearness allowance. (ii) The employees appointed on or after January 1, 1989, will be governed by such pay-scales and allowances as may be decided by the Government in its discretion. Those appointed earlier with IDA pattern will continue to be governed in accordance with the terms and conditions of their appointment. (iii) The pay revision for those employees in respect of whom the recommendations are hereby being directed to be implemented hereafter, will take place only as and when similar changes are effected for the W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 28 of 32 Central Government employees. These employees will, however, continue to enjoy the option to switch over to the IDA pattern of the scales of pay etc. on a voluntary basis. (iv) The various recommendations made in the Report will be implemented with effect from the dates as follows. These dates are broadly in conformity with those specified in the Report: Item 1. Revised pay-scales and revised D .A. formula 2. First instalment of Interim Relief 3. Second instalment of Interim Relief 4. CCA as per revised slabs 1.1.1989 (para 11.6 of Chapter 11 of the Report) To be implemented w.e .f. 1.1.1986 (Para 16.1) 1.6.1983 (Para 16.3) 1.3.1985 (Para 16.3) (From 1.1.1986to31.12.1988 CCA will be paid at the existing rate at notional pay in the revised pay-scales(para 11.7 of the report) Ceiling on payment of HRA without production of rent receipt to be revised from 1.12.1988. The existing HRA structure to be reviewed by BPE and revised norms and rates fixed from a prospective date (Ref. Para 5. House Rent Allowance percentage rates as per BPE's OM NO.1(3)/83 BPE (WC) dated 1.7.83, subject to overall ceiling of Rs.1250, 1000, 680, 340 and 310 for Delhi/ Bombay, A, B1 and B2,C1115) and unclassified cities respectively.

6. Medical facilities in terms of para 11.21 of the Report 7. Leave Travel Concession 8. Other Allowances and per The quantum of benefits to be -quisites as per recommen- dations contained in Cha- pters 12 & 13 of the Report (v) The arrears arising on account of pay, DA and other allowances etc., would be adjustable against ad hoc payments made from time to time. Judgment of Division Bench dated 1.8.2000 This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21st April, 1999 of the learned Single Judge. The Bureau of Indian Standards Employees Union, respondent no.1 and respondents 2 and 3 who have been working with appellant no.1 filed a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the appellants herein to revise the pay scale of the Assitants/Stenographers from Rs.1400-2600 to 1640-2900 w.e.f. Ist January, 1986 in terms of the Notification dated 29th October, 1986 to bring them on par with pay decided by the Management of PSEs should be given effect to prospectively in terms of para III. 7 part III of the Report From prospective date to be decided by the Management of the PSBs -do- W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 29 of 32 scales granted to other employees in the Central Government and Public Sector Undertakings. The stand taken by the appellant is that a notification dated 31st December, 1997 was issued by virtue of powers conferred under section 38 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Act, 1986 amending the Bureau of Indian Standards (Terms and conditions of service of employees) Regulations, 1988 granting the scale of pay with effect from the date of the Notification. In the same notification the appellants decided to fill up posts 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment. Therefore, it was argued that the pay scale would be granted only from the date of the Notification and not from Ist January, 1986. The learned Single Judge considered the contentions of the parties and referred to various judgments of the Supreme Court and came to the conclusion that the respondents were entitled to pay scale of Rs.1640- 2600 with effect from 1st January, 1986 and the appellants shall pay the same on that basis. The only question which arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the respondents are entitled to revise pay scales with effect from 1st January, 1986 or with effect from the date of issuance of the Notification by the appellants i.e. 31st December, 1997. The contention which is raised by learned counsel for the appellants is that the respondents are not entitled to revise pay scales with effect from 1st January, 1986 as the principles of equal pay for equal work would not apply as the appellant no.1 is a statutory corporation and it is at their discretion that the revision of scale of pay will be relevant and it will not depend upon the decision of the Government. It is in the discretion of the employer to grant pay scale depending on the nature of work and the mode of recruitment. These contentions were repelled by the learned Single Judge and it was accepted that once the Pay Commission had revised the scale of pay and the government had accepted the same, the appellant no.1 Bureau is bound to follow and the employees are not concerned with the process of recruitment. The matter was also considered by the Division Bench of this Court in other similarly placed employees of other Undertakings and same order was passed as has been passed in the present case. The one such matter went in appeal and the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported as Indian Road Constn. Corpn. Ltd. Vs. K.P. Grover & Ors. 78(1999) Delhi Law Times 691 (DB) held that revision of pay scale on parity with Government Employees will also be applicable to Public Sector Companies and the Division Bench relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 3rd May, 1990 in C.M. P. No.10864 of 1989 in Writ Petition No.13044 of 1984, Jute Corporation of India Limited & Another. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Judgment in Indian Road Constn. Corpn. Ltd.‟s case (supra) reads as follows:-

"“3. According to the learned counsel for the respondents the argument raised on behalf of the appellant did not survive in view of the fact that the respondents were being granted the revised scales as per the judgment of the Supreme Court. He drew our attention to the judgment dated 3rd May 1990 of the Supreme Court in C.M.P. No.10864 of 1989 in Writ W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 30 of 32 Petition No.13044 of 11984, Jute Corporation of India Officer's Association vs. Jute Corporation of India Limited & Another etc. The matter related to claim of revision of pay scales of employees of various Government of India Undertakings/ Public Sector Undertakings. The Supreme Court noted that in these cases the relief claimed was with regard to implementation of the recommendations of High Power Pay Committee in respect of emoluments to be paid to the officers belonging to class I and class II service employed in different Public Sector Enterprises. The employees were claiming that they should be granted all the benefits of pay revision and revision of other allowances which may be announced from time to time by the Central Govt. for its employees and that there should be no discrimination between them and those directly employed by the Central Govt. By the said order the Supreme Court directed that the pay revision for those employees in respect of whom the recommendations were being directed to be implemented will take place only as and when similar changes are effected for the Central Govt. employees. The appellant Corporation was one of the Public Sector Undertakings which was covered by the said order of the Supreme Court. This was followed by a revision of pay scales for the employees of the Govt. of India holding similar posts vide office memo dated 31st July 1990 referred to herein before. By virtue of the said memo the pay scale for posts included in the Assistant Grade of Central Secretariat Service was revised to Rs.1640-2900. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondents the learned Single Judge had only followed the directions contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court referred to above in granting relief to the respondents.

4. We have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and we are of the view that the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 3rd May 1990, which directed implementation of pay scales revised in case of Government servants for the similarly placed employees in public sector undertakings, leaves no scope for the argument now being raised on behalf of the appellant. The pay scales of government employees for the posts in question were revised vide Govt. of India O.M. dated 31st July 1990 and the said revision would automatically be applicable in case of the respondents also, in view of the Supreme Court judgment. As a matter of fact several other Public Sector Undertakings are to said to have implemented the revision of pay scales.” In view of the settled position of law as referred to above we are not inclined to interfered in the judgment of the learned Single Judge which does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The appeal as a consequence is dismissed in limine.” 20. In view of the above discussion, it is seen that petitioners‟ case has absolutely no merit. The petition is wholly frivolous and the employer/BIS has been put to unnecessary expenditure of time, money W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 31 of 32 and energy from the year 2000 when this writ petition was filed i.e over 16 years back, and therefore, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.20,000/- upon each of the petitioners. Half of the costs will be paid by the petitioners to the employer/BIS and half of the costs shall be deposited by the petitioners with the Friendicoes, No.271 & 273, Defence Colony, Flyover Market, Jangpura Side, New Delhi- 110024. Costs be paid/deposited within a period of six weeks. MARCH27 2017 Ne/ib VALMIKI J.

MEHTA, J W.P.(C) No.5594/2000 Page 32 of 32

Court	Delhi High Court
Decided On	Mar-27-2017
Appellant	Sh. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors.
Respondent	Union of India & Ors.

Sh. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. Vs.union of India & Ors. - Court Judgment