Holding

The differentiation in pay scales has a rational basis linked to functional differences and does not amount to discrimination under Articles 14 and 16(1).

Summary

The petitioners, Grade I stenographers attached to heads of the Customs and Central Excise Departments, claimed that they were paid less (Rs.550‑900) than their counterparts attached to Joint Secretaries and higher officers in the Central Secretariat (Rs.650‑1040) and alleged discrimination under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The respondents relied on the Third Pay Commission, which recommended lower pay scales for stenographers in non‑participating attached offices, citing differences in functional requirements, responsibility, confidentiality and the nature of work. The Court examined whether the classification was arbitrary or had a rational nexus to the object of differentiation. It held that the differentiation was based on intelligible criteria relating to the nature and responsibility of the work and therefore did not constitute unlawful discrimination. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the pay differentiation between stenographers attached to heads of departments and those attached to Joint Secretaries violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the differentiation violates Article 16(1) of the Constitution.
Whether the classification made by the Third Pay Commission has a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16(1), s. Article 39(d)

Subjects

equal pay for equal workdiscriminationArticle 14Article 16(1)pay commissioncivil service classificationfunctional differentiationstenographerscustomscentral excise

Judgment

A FEDERATION OF ALL INDIA CUSTOMS & CENTRAL
EXCISE STENOGRAPHERS (RECOGNISED) & ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

MAY 5, 1988
B
[R.S. PATHAK, C.J, AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.]

Service matter-Stenographers of Grade I attached with officers in

I
pay scale of Rs.2500-2750 (Level I) in the Customs and Central Excise
Departments of Ministry of Finance, seeking pay parity with steno-
graphers attached to Joint Secretaries and officers above in the Ministr;,
c alleging discrimination violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of Constitution
of India, and that there being no basis for differentiation between
petitioners and their counterparts.

By this writ petition, Personal Assistants and Stenographers
D (Grade I) in the pay-scale of Rs. 550-900 attached with officers in the
pay-scale of Rs.2500-2750 (Level I) i.e. heads of the departments in the
Customs and Central Excise Departments of the Finance Ministry,
sought parity with the pay scale of the stenographers attached to the
Joint Secretaries and the officers above. The petitioners asserted that ·~
they had been and were discriminated vis-a-vis the personal assistants
E and stenographers attached to the Joint Secretaries and the officers
above in the Ministry, and claimed that they should be placed In the pay
scale of Rs.650-1040 with effect from 1st January 1973. They contended
that the basic qualifications, method, manner and source of recruit-
ment and grades of promotion were the same as of their counterparts
attached to the Joint Secretaries/Secretaries and other officers In the y
F Secretariat. According to them, even on the criteria adopted by the
Third Pay Commission there was no basis for any differentiation bet-
ween the petitioners and their counterparts. While the petitioners got a
grade of Rs.550·900, their counterparts were in the pay scale of
Rs.650-1040. The petitioners asserted that this differentiation without
any rational basis was discrimination violative of Articles 14 and 16(1)
G of the Constitution of India. They contended for equal pay for equal
work, and alleged discrimination in the adoption of the recommendation
of the Third Pay Commission. "°"·
The respondents denied that there was any discrimination, dlf·
ferentiatlon without basis and referred to the Report of the Third Pay
H Commission, recommending different .and low scales of pay for the
998
ALL INDIA CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE v.U.0.1. 999
t
stenographers of the non-participating attached and subordinate offices
A
in comparison with those in the Central Secretariat. It was emphasised
that the difference in the functional requirements of the work done was
a point. In devising any scales of various posts/categories inter alia the
degree of skill, experience involved, training required, responsibility
taken, strain, fatigue, risk and confidentiality undertaken, mental and
} physical requirements were the factors to be home in mind. B

Dismissing the petition with an observation, the Court,

HELD: The petition had to be disposed of on the basis of the

i position prevailing prior to the report of the Fourth Pay Commission
and its acceptance/implementation. [100'7Bl

Equal pay for equal work is a fundamental right. But equal pay
must depend upon the nature of the work done. It cannot be .iudged by
c

the mere voiume of work; there may be qualitative difference as regards
reliability and respollSibility. Functions may be the same but the
responsibilities make a difference. Often the difference is a matter of D
degree and 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 bonafide,
reasonably on an Intelligible criteria, having a rational nexus with the
,~ object of differentiation, such dl!Terentlatlon will not amount to dis·
crlmlnatlon. Equal pay for equal work Is a concomitant of Article 14 of E
the Constitution. But It follows that equal pay for unequal work will be
a negation of that right. [1009A·Cl
•
Differentiation In Implementing the award or the recommends·
·~ tlons of Pay Commission without rational basis may amount to dis·
crlminatlon. However, In this case, there Is an element of faith, rellabll· F
lty and responsibility and the functional responsibilities and the
requirements of persons doing the same amount of physical work may
be different In some cases, depending upon the officers with whom the
stenographers and personal assistants are attached. The basic prlncl·
pies on which differentiation would not amount to discrimination, viola·
tive of Article 14 or Article 16(1) of the Constitution are well-settled. G
~ Article 14 strikes at the arbitrariness In State action and ensures fair·
ness and equality of treatment. It Is attracted where equals are treated
differently without any reasonable basis. Equal laws must be appiled
equally and there should be no discrimination between one person and
another If as regards the subject-matter of either administrative action
or legislation, their position ls substantially the same. Article 14 forbids H
1000 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 3 S.CR. ~.

class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of
A
legislation or administrative mandate. The classification must, how-
ever, be fonnded on an intelligible basis which distinguishes persons or
things grouped together from those left out of the group and that dif-
ferentia must have a rational nexus with the object to be achieved by the
differentiation made in the statute or order in question. There ought to
B be causal connection between the basis of classification and the object
of classificatiou. The observations of the Constitution Bench of this
Court in D.S. Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India, [1983) Z S.C.R. 165
may be seen in this connection. [1009D; lOllB-G) •

In this case; differentiation had been sought to be justified in view
of the nature and the types of the work done, that is, on intelligible
c basis. The same amount of physical work may entail different quality of
work, some more sensitive, some requiring more tact, some less-it
varies with nature and culture of employment. The problem about
equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula. If
it has a rational nexus with the object to be sought for a certain amount
D of value judgment of the administrative authorities charged with fixing
the pay scale has to be left with them and it cannot be interfered with by
the Court unless it is demonstrated that either it is irrational or based
on no basis or arrived at ma/a fide either in law or fact. In the light of
the averments made and in the facts of this case, it was not possible to
say that the differentiation was based on no rational nexus with the
E object sought to be achieved. This application must fail and was dismis-
sed. This, however, would not in any way prevent or prejudice the Gov-
ernment from reviewing the situation in the light of the report of the •
Fourth Pay Commission or any other appropriate body, if any, with
such modification as the Government and the authorities concerned
considered fit and proper. [1013G-H; 1014A-D)
F
Purshottam Lal & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr., AIR 1973 SC
1088; Laljee Dubey & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1974) 2 S.C.R.
249; Randhir Singh v. Union of India & Ors., [1982) 3 SCR 298; D.S.
Nakara & Ors. v. Union of India, [1983) 2 SCR 165; P.K. Rama-
chandra Iyer & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1984) 2 SCR 200; Delhi
G Vetrinary Association v. Union of India & Ors., [1984) 3 SCR 429; P.
Savita v. Union of India & Ors., [1985) Suppl. I SCR JOI; Surinder ~
Singh and Anr. v. Engineer-in-chief, C.P. W.D. & Ors., [1986) I SCC
639; Frank Anthony Public School Employees' Association v. Union of
India & Ors., [1986) 4 SCC 707; Dhirendra Chamoli & Anr. v. State of
U.P., [1986) 1 SCC 637; Union of India & Anr. v. R.G. Kashikar &
H Anr., AIR 1986 SC 431; M.P. Singh Deputy Superintendent of Police,
ALLINDIACUSTOMS&CENTRALEXCISEv. U.0.1. [MUKHARJl,J.] 1001

C.B.I. and Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., J.T. 1987 1 SC'l46 and M/s.
A
Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co. Ltd. v. Audrey D'Costa & Anr., SLP
(Civil) No. 1265/87 decided on March 26, 1987, referred to.

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 5019 of 1982.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) B

M.S. Ganesh for the Petitioner.

V.K. Kanth, N.S. Das Behal and Ms. Sushma Relan for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c
SABY ASACHI MUKHARJI, J. This petition under Article 32 of
the Constitution, in a representative capacity on behalf of the
stenographers (Grade I) who are attached with officers in the pay scale
of Rs.2500-2750 (Level I), seeks parity with the pay scale of the D
stenographers attached to the Joint Secretaries and officers above that
rank. It is stated that the petitioners are in the pay scale of Rs.550-900.
The petitioners claim that they should be placed in the pay scale of
Rs.650-1040 with effect from 1st of January, 1973. It must, however,
be mentioned that this petition was filed on or about 7th of May, 1982
and submissions on this petition were made in the end of November, E
1986. Therefore, the position pertaining to the controversy in this case
is prior to the report or the implementation of the Fourth Pay Commis-
sion. In short, the petitioners are personal assistants and steno-
graphers attached to the heads of the departments in the Customs and
Central Excise Departments of the Ministry of Finance. They assert
that they have been and are discriminated vis-a-vis personal assistants F
and stenographers attached to the Joint Secretaries and officers above
them in the Ministry. In brief, it is the case of the petitioners that
between 28th of January, 1955 to 8th of November, 1957 the Ministry
of Finance prescribed certain educational qualifications and technical
proficiency qualifications for both Stenographers and Steno-typists.
On or about 26th of April, 1968, the Department of Revenue, Central G
Board of Excise and Customs made provisions for filling the posts of
Stenographers by direct recruitment and prescribed qualifications etc.
for the same. In July, 1969 the Government of India, Ministry of
Home Affairs classified the posts of Stenographers sanctioned at diffe-
rent levels into four grades viz., Grade III, II; I and Selection Grade.
Posts attached to Secrataries and Additional Secretaries were classi- H
1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 3 S.C.R.
1
fied as Selection Grade originally and were given pay of Rs.350
A
(500)900 with effect from 1st of August, 1969; Stenographers Grade-II
(Rs.210-530) placed with Joint Secretaries and officers of equivalent
rank were upgraded to Grade I in the pay scale of Rs.350(400)-770;
Grade-II stenographers were given Rs.210-530; Grade III steno-
graphers were given Rs.130-280 and Grade-III in petitioners' offices
B were given Rs.130-300. It is the case of the petitioners that the
counterparts of the petitioners (Grade-II Stenographers) were in the
pay scale of Rs.210-530 and petitioners in Rs.210-425. Criteria of pay
scales/status/rank of officers for the scale of pay of stenographers were '
made out. In 1970 Ministry of Home Affairs set out the category of
officers viz. Joint Secretaries to the Government of India and officers
of equivalent rank are entitled to the sanction of scale of category of
c stenographers Grade-I-Sr.P.A. in the pay-scale of Rs.350-770. Cri-
teria of status/rank of an officer was again established for the pay scale
of stenographers. Ministry of Home Affairs on or about 29th of June,
l
1972 pursuant to the decision taken on that date reached in the
NCJCM relates to creation of posts of Stenographers Grade-I and
D Grade-II in subordinate offices and other offices of the Government
of India and also identified/set out/clarified that the posts of Steno-
graphers attached to officers whose status is higher than that of De-
puty Secretary to the Government of India shall be in the scale of
Rs.210-425. Criteria of status of an officer for scale of pay of Steno-
graphers was again established. Thereafter there was the Third Pay
E Commission's report which was accepted and recommendations were
given effect to. As a result of the various Government notifications
thereafter and Rules framed, it is the case of the petitioners that their
counterparts, that is to say, Stenographers Grade-I attached/sane- •
tioned to the Joint Secretaries and equivalent officers were given the
pay scale of Rs.650(710)-1040; whereas the petitioners whose posts
were/are sanctioned and attached with the officers of the same Gover-
)I
F
men! Ministry of Finance and the Department of Revenue and the
same administration and Grade Level I (Rs.2500-2750) Joint Secre-
taries and Level-II (Rs.2250-2500) Directors, who are also Heads of
Departments, and are at par in seniority/promotion with the coun-
terparts officers in the Department of Revenue were given only
G Rs.425-700, whereas the Stenographers Grade-I/Senior Grade, the
petitioners discharged the same functions and indeed, have sometimes
more onerous duties and responsibilities than their counterparts
Ji
attached with Joint Secretaries and Level-II Directors, according to
the petitioners. From the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioners in
reply to the opposition by the respondents, it appears that the method
H of recruitment in respect of Grade-I stenographers in the Department
are as follows:
ALLINDIACUSTOMS&CENTRALEXCISEv. U.0.1. [MUKHARJl,J.J 1003

(i) Petitioners' counterparts in the so-called Secretariat & participat-
A
ing attached offices-CSSS.

Grade of Classi- Designation/level/ Date of
Stenographers fication. status/rank/grades sanction/
and scale of and pay scales of or up-
)- pay. officers for whom gradation. B
sanctioned/attached.

(1) (2) (3) (4)

r Grade-B
(Grade-I)
Central
Civil
Rs.650-(710)- Service
1040. Group'B'
(Gazetted)
(i) Joint Secretaries
& Equivalent.
Rs.2500-2750

(ii) Directors &
Ll.1973 c

Equivalent.
Rs .2250-2500 12.11.1975
(iii) Directors & D
Equivalent.
Rs.2000-2250 23.1.1984

(ii) Petitioners' Officers i.e. so called non-participating attached and
subordinate offices (Directorates & Collectorates of Customs &
Central Excise): E

• (1) (2) (3) (4)

Grade-I Central (i) Heads of the Departments
·~ Rs.550-900 Civil • Directors/
Service Collectors of F
Group'B' Customs & Central
(non- Excise Level-I
gazetted). Equivalent to
Joint Secretaries
Rs.2500-2750. 4.7.1978
(ii) Directors/
G
Collectors of
Customs & Central
Excise Level-II
Equivalent to
Directors (IRS
IC & CE Service H
1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 3 S.C.R.

Rs.2250-2500 4.7.1978
A (iii) Directors/
•• Generals/
Principal Collectors
i.e. Level-I Col-
lectors + Rs.250
S.P. Equivalent to
B pay scale of
Addi. Secretary
Rs.3000 i.e. Rs.2500.
-2750 +SP of
Rs.250
• ;•• All Heads
c of the Depart-
ments.
x x x x x x x
(iii) Comparative Position

D Officers' pay scales Pay scales of Petitioners
in the two offices Stenographers pay scales with
(Petitioners & their Gr. I in Sect!. these officers.
counterparts) & Participating
Offices (Petitioners
counterparts)
sanctioned with these
E
officers.
(1) (2) (3)

Rs.2500-2750 Rs.650(710)-1040 Rs.425-700
w.e.f.1.1.1973. w.e.f.1.1.73
Rs.550-900
F
w.e.f.4.7.78
Rs.2250-2500 Rs.650(710)-1040 Rs.425'700
w.e.f.12.11.75. w.e.f.1.1.73
Rs.550-900
w.e.f.4.7.78.
G Rs.2000-2250 Rs.650(710)/1040 Rs.425-700
w.e.f.23.1.1984. w.e.f.1.1.1973
Rs.2500-2750 + Rs.650(775)-1200 Rs.550-900
Sp! Pay of Rs.250 w.e.f. 1.1.73
i.e. Rs.3000
H
ALL INDIA CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE v. U.0.1. [MUKHARJI, J. I 1005

In the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioners in this applica-
A
tion by one Ved Bhardwaj, General Secretary of the Federation, it is
stated that the correct position of recruitment and position vis-a-vis the
petitioners counterparts in the so-called secretariat and participating
attached offices are as follows:

"(i) The petitioners and their Secretariat counterparts are B
both members of the same Central Civil Service;

- (ii) They are both Stenographers Grade-I. belonging to
Group 'B' of the Service except that the Secretariat Steno-
graphers are gazetted, whereas the petitioners are not. This
exception is a purely fortuitous circumstances;
c
(iii) The petitioners and their counterparts are both sanc-
tioned, assigned to and attached with officers who are in
the pay scales of Rs.2500-2750, Rs.2250-2500 and Rs.2000-
2250;
D
(iv) Majority of the petitioners' posts are sanctioned/
attached with Heads of the Department."

The petitioners assert that the above facts reinforce the petition-
ers' submissions that as between them and their Secretariat coun-
terparts all things are equal i.e., all relevant considerations governing E
both are the same and they hold identical posts. According to the

- petitioners they discharge the same functions and, indeed, some times
more onerous duties and responsibilities than their counterparts
whether in the Ministry of Finance or other Ministeries in the Central
Secretariat. In the very nature of their service and its concomitant
duties and obligations, which concern the administration and execu- F
tion of matters falling under the Customs Act, 1962, the Central Ex-
cise and Salt Act, 1944, the Foreign Exchange Regulations Act, 1973
and other Acts. The petitioners have various duties to perform whlch
according to them are as follows:

"(a) long and arduous hours of work, generally extending G
late in the evening beyond normal office hours and
sometimes throughout the night in cases of emer-
gency that have become all too frequent owing to
increased punitive and preventive detention cases
arising under these Acts resulting in proceedings
before all levels of Courts including this Honourable H
1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) 3 S.C.R.

A Court, and a spate of Parliament Questions affecting
the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, and
the petitioners' Department in particular in all its
administrative aspects and ramifications. The peti-
tioners have no option but to discharge these duties
when called upon to do so and their willingness to
B forego overtime (in cases where the Stenographers
are entitled) is not accepted by the officers as afford-
ing an excuse to relieve the petitioners of such duties
and hours of work.

(b) an excessively recurring volume of dictation and
typing, day to day to cope with the normal and emer-
c gent exigencies, including written correspondence,
recording and transcribing of notes on inspection tours
and preparation of investigation and tour reports for
the superior officers; of notes and memoranda for
counsel in court proceedings, of briefs for official
D statements and conferences and replies to Parliament
Questions and the Public Accounts Committee, Cham-
bers of Commerce, Customs and Central Excise Advis-
ory Councils and other bodies on fiscal policies like
Commissions/Committees, detailed reports constitu-
ting background material with reference to cases or
E matters falling within the purview of any one or more
of the aforesaid Acts, and so on.

(c) observing the very stringent requirements of secrecy
necessarily involved in such cases or matters,

(d) the consequent constant exposure to security risks and
l'' to personal safety with accompanying mental tension
and strain."

The petitioners assert that basic qualifications, method, manner
and source of recruitment and grades of promotions are the same as
G their counterparts attached to the Joint Secretaries/Secretaries and
other officers in the Secretariat. According to the petitioner even on
the criteria adopted by the Third Pay Commission they seek herein to
demonstrate that there was no basis for any differentiation between
the petitioners and their counterparts. While the petitioners get a
grade of Rs.550-900 their counterparts are in the pay scale of Rs.650-
H 1040. The petitioners assert that this is discrimination. This differenti-
ALLINDIACUSTOMS&CENTRALEXCISEv. U.0.1. (MUKHARJI,l.J 1007

ation without any rational basis is discrimination violative of Article 14
A
and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. They clamour for equal
pay for equal work. They also allege that their has been discrimination
in the adoption of the recommendations of the Third Pay Commission
as detailed in their petition.

This petition has been disposed of on the basis of the position B
prevailing prior to the report of the Fourth Pay Commission and its
acceptance or implementation. The respondents on the other hand
deny that their is any discrimination, differentiation without basis. The
respondents by their affidavit filed by one Shri S.P. Kundu, Under
Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance assert that
the Secretariat of the Ministries/Departments of the Government of
India together constitute Headquarters Organisation. In the adminis- c
trative hierarchy of the Central Government, the Secretariat occupy
according to respondents a key position and the main role of the Sec-
retariat is to help the Government in the tasks of formulation of
policies, to prepare programmes in order to translate these policies,
into co-ordinated action and to ensure the effective execution of Gov- D
ernment policies through periodical review. The Secretariat also he!~
Ministers to discharge their accountability to Parliament including the
various Parliamentary Committees. According to the respondents
detailed execution of Government's policies specially in the field is left
to the agencies outside the Secretariat which are called attached or
subordinate offices of the Ministries, but they are always subject to E
supervision by the Secretariat. The respondents state that to man the
various stenographic posts in the Headquarters, the Government con-
stituted the Central Secretariat Stenographers Service (CSSS) which
I
also cater to the needs of such posts in several attached offices which

.""' are known as participating offices. But none of the attached offices,
assert the respondents, of the Department of Revenue are "Participat- F
ing offices. Therefore, keeping in view the importance and the nature
and the !y"Pe of the work performed in the Ministries/Departments of
the Government of India vis-a-vis those in the attached and subordi-
nate offices and consequently the nature of stenographic assistance
required, according to the respondents the Third Pay Commission
recommended different scales of pay for Stenographers in CSSS and G
those in the non-participating attached and subordinate offices. The
respondents :in this connection have drawn our attention to the Report
of the Third Pay Commission in recommending different and lower
scales of pay for the stenographers of the non-participating attached
and subordinate offices in comparison with those in the Central Sec-
retariat as follows: H
1008 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 3 S.C.R.
-1
A "As a general statement, it is correct to say that the
basic nature of a stenographer's work remains by and large
the same whether he is working with an officer in the sec-
retariat or with an officer in the subordinate office. We
feel, however, that the position needs to be examined a
B little more critically because. the size of a stenographer's
job is very much dependent upon the nature of the work
entrusted to that officer. It would not be correct therefore
to·-go merely by status in these matters and disregard the
functional requirements. By the very nature of Secretariat

l
working the voli.une of dictation al)£! typing work can be
expected to be heavier than in a subordinate office. Also
c the requirement of secrecy even in the civil offices of the
Secretariat can be very stringent. Considering the differ-
ences in the hierarchical structure and in the type of work
transacted in the Secretariat and i!tthe subordinate offices,
we are not in favour of adopting a uniform pattern. Once
the functional requirements are seen to be different for the
D
Secretariat and the subordinate office, it will not be worth-
while to aim for absolute parity in the pay scale of
Stenographers working on the two sides."

What was emphasised before us was that thewdifference in the
functional requirements of the work done was one of the points. The
E
respondents say that in devising any scales of various posts/categories,
inter alia, the degree of skill, experience involved, training required,
responsibility taken, strain, fatigue, risk and confidentiality underta-
ken, mental and physical requirements are factors to be borne in mind.
It has been emphasised by the respondents that though the duties and
F
works are identical between the petitioners and their counterparts y
attached to the Secretaries in the Secretariat, their functions are not
identical with regard to their duties and responsibilities. The respon-
dents state that the stenographers attached with the officers in the
Secretariat formed a distinguishable class as they have to assist the
officers in the discharge of their duties and high responsibilities which
according to the respondents are of a much higher nature than in the
G
attached and subordinate offices. According to the respondents the
Joint Secretaries and Directors in the Central Secretariat performed ~-'
functions and duties of higher responsibilities than those performed by
the Heads of Departments although they are borne on identical scales
of pay. It is in this background of the facts that the claims of the
H petitioner have to be judged.
ALLINDIACUSTOMS&·CENTRALEXCISEv. U.0.1. [MUKHARJl,J.I 1009
~·
Equal pay for equal work is.~ fundamental right .. But equal Pl!Y
A
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 re-
gards 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 B
the scales of pay and other conditions of service. So long as such value
judgment is made bona fide, reasonably on an intelligible criteria
which has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation, such
differentiation will not amount to discrimination. It is important to

r emphasise 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 that right.

We may briefly note the principles evolved by this Court in this
respect in the backdrop of varied set of facts. Differentiation in imple-
c

menting the award or the recommendations of Pay Commission without
rational basis may amount to discrimination. 1n Purshottam Lal & D
Others. v. Union of India & Anr., A.LR. 1973 SC 1088 it was held that
implementation of the revised pay scale in a particular category of
servants from a date later than that recommended by the Pay Commis-
sion and thus non-implementation of its report only in respect of those
persons amounts to violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution,
the Constitution Bench held. In Laljee Dubey and Others v. Union of E
India and Others, [1974) 2 S.C.R. 249 this principle was reiterated
again. This Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India & Ors., [1982) 3
S.C.R. 298 had to deal with the case of a driver constable in the Delhi
Police Force under the Delhi Administration. The scale of pay in the
Delhi Police Force was for non-matriculate drivers Rs.210-70 and for
'
-~ matriculate drivers Rs.225-308. The scale of pay of a driver in the F
Railway Protection Force was Rs.260-400. The scale of pay of drivers
in the non-secretariat offices in Delhi was Rs.260-6-326-EB-8-350,
while that of Secretariat offices in Delhi was Rs.260-6-290-EB-6-326-8-
366-EB-8-8-8-390-10-400. The scale of pay of drivers in the office of
the Language Commission was Rs.260-300 while the drivers of heavy
vehicles in the Fire Brigade and the Department of Light House was G
Rs.330-480. The petitioner and other driver constables made a rep-
;.... resentation to the authorities that their case was omitted to be con-
sidered separately by the Third Pay Commission and that their pay
scales should be the same as the drivers of heavy vehicles in other
departments. As their claims for better scales of pay did not meet with
success, the said applii:ation was filed by the _petitioner for the issue of H
1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) 3 S.C.R.
1
a writ under Art. 32 of the Constitution. It was allowed by the Court.
A
Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking for a Bench of three learned judges of
this Court reiterated the following principles:

"(a) 'Equal pay for equal work' is not a mere
demagogic slogan but a constitutional goal capable of
B attainment through constitutional remedies, by the en-
forcement of constitutional rights (under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India).

(b) The stand (of the Government of India) that the
circumstance that persons belonging to different depart-

•
ments of the Government is itself a sufficient circumstance
c to justify different scales of pay irrespective of the identity
of their powers, duties and responsibilities, is unacceptable
and untenable.

(c) While equation of posts and equation of pay are
0 matters primarily for the Executive Government and
expert bodies like the Pay Commission and not for the
Courts, where all things are equal i.e. where all relevant
considerations are the same, persons holding identical
posts may not be treated differentially in the matter of their

E
pay merely because they belong to different departments. ..
(d) The principle of equal pay for equal work is not
an abstract doctrine when applied to Government servants
performing similar functions and having identical powers,
duties and responsibilities.
-
F (e) As maiter of interpretation, the Directive Princi- y
pies, e.g. Article 39(d) of the Constitution, have to be and
have been read into the Fundamental Rights, e.g. Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution. So read, the principle of
equal pay for equal work, though not expressly declared by
our Constitution to be a fundamental right, is a constitu-
G tional goal. Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the
Preamble and Article 39(d), the principle of 'equal pay for
equal work' is deducible from those Articles and may be ~ '
properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on
no classification or irrational classification though those
drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under
H the same employer."
ALL INDIA CUSTOMS & CENTRAL EXCISE v. U:O.I. [MUKHARJI, J. I 1011
;-
The Court further expressed the view that on the aforesaid
A
interpretation in the facts of that case, it was proper to direct the
Central Government to fix pay scales on par for persons doing identi-
cal work l!nder the same employer. It is, however, to be borne in mind
what has been emphasised by the respondents in the instant case on
this aspect. that case related to the drivers who had been doing physi-
cal work, in the case of stenographers and personal assistants, there is B
an element of faith, reliability and responsibility and the functional
responsibilities and the requirements of persons doing same amount of
physical work may be different in some cases depending upon the
I officers with whom the stenographers and personal assistants are
attached. On behalf of the petitioners, it is emphasised that Heads of
Departments who are in the senior Administrative Grade-Level-I
(Rs.2500-2750) which is equivalent to the pay scale of the Joint Sec- c

' retaries in the Ministries and their nature of work is virtually the same.
They have also to deal with sensitive matters. The basic principles on
which differentiation would not amount to discrimination, violative of
either Article 14 or Article 16(1) of the Constitution are well settled.
Article 14 of the Constitution strikes at the arbitrariness in State action D
and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. It is attracted where
equals are treated differently without any reasonable basis. The princi-
pie underlying the guarantee is that all persons similarly circumstanced
shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liabilities im-
~ posed. Equal laws must be applied equally and there should be no
discrimination between one person and another if as regards the E
subject-matter of either administrative action or of legislation, their
position is substantially the same. Article 14 forbids class legislation
but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation or
administrative mandate. The classification must, however, be founded
I on an intelligible basis which distinguishes persons or things that are
~ grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that F
differentia must have a rational nexus with the object to be achieved
by the differentiation made in the statute or order in question. In other
words, there ought to be causal connection between the basis of clas-
sification and the object of the classification. See in this connection the
observations of the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of
D.S. Nakara & Others v. Union of India, [1983] 2 S.C.R. 165. See also G
P. K. Ramachandra Iyer & Others v. Union of India & Others, I1984] 2
~ S. C.R. 200, where this Court at page 226 of the Report reiterated that
the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is deducible from those
Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Article 39(d) of the
Constitution and might be applied properly in the cases of unequal
scales of -pay based on no classification or irrational classification 'H

...,
1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (19881 3 S.C.R.

A though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work
under the same employer. In Delhi Veterinary Association v. Union of
India & Others, [1984) 3 S.C.R. 429, which was dealing with Veteri-
nary Assistant Surgeons working in the Delhi Administration: It was
observed dismissing the writ petition that the question of the .fixation
of pay scale for Veterinary Assistant Surgeons should be left to be
B decided by the Government on the basis of the recommendation of the
Fourth Pay Commission. The question of discrimination cannot be
decided in isolation. This Court reiterated that in addition to the
principle of 'equal pay for equal work', the pay structure of the emp-
loyees of the Government should reflect many other social values.
This Court also emphasised the need for evolution and implementa-
C tion of a scientific national policy of incomes, wages and prices. In P.
Savita v. Union of India & Ors., [1985] Suppl. 1 S.C.R.101 this Court
was dealing with Senior Draughtsmen doing the same work and dis-
charging the similar functions and duties. They were classified into two
groups, on the basis of seniority with two different pay scales. The
question was whether it was discriminatory. It was held that it was.
D This Court reiterated that a group of draughtsmen entitled to higher
scale of pay was not selected by any process nor is it based on any
merit-cum-seniority basis, but is based only on seniority-cum-fitness.
Moreover, it was found that the senior draughtsmen divided into two
groups were in the same department doing identical and same work. It
was not a case of different grades created on the ground of higher
E qualification either academic or otherwise or an entitlement by any
other criteria. Thus the classification between the two groups of senior
draughtsmen was without any basis. In view of the total absence of any
plea in that case on the side of the respondents that the Senior •
Draughtsmen who were placed in the advantageous group do not
perform work and duties more onerous or different from the work
F performed by the appellants groups in that case, it was held that this
grouping violated Article 14 of the Constitution. It reiterated that the
principle of 'equal pay for equal work' would be· an abstract doctrine
not attracting Article 14 if quality is made critarion for.differentiation.
See also Surinder Singh and Anr. v. Engineer-in-Chief, C.P. W.D. and
Others, [1986] 1 SCC 639. This Court in a different context had to
G decide this question in Frank Anthony Public School Employees' As-
sociation v. Union of India and Others, [1986] 4 SCC 7fJ7. It was held
that there cannot be discrimination in pay and other conditions of
service of school teachers merely on the basis of aided and unaided
minority schools.

H As js evident the facts of the instant case are entirely different.
f ALLINDIACUSTOMS&CENTRALEXC!SEv. U.0.1. [MUKHARJI,J.[ 1013

Here the differentiation is sought to be justified on the similarity of the
A
functional work but on the dissimilarity of the responsibility, confiden-
tiality and the relationship with public etc. In Dhirendra Chamoli and
another v. State of U.P., [1986] 1 SCC 637, this Court was concerned
with the casual workers on daily wage basis engaged by the Govern-
ment in different Nehru Yuvak kenciras in the country performing ihe
same duties as performed by the regular Oass-IV emplciyees against B
the sanctioned strength. the claim was allowed with certain directions on
the basis of the facts found. See in this connection Union of India &
Anr. v. R.G. Kashikar & Anr., AIR 1986 SC 431. In Writ Petition
(Civil) Nos. 13097-13176 of 1984. M.P. Singh Deputy Superintendent
of Police, C.B.l.·and Others v. Union of India & Others, (Judgments
Todl!Y 1987 1 S_C 146), this Court on the facts of that case found that
... among the employees of the Central Bureau of Investigation, there are
c
two classes of officials deputationists and non-deputationists amongst
Sub-Inspectors, Inspectors and Deputy Superintendent of Police.
There has been discrimination among two groups with regard to pay-
ment of special pay. Special pay related to arduous nature of duties to
be performed. Whether they belong to the category of deputationists D
or non-deputationists payment of different rates of Special pay, it was
held in the facts of the case, did not pass the test of classification. This
Court reiterated that it was well settled that in order to pass the test of
permissible classification of persons belonging to the same class into
groups for purposes of differential treatment two conditions 111ust be
fulfilled, namely, that the dassification must be founded on an intellig- E

- ible differentia which distinguishes persons who were grouped to-
gether from others left out of the group and that differentia must have
a rational relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the law
which brings about discrimination between the two groups. In M/s.
'
~- Mackinnon Mackenzie & Co.'Ltd. v. Audrey D'Costa & .Anr., (SLP
(CIVIL) No. 1265/87 decided on Mar£h 26, 1987), the q_uestion was the F
different treatment between male and female stenographers. But there
differentiation was based on the ground of sex. It was struck down. It
will clearly be violative of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Consti-
tution. ·

In this case the differentiation has been sought to be justified in G
view of the nature and the types. of the work done, that is, on intelligi-
ble basis. The same amount of physical work may entail different
quality of work, some more sensitive, some requiring more tact, some
less-it varies from nature and culture of employment. The problem
about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical
formula. If it has a rational nexus with the obj~ct to be sought for_,_ as H
1014 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] 3 S.C.R.

A reiterated before a certain amount of value judgment of the adminis-
trative authorities who are charged with fixing the pay scale has to be
left with them and it cannot be interfered with by the Court unless it is
demonstrated that either it is irrational or based on ncr basis or arrived
ma/a fide either in law or in fact. In the light of the averments made
B and in the facts mentioned before, it is not possible to say that the
differentiation is based on no rational nexus with the object sought for
to be acheved. In that view of the matter this application must fail and
it is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
-
We must, however, make it clear that this will not in any way
C prevent or prejudice the Government from reviewing the situation in
the light of the report of the Fourth Pay Commission or any other
appropriate body, if any, with such modification as the Government
arid the authorities concerned considered fit and proper.

S.L. Petition dismissed.

-