GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR.versusM. PANDURANG AND ORS.

       GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR.                                    A
                                     v.
                      M. PANDURANG AND ORS.

                          NOVEMBER 20, 1995

            [K RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]                                B

      Service Law :

      Parity in scales of pay-Juniors drawing more-Seniors claiming
parity-Held, not entitled to as Juniors were getting higher pay either due to   C
length of service or on grant of selection grade-Constitution of India-Art.
39-A.

      In this appeal by the State of Andhra Pradesh, the issue involved
was in regard to parity of scale of pay claimed by some of its employees.
                                                                                D
      The appellant-State contended that since one of the junior was
granted Selection Grade, he was drawing higher scale of pay; and that
another junior has been drawing higher scale of pay in view of his length
of service in the feeder cadre and so the respondents were not entitled to
parity of scale of pay with those persons.
                                                                                E
       On behalf of the Respondents, it was contended that the Government
having implemented the directions of the Supreme Court and High Court
in this regard, the same relief could not be denied to the respo.ndents.

      Allowing the appeal, this Court
                                                                                F
      HELD : 1. One of the juniors had been granted selection grade scale
of pay, by necessary consequence, he would draw higher scale of pay,
though he happened to be junior to others. Another candidate was drawing
higher scale of pay due to length of service in the feeder cadre. It would be
granted of special pay under Rule 22(a) (i) of the Fundamental Rules for        G
the purpose of that candidate in the higher promotional post. That would
not be a ground to grant parity of scale of pay to the seniors working in
the cadre. [490-B-C]

      State of A.P. & Ors. v. G. Sreenuasa Rao and Ors., [1989] 2 SCC 290
held applicable.                                                                l-1
                                     4~7
     488                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

·A          2. It is common knowledge that when Article 371D(5) was declared
     ultra vires, number of writ petitions were filed in the High Court and it
     entertained them and issued interim directions. In implementation of
     those interim directions, the Government issued orders but they were
     made subject to the result in the writ petitions. Ultimately, it is now settled
     law that the Tribunal has jurisdiction. No doubt, in a recent judgment, a
B
     Full Bench of the High Court has held that the Tribunal is not on par with
     High Court and the exclusion of the High Court's jurisdiction was uncon-
     stitutional and it has also jurisdiction to decide the service matter. The
     controversy is now referred to a larger Bench of 7 Judges and the same is
     pending in this Court. In view of the flux in the jurisdiction of the Tribunal,
c    several matters were entertained by the High Court. However, they will be
     subject to the final decision of this Court by the larger Bench. In view of
     the interim directions granted by the Courts, the Government has imple-
     mented them. But those orders will be subject to the result in the pending
     matters. [489-F-H]
D           3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 14 are reported to be dead. In spite of the
     fact that time was given to the State for impleading the L. Rs., the needful
     has not been done. Therefore, the appeal as against those two respondents
     stands abated. [486-G-H]

E            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11465 of
     1995.

         From the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.88 of the Andhra Pradesh
     Administrative Tribunal Hyderabad in R.P. No. 4442 of 1988.

p            Guntur Prabhakar for the Appellants.

             L. Nageshwara Rao and S. Udaya Kumar Sagar for the Respondents.

             The following Order of the Court was delivered :

G            Leave granted.

            Respondent No. 1, namely, M. Panduranga and respondent No. 14,
     namely, R. Panduranga Rao are reported to be dead. In spite of the fact
     that time was given to the state for impleading the L. Rs., the needful has
     not been done. Therefore, the appeal as against those two respondents
                                                                                       \
H    stands abated. It is accordingly dismissed.
                   GOVT. OF AP. v. M. PANDURANG                         489

      As regards the other respondents, the facts are fairly clear that they A
were working as Junior Analysts in the Institute of Preventive Medicine,
Public Health Labs and Food (Health) Administration which was under
Medical and Health Department. They claimed that since their juniors
were drawing more pay than them in the cadre of Junior Analysts, they
invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for payment of equal pay under
                                                                             B
Article 39(A) of the Constitution. The Tribunal in the impugned order
dated November 15, 1995 has allowed the writ petition and directed
implementation of the order passed in similar circumstances. Feeling ag-
grieved by that order, this appeal has been filed.

      It is stated in the petition that since one of the juniors was granted   C
Selection Grade, he was drawing higher scale of pay. Another junior, in
view of his longer length of service in the feeder cadre, is drawing higher
scale of pay. Therefore, the respondents are not entitled to the parity of
the scale of pay with those person. Shri Nageshwara Rao, the learned
counsel for the respondents, contended that the Government in several D
G.Os. have implemented the directions issued by this Court and also by
the High Court. Having implemented those directions, the same relief
cannot be denied to the respondents.

       We find no force in the contention. G.Os. were issued by the Govern-
ment implementing the interim directions issued by this Court or by the E
High Court. However, it would be subject to the result in the main pending
matters either in the High Court or in this Court. It is common knowledge
that when Article 371D(5) was declared ultra vires, number of writ petitions
were filed in the High Court and it entertained them and issued interim
directions. In implementation of those interim directions, the Government F
issued orders but they were made subject to the result in the writ petitions.
Ultimately, it is now settled law that the Tribunal has jurisdiction. No doubt
in a recent judgment, a Full Bench of the High Court has held that the
Tribunal is not on par V1rith High Court and the exclusion of the High
Court's jurisdiction was unconstitutional and it has also jurisdiction to G
decide the service matter. The controversy is now referred to a larger
Bench of 7 Judges and the same is pending in this Court. In view of the
flux in the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, several matters were entertained by
the High Court. However, they will be subject to the final decision of this
Court by the larger Bench. In view of the interim directions granted by the
Courts, the Government has implemented them. But those orders will be H
    490                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A   subject to the result in the pending matters.

          The controversy raised in this case is covered by the decision of this
    Court in State of A.P. & Ors. v. Sreenuasa Rao & Ors,[1989) 2 SCC 290.
    Therein, this Court held that if some juniors, by the circumstances of the
    length of service, were drawing higher scale of pay, parity cannot be
B   claimed by the seniors on that basis. Therefore, Article 39(A) has no
    application to such a situation. The same ratio applies to the facts in this
    case. As stated earlier, one of the juniors had been granted selection grade
    scale of pay, by necessary consequence, he would draw higher scale of pay,
    though he happened to be junior to others. Another candidate was drawing
C   higher scale of pay due to length of service in the feeder cadre. It would
    be grant of speCial pay under Rule 22(a)(i) of the Fundamental Rules for
    the purpose of that candidate in the higher promotional post. That would
    not be a ground to grant parity of scale of pay to the seniors working in
    the cadre.

D          Under these circumstances, the directions given by the Tribunal are
    illegal. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The orders of the Tribunal are
    set aside. No costs.

    G.N.                                                       Appeal allowed.