DR. P.N. PURI AND ORS.versusSTATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

A                           DR. P.N. PURI AND ORS.
                                          v.
                           STATE OF U.P. AND ORS.

                                JANUARY 29, 1996

B              [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

          Service Law :
                                                                                             Iii
          Equal pay for equal work-Payment of-Fixing of cut-off date-Held,           '
    not arbitrary-Constitution of lndi(t-Arts, 14, 39(d).
c
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)
    No. 955 of 1996.




                                                                                     ....
         From the Judgment and Order dated 21.9.95 of the Allahabad High
D   Court in C. Misc. W. No. 40379 of 1993.

          Sanjay Parkikh for the Petitioners.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

           The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court for direction to
E
    pay the equal pay on par with Medical Officer at Rs. 2200-4000. There was
    a long controversy regarding the ·entitlement of the petitioners and their
    companions for the said scale of pay. Ultimately, it was referred to the
    Anamoly Committee which had decided in his proceedings dated 1.1.1995
    accepting the new pay scales of different posts in the Urban Local bodies,
F   namely, the persons like the petitioners would be paid the scale of pay at
    Rs. 2200-4000 and recommended to upgrade the said scale from November
    7, 1994 and to pay the scales of pay from that date. The Government has
    accepted the above recommendation and issued orders on February 16,
    1995. Calling that order in question, the petitioners have filed the writ
    petition seeking payment of arrears from 1986.
G
           Initially, directions were given by the Court to consider why the         ;   r
    petitioners were not being paid w.e.f. 1.1.1986. After consideration again,
    the respondent filed'an affidavit explaining the circumstances. Undoubted-
    ly, one of the circumstances stated was that previously the petitioners were
H   unequals and were not being paid the same pay and, therefore, they were
                                        1028
-~




                                DR. P.N. PURI v. STATE                            1029

     not entitled lo the same scale of pay. The Division bench of the High Court          A
     dismissed the petition by order dated September 21, 1995.

            It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the
     reason given by the respondents is nol relevant since the Anamoly Com-
     mittee recommended that they are performing the same duties on par with
     the Medical Officers. Therefore, the High Court ought lo have granted                B
     them the scale of pay from 1986. As stated earlier, reasons given in the
     counter-affidavit may not be correct reasons but the Anamoly Committee
     had recommended for payment of same scale of pay to the persons like
     the petitioner w.e.f. November 7, 1994. It is well settled law that fixing a
     date is not arbitrary violating Article 14. It is settled law that the authorities   C
     cannot pick up from their hat and fix a date. The question, therefore, arises
     for decision is: whether the date fixed is arbitrary? The question was
     referred to the Anamoly Committee to advise the Government as to the
     fixation is arbitrary? The question was referred to the Anamoly Committee
     to advise the Government as to the fixation of the scale of pay to which
     persons like the petitioners would be entitled to. The Committee had gone            D
     into the question and recommended the scale of pay of Rs. 2200-4000 to
     the persons like the petitioners and also recommended to give effect from
     the date on which they had decided, namely November 7, 1994. The
     Government having accepted the same and given effect from the date.
     Under those circumstances, it cannot be said that fixation of date is                E
     arbitrary violating Article 14.

            The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.

     G.N.                                                         Petition dismissed.