Supreme Court of India
GABRIEL SAVER FERNANDES AND ORS.versusTHE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
- Citation
- 1994 INSC 353
- Decided
- 5 September 1994
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- K RAMASWAMY
Holding
The distinction based on SSLC qualification is a valid classification under Article 14, and the government cannot recover the salary already paid to the retired appellants.
Summary
The appellants, who were Village Assistants without SSLC qualifications, challenged the pay scale disparity with Talatis who possessed SSLC qualifications, arguing that the distinction violated Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution. They sought parity in the Rs. 90‑200 pay scale, contending that a High Court direction prohibited any differentiation between the two categories. The Karnataka Administrative Tribunal rejected their claim, and the matter reached the Supreme Court. The Court held that the government’s classification based on educational qualification was a permissible distinction and did not amount to invidious discrimination. However, since the appellants had already received the higher pay while in service and were now retired, the Court ruled that the government could not recover the amounts already paid. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a distinction in pay scales between Talatis (SSLC qualified) and Village Assistants (non‑SSLC) violates the equality principle under Article 14 and the equal pay provision of Article 39(d) of the Constitution.
- Whether the government can recover salary paid to retired employees who were placed in a higher pay scale not entitled to them.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 39(d)
Subjects
Equal payArticle 14Article 39(d)Educational qualificationPay scale discriminationRetirementSalary recoveryKarnataka Administrative Tribunal
Judgment
/
GABRIEL SAVER FERNANDES AND ORS. A
v.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.
SEPTEMBER 5, 1994
(K. RAMASWAMY AND N: VENKATACHALA, JJ.] B
Constitution of India, 1950 :
Articles 14, 39(d)-Equal pay for equal work-Differentiation in pay-
scale fJased on different educational qualifications-Held ·valid-However . C
difference not to be recovered since the persons have already retired-Service
Law.
. The appellants who were Village Assistants were non-SSLC an.d
.the Talatis were SSLC qualified. For Talatis pay scale of Rs. 90-200 was
provided for and the appellants were in the scale of Rs. 80-145. Unable D
to succeed before the State Administrative Tribunal, the appellants
preferred the present appeals, claiming parity.
Dismissing the appeals, this Court
E
HELD : 1. The Government made a distinction between Talatis
and Village Assistants who possessed of SSLC qualification and those
who are non-SSLC eandidates. For the Candidates who are .having SSLC
qualification, pay scale of Rs. 90-200 has been provided for. Admittedly,
the appellants are not in that category as they are non-SSLC ca~dates. F
The Government, therefore, thought it expedient to make a. distinction
between qualified and unqualified persons and prescribed different
scales of paY· Hence, there is no invidious discrimination made between
the two categories to club together and grant them same scale of pay of
Rs. 90-200. [106-F-G]
G
2. Since the appellants have already been paid the scale of pay of
Rs. 90-200 while ,they were in service and are retired now, it would be
appropriate that the Government may not recover from them the salary
which they had already received though they are not eligible to the scale
of pay of Rs. 90-200. [106-H; 107-A] H
105
106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6238-39
of 1994.
· From the Judgment and Order dated 31.12.92 of the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore, in Applications Nos. 1040 and 4408
of 1990.
B
N. S. Hedge and K.R. Nagaraja for the Appellants.
M. Veerappa for the Respondents.
C The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
It is contend~d for the appellants that as per the directions, issued
by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1173/62, dated March 4, 1965, the
D High Court had struct down the rules holding that there c~ot be any
distinction between the Talatis and Village Accountants. They cannot be
clubbed together and they constitute different eategories and that, there-
fore, they are entitled to separate scales of pay. When they claimed the
scale of pay on the basis of revised pay scales at Rs. 90-200 instead of Rs.
E 80-145, the Tribunal l;tas committed illegality in not considering the distinc-
tion and that therefore, the ~ppellants are not entitled to the benefit of the
payment of scale of pay of Rs. 90-200 as per 1970 Rules w.el. January 1,
1970.
It would appear that the Government made a distinction between
F Talatis and Village Accountants. who possessed SSLC qualification and
those who are non-SSLC candidates. For the candidates who are having
SSLC qualification, pay scale of Rs. 90-200 has been provided for. Admit-
.
tedly, the
I
appellants are not in that category as they are non-SSLC can-
· didates. The Government, therefore, thought it expedient to make a
G distinction between qualified and unqualified persons and prescribed dif-
ferent scales of pay. Hence, we do not find any invidious discriinination
made between the two categories to club together and grant them same
scale of pay of Rs. 90-200. However, since the appellants have already been
paid the scale of pay of Rs. 90-200 while they were in service and are
H retired now, it would be appropriate that the Government may not recover
G.S. FERNANDES v. STATE OFKARNATAKA 107
, from them the salary which they had already received though they are not A
· eligible to the scale of pay of Rs. 90-200.
· The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
G.N. Appeals dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Equal pay"Sign in to search