Rajeshwar Prasad vs State of U.P. and Others

This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.8.2008 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39591 of 1996 whereby the writ petition filed by the Petitioner/Appellant Rajeshwar Prasad was dismissed.

The Appellant was appointed as a Lighting Inspector in Nagar Palika, Allahabad (now Nagar Nigam, Allahabad) on 1st May, 1980. The grievance of the Appellant/Petitioner is that the First Pay Commission Report placed the Lighting Inspectors and Overseers (qualified) in the same pay-scale of Rs. 280 - 464/-, but under the Second Pay Commission Report, the Overseers (qualified) were placed in the new pay-scale of Rs. 485 - 860/-, whereas the Lighting Inspectors were placed in the pay-scale of Rs. 420 - 725/-. The Overseers (qualified) were later designated as Junior Engineers. In the writ petition, it was asserted that Lighting Inspectors and Junior Engineers were discharging the same nature of duties and qualifications for both the posts were same and, therefore, Lighting Inspectors should have been granted pay-scale of Rs. 485 - 860/-equivalent to the pay-scale of Junior Engineers. When the Respondents did not accede to the demand of Lighting Inspectors, the Appellant and three other employees filed Writ Petition No. 4600 of 1986 for a direction to the Respondents to pay salary to the Petitioners in the pay-scale of Rs. 485 - 860/-. The aforesaid petition was disposed of by this Court by judgment and order dated 28th February, 1996 by giving liberty to the Petitioners to supply a copy of the writ petition to the Secretary, Local Self Government, who was to take an appropriate decision for sanction of pay-scale of the Overseers if the Petitioners were rendering the same nature of work. The representation of the Petitioners in the earlier writ petition was rejected by order dated 11th September, 1996. Hence, the Writ Petition No. 39591 of 1996 was filed by the Appellant with a prayer to quash the order dated 11th September, 1996 passed by Respondent No. 2 (annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) and to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to pay the salary of the Petitioners in the grade of Rs. 485 - 860/- (now revised to Rs. 1400 2300/-) with effect from the date of his appointment, as the same grade is being paid to the Overseers.

Learned Single Judge relied upon the decisions of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the matters of State of Haryana and Another Vs. Tilak Raj and Others, State of U.P. and Others Vs. J.P. Chaurasia and Others, State Bank of India and Another Vs. M.R. Ganesh Babu and Others, S.C. Chandra and Ors. v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. AIR 2007 SCW 5840, Union of India and Ors. v. Dineshan K.K. AIR 2008 SCW 591 and Union of India and Ors. v. Hiranmoy Sen and Ors. AIR 2007 SCW 7025 and came to the conclusion that the Petitioner has not described the nature of work performed by Lighting Inspectors and the Overseers nor has anything be stated about their duties. The minimum qualification required for the aforesaid two posts was also not disclosed. Learned Single Judge further held that doctrine of equal pay for equal work can not be automatically applied irrespective of the educational qualification or the source of recruitment or other relevant considerations. Learned Single Judge was also of the opinion that equation of pay must be left to the Executive and must be determined by the expert bodies and if there is any such determination by a Commission or Committee, the Court should normally accept it. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed. Hence, this Appeal.

We have heard learned Counsel for the Appellant/Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that Lighting Inspectors and Junior Engineers (qualified) performed the same nature of duties and should have been placed in the same pay-scale. The First Pay Commission Report placed the Overseers (qualified) and Lighting Inspectors in the same pay-scale of Rs. 280 - 464/-, but in the Second Pay Commission Report different pay-scales were fixed for the Overseers (qualified) and Lighting Inspectors. Learned Counsel submitted that learned Single Judge committed illegality in not having considered the fact that the Junior Engineers and the Lighting Inspectors were performing the same nature of work and their qualifications were also the same.

Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents has supported the impugned judgment and contended that there is nothing on record to show that Lighting Inspectors were performing the same nature of work and duties, as the Overseers (qualified) and even otherwise the equivalent of posts and equivalent of pay structure should generally be left to the Executive and the expert bodies like the Pay Commission.

In the case of M.R. Ganesh Babu (supra), the Apex Court held that equal pay must depend upon the nature of work done. It can not be judged by mere volume of work; there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility.

In S.C. Chandra''s case (supra), the Apex Court held that granting pay-scales is a purely executive function and hence the Court should not interfere with the same and it may have a cascading effect creating all kinds of problems for the Government and authorities and, therefore, the Court should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in such executive functions. The same view was reiterated by the Apex Court in Hiranmoy Sen''s case (supra).

In the writ petition, the Appellant/Petitioner failed to show the nature of duties performed by Lighting Inspectors and the duties performed by Junior Engineers. The minimum qualification or eligibility required for the twin posts have also not been disclosed. In these circumstances, the principle of equal pay for equal work would hardly be applicable. Further more, it is for the Pay Commission and the Government to decide and determine the pay-scales of different cadres keeping in mind the nature of duties performed by them and the nature of responsibilities fastened on them and also various other factors. The findings recorded by learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference in the Appeal.

The Special Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.