CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ORS.versusNAURANG SINGH AND ORS.

     y

                    CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ORS.                                A
                                              v.
                              NAURANG SINGH AND ORS.

                                     MARCH 11, 1997

                                                                                       B
                [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.]


               Service Law:

                Equal pay for equal work-Parity in employment-Applicability
         of-Under a notification Union Territory (UT) required to follow pattern of C
         State Government with respect to nature of post, pay scale and revision
         thereof-Accordingly, existing storekeepers in Engineering College given pay
         scale of clerks-However, at the instance of Principal of College, UT revised
         pay scale of storekeepers upwards-Subsequently, UT accepted recommenda-
         tions of Second Pay Commission, inter alia, for panty in pay scales of clerks D
         and storekeepers-But, by .that time existing storekeepers in said "College
         placed in pay scale higher than that recommended by Second Pay Commis-
         sion-Realising the mistake, UT gave to newly recruited storekeepers the pay
         scale recommended by Second Pay Commission-:-But higher pay scale given
         to old storekeepers not withdrawn, treating same Cis personal pay to them
         only-Held: In the circumstances of the case, the doctrine "equal pay for equal E
         work" could not be invoked by the newly recruited storekeepers to claim higher
         pay scale given to old storekeepers-An evident mistake could not constitute
         a valid ground to repeat the same-Constitution of India, 1950-Art. 39(d).

                The respondents were newly recruited storekeepers of an Engineer- F
         ing College. By a Notification issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs,
         Government of India, the appellant was required to follow the pattern of
         the State Government with respect to the nature of the post, pay scale and
..
         revision thereof. Accordingly, the appellants gave the pay scale of clerks
         to five old storekeepers of the Engineering College. However, at the in-
         stance of the Principal of the Engineering College the appellants revised G
         the pay scale of the said five storekeepers upwards. Subsequently, the
         appellants accepted the recommendations of the Second Pay Commission,
         inter alia, for parity in the pay scales of clerks and storekeepers. But, by
         that time the said live storekeepers, as a result of the unscheduled and
         unwarranted upward revision of their pay scale at the instance of the H
                                             965
     966                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS               (1997} 2 S.C.R.

A Pri~cipal, were placed in a pay scale higher than that recommended by the
     Second Pay Commission. The appellants realised that the unscheduled
     upward revision of the pay scale of the said five storekeepers was a
     mistake. Accordingly, the appellants gave to the respondents the pay scale
     recommended by the Second Pay Commission. However, the appellants did
B    not withdraw the higher pay scale of the said five storekeepers, treating
     the same as personal pay to them only.

           Being aggrieved the respondents filed an application before the
     Central Administrative Tribunal claiming the same pay scale as given to
     the said five storekeepers. The respondents invoked the principle "equal
C    pay for equal work". The Tribunal upheld the respondents' claim. Hence


                                                                                  -
     this appeal.

              Allowing the appeal, this Court

              HELD: 1. The mistake committed by the appellant cannot furnish a
D valid or legitimate ground for the Court or the Tribunal to direct the
     appellant to go on repeating the mistake. The doctrine of "equal pay for
     equal work" has no application in such a situation. An evident mistake
     cannot constitute a valid basis for compelling the appellant to keep on
     repeating that mistake. Personal pay cannot furnish a ground for invoking
     the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work". [968-C·E, 968-F.ff, 969·A·B]
E
              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4005 of
     1993.

           From the· Judgment and Order dated 6.3.91 of the Central Ad·
F    ministrative Tribunal, Chandigarh, in 0.A. No. 697/CH of 1989.




     dents.
              Ranjit Kumar for the Appellants.

              S. Ujagar Singh, Davendcr Verma and Salish Vig for the Respon-      -
~G
              The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

        8.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. This appeal is preferred against the
  judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh allowing the
  Original Application filed by respondents 1 to 5 herein. The respondents
H are storekeepers in the Punjab Engineering College. Their claim before the
"y       CHANDIGARH ADMN. ,._ NAURANG SINGH [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.J    967

     Tribunal was that they are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 570-1080 as A
     has been given to five other storekeepers in the same College. The
     respondents invoked the principle "equal pay for equal work". The
     Tribunal has upheld their claim.

            By Notification dated November 1, 1966 issued by the Ministry B
     of Home Affairs, Government of India, the Administrator of Union
     Territory of Chandigarh was required of follow the pattern of Punjab
     Government with respect to the nature of the post, pay scale and the
     revision of pay scales. According to the Punjab pattern, the scale of
     pay of storekeeper was the same as that of the clerks namely Rs.
     60-175, which was later revised to Rs. 110- 250. However, on the basis C
     9f a letter written by the Principal of the Punjab Engineering College,
     Chandigarh, the Chandigarh Administration revised the pay scales of
     three categories including that of storekeeper. As against the pay
     scale of Rs. 110-250, the pay scale of Rs. 160-400 was extended to the
     storekeepers. Because of this proceeding, the five storekeepers work- D
     ing in the College at that time got the benefit of the said higher pay
     scale.    -

          In 1978-79, the Chandigarh Administration accepted and
     brought into force the recommendations of the Second Pay Revision        E
     Committee. According to this recommendation, the pay scale of the
     storekeeper was kept at the same level as that of clerk. (By that date
     the pay scale of Rs. 160-400 was revised to Rs. 570-1080.) The Pay
     Revision Committee recommended the pay scale of Rs. 400-600 for
     the post of storekeeper.
                                                                              F
           Respondents 1 to 5 herein were appointed between the years
     1983 to 1987 i.e. long after the Second Pay Revision Committee's
     recommendations were accepted and enforced. They were appointed
     in the pay scale of Rs. 400-600. After they were so appointed, they
     made a representation for extending the pay scale of Rs. 570-1080 to G
     them also. This was rejected whereupon they approached the
     Tribunal.

           The case of the Administration before the Tribunal was that the
     decision of the Chandigarh Administration contained in its letter H
    968                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [1997] 2 S.C.R.   Y
                                                                                  \
A dated 19.9.75 extending the higher pay scale to storekeepers was a mistake.
    It was an unscheduled and unwarranted revision. The higher pay scale then
    given to storekeepers was the pay scale actually given to Assistants, which
    is a promotion post for storekeepers. This mistake was corrected by the
    Pay Revision Committee whose recommendations were accepted. At the
B   same time it was thought that taking away the said higher pay scale from
    the five persons (to whom it was already_ given) would not be proper and
    advisable and, therefore, the said higher pay was treated as personal pay
    to the said five storekeepers. Inasmuch as 1espondents 1 to 5 were ap-
    pointed after the acceptance of recommendations of Second Pay Revision
C   Committee, the Administration said, the respondents cannot treat the said
    mistake as a precedent nor can they make it a basis for claiming equal pay.
    The Tribunal refused to accept this case.

          We are, however, of the opinion that a mistake committed by the
    Administration cannot furnish a valid or legitimate ground for the
D   Court or the Tribunal to direct the Administration to go on repeating
    that mistake. The proceedings placed before us clearly show that the
    pay revision of September 19, 1975 was an unscheduled one, effected
    merely on the basis of a letter written by the Principal of the College.
    The Administration no doubt could have rectified that mistake. That
E   would have been the most appropriate course but their failure to do
    so cannot entitle the respondents to say that mistake should form a
    basis for giving the higher pay scale to them also. The proceedings of
    the Administration dated 19.8.1982 clearly shows that the said higher
    pay scale was treated as personal to the then existing incumbents. As
    stated above that was really the pay scale admissible to the post of
F
    Assistants which was a promotion post to storekeepers. Both these
    posts cannot be given the same pay scale.

        We are, therefore, of the opinion, that the claim of the respon-
  dents could not have been allowed by the Tribunal. The doctrine of
G "equal pay for equal work" has no application in such a situation. An
  evident mistake cannot constitute a valid basis for compelling the
  Administration to keep on repeating that mistake. Personal pay is
  granted to employees on various grounds. In certain services where
  the matriculation is the minimum educational qualification for a par-
H ticular post, and a graduate joins that post, additional increments arc
         CHANDIGARH ADMN. v. NAURANG SINGH [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY,J.)        969

    given to him to start with. Increments are also given to male employees     A
    for undergoing family planning operation. Such personal pays cannot fur-
    nish a ground for invoking the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work".
    Because it was mistake it was treated as personal pay for existing incum-
    bents. And for future incumbt:nts, the appropriate pay scale was given.

         For the above reasons the appeal is allowed and the .order of the      B
    Tribunal is set aside. No order as to costs.

    v.s.s.                                                   Appeal allowed.




-

-