Holding

Promotion and designation cannot be granted as a matter of right; the doctrine of equal pay for equal work applies only when employees possess the requisite qualifications, experience, and meet statutory criteria.

Summary

The Haryana State Electricity Board (HSEB) operated two thermal power plants with differing pay scales for identical posts, prompting employees at the Faridabad plant to sue for equal pay based on the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work". The lower courts granted higher pay and designation to the plaintiffs, relying on a prior judgment in Anil Kapoor's case, and extended the relief to senior employees who claimed they were entitled to the same benefits. HSEB appealed, arguing that the employees lacked the requisite qualifications and experience for the higher posts and that extending the relief would create a cascading, illegal effect violating Article 14. The Supreme Court held that promotion and designation cannot be granted as a matter of right and must conform to statutory qualifications and experience, and that the doctrine of equal pay cannot be applied automatically without considering these factors. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and allowed the appeals, refusing to grant the additional pay scales and designations, while noting that no costs would be awarded.

Issues considered

The applicability of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work to employees lacking requisite qualifications and experience.
Whether promotion and designation can be claimed as a matter of right under Article 14 of the Constitution.
The legality of extending relief granted in a prior case (Anil Kapoor) to other employees, creating a cascading effect.
The relevance of statutory recruitment and promotion rules under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 12, s. Article 14, s. Article 39(d)
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948

Subjects

equal pay for equal workpublic employmentpromotion eligibilityqualification requirementArticle 14Article 12cascading effectdesignationpay scale disparity

Judgment

[2009] 8 S.C.R. 950

,
A HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR.
V.
•
GULSHAN LAL AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 3336 of 2009)
MAY 06, 2009
B
[S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]
~

Servici~ Law:

c Equal pay for equal work - Public employment - Held:
For holding public office, employee must possess requisite
prescribed qualification, in absence whereof additional reliefs ;-

cannot be granted to him on basis of judgment passed in
earlier cases - Relief granted by competent courl is binding
D on the employer, but, when in a subsequent litigation the ".
absurd result emanating from cascading effect thereof
becomes apparent before another courl and and it is found
that the said judgment is illegal, by application of Arlicle 14
alone, similar relief cannot be granted - ConstitJtion of India,
E 1950 - Arlicle 14.

Promotion - Entitlement to - Held: Promotion cannot be .. ...
claimed as a matter of right - If employee while working in a ,..
parlicular grade does not acquire experience of working
F therein, he cannot be promoted to the next higher grade when
experience in the immediately below post forms part of
essential qualification.

Doctrines - Doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' -
G Applicability of - Held: Same or similar nature of work, by
itself, does not entitle an employee to invoke the doctrine of
~ ....
~L

equal pay for equal work - Qualification, experience etc. would
be relevant for the said purpose.
H 950
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. v. 951
GULSHAN LAL AND ORS.
A
~ Maxims - Maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit" -
Nobody should suffer owing to mistake on part of Court.

Appellant has two thermal power plants, one at
Faridabad and the other at Panipat. In view of alleged
discrepancies in the scale of pay payable to holders of B
the same post at the two plants, some employees at the
.. '{ Faridabad plant viz. Anil Kapoor and others, filed suit
claiming higher pay scale as paid to their counterparts in
the Panipat plant. The suit was decreed.
c
After passing of the decree in the suit filed by Anil
Kapoor and others, Respondents prayed for entitlement to
higher pay scales, on the ground that they were senior
to Anil Kapoor and others in rank/designation. The prayer
' .~ was allowed by the courts below. Hence the present D
appeal.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. Appellant is a State within the meaning of E
Article 12 of the Constitution. For holding a public office,
an employee must possess the requisite prescribed
~·
~
qualification, in absence whereof the additional reliefs
could not have been granted to them relying on or on the
basis of the judgment passed in the earlier cases. F
Conditions of service of the employees of the appellants
are governed by the statutory rules. Violation thereof is
impermissible in law. Whereas the appellants are bound
...
by the doctrine of equality as envisaged under Article 14
G
of the Constitution, it is also well-settled that unequals
# •-4 cannot be treated as equals. Herein, equality doctrine has
been invoked only on the basis of relief granted in the
case of Anil Kapoor. In Anil Kapoor's case, a writ petition
H
952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.

A was also filed for the purpose of grant of designation. The
same has rightly or wrongly been allowed. That would
t'
not mean that equality can be claimed on the basis
thereof which would lead to a wholly anomalous
situation. Decree granted by a competent court of law is
8 no doubt binding on the employer. But, when in a
subsequent litigation the absurd result emanating from
the cascading effect thereof becomes apparent before
another court and it is found that the said judgment is
"·
c illegal, it is well-settled, that by application of Article 14
of the Constitution alone, similar relief should not be
granted. In the present case, the cascading effect was that
for all intent and purport, those who were above Anil
Kapoor and others in the seniority list derived benefit
irrespective of the fact as whether they were qualified to
D
hold the post and/or otherwise gained sufficient "' .
experience for promotion to the post. [Para 27] [972-E-H;
973-A-E]

E 2. It cannot be said that the right to obtain same
remuneration would carry with it the designation also.
Promotion to a higher post cannot be claimed as a matter
of right. Before a person claims promotion, subject of ...
course to just exceptions, the prevailing rules must be ...
F followed. If the employee concerned while working in a
particular grade does not acquire experience of working
therein, he cannot be promoted to the next higher grade
although experience in the immediately below post forms
part of an essential qualification. A person, thus, who is
G ineligible to hold the post cannot be directed to be
promoted thereto only on the ground of so called equality
doctrine or otherwise. In the present case, the Trial Judge ~.'"
following the case of Anil Kapoor and Kashmir Singh had
evidently not only directed grant of scale of pay but also
H an additional relief viz. designation. It was also wholly
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. v. 953
GULSHAN LAL AND ORS.

impermissible in law. [Paras 28 and 30] (973-E-H; 974-B- A
CJ

3. It is one thing to say that having regard to the
provisions contained in Article 39(d) of the Constitution
read with Article 14 thereof, a court invokes the doctrine B
of equal pay for equal work but the same would not mean
, '/
that a person is not only granted the same relief but also
granted a higher status to which he was not otherwise
. entitled to. [Para 31] (974-C-D]
c
4. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work cannot
be applied automatically. Application of the said doctrine
involves several factors. Same or similar nature of work,
;~)r by itself, does not entitle an employee to invoke the
doctrine of equal pay for equal work. Qualification, D
experience and other factors would be relevant for the
said purpose. [Paras 32 and 34] [974-F-G; 975-0]

Deb Narayan Shyam v. State of WB. (2005) 2 SCC 286
and Union of India v. Mahajabeen Akhtar (2008) 1 SCC 368, E
referred to.
,.,
;
5. From the averments made in the plaint, it is evident
that the premise on which the Respondents could claim
a higher designation had not been specified. Furthermore, F
neither the Trial Judges nor the High Court considered
the effect of abolition of certain posts as also re-
designation thereof. (Paras 35 and 36] [975-E-F]

6. One is not oblivious of the fact that anomalous G
•4
situation would be created in the sense that juniors of the
respondents may be getting a higher pay but things as
they stand cannot be allowed to continue. It has a
cascading effect, viz., those employees who are junior to
H
954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.

A the respondents and/ or even Anil Kapoor and others
would be entitled to claim parity in the scale of pay as also
in designation. However, nobody should suffer owing to
the mistake on the part of the court in view of the maxim
actus curiae neminem gravabit. [Paras 39 and 40] [978-
B C-E]

Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. v. Union of India and Others
1984 (Supp) SCC 457, referred to.

c Case Law Reference:

(2005) 2 sec 286 referred to Para 33

(2008) 1 sec 368 referred to Para 33
D
(1984) SUPP SCC 457 referred to Para 38

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
3336 of 2009.

E From the Judgment & Order dated 24.04.2006 of the High /

Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition
No. 12819 of 2003.

With '
F C.A. No. 3362, 3363, 3364, 3365, 3366, 3367, 3368,
· 3369, 3370, 3371, 3372 and 3373 of 2009.

Paramjit Singh Patwalia, Salman Khurshid, Mahabir Singh,
Arunabh Chowdhury, Aman Preet Singh Rahi, Arijit Bhaumik,
G {Ruby Singh Ahuja) Rishi Malhotra, Prem Malhotra, M.P. Jha,
Ram Ekbal Roy, Harshvardhan Jha and Rc::kesh Dahiya (for D.
Mahesh Babu) for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

H S.B. SINHA, J. 1. Leave granted.
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. v. 955
GULSHAN LAL AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

2. Appellant is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied A
with a judgment and order dated 24.04.2006 passed by a
Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in several
writ petitions filed by the respondents herein allowing their writ
1
petitions.
B
3. Appellant is constituted and registered under the
Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948. It is engaged in generation and
supply of electrical energy in the State of Haryana. It generates
thermal power at two places, viz., Panipat and Faridabad. Both
the said plants appear to have different cadre strength. For C
better appreciation of designations of different cadres carried
out in the said two thermal power plants, we may notice the
following chart :
Thermal Power Station at Panipat Thermal Power Station at Faridabad
D
Scale Name of Pay Scale Name of Pay
w.e.f. Post Scale w.e.f. Post Scale
01.04.79 Sr. Technician 700-1250 01.04.79 Sr. Technician 450/760
Technician 600-1100 (lnstrumen-
talion)
Technician E
(lnstrumen-
talion) 400/700

, 01.01.86 Sr. Techniaian 1600-
(Re-designated 2600
01.01.86 Sr. Technician 1200-
(lnstrumen- 2040
as Foreman talion)
Gr.-1 as on (Re-designated
15.01.86 as Technician
F
Gr. - I as on
15.01.86)

Technician 1400- Technician 950-1500
(Re-designated 2600 (lnstrumen-
as Foreman talion) G
Gr. - II) (Re-designated
as Technician
Gr. - II as on
15.01.86
15.01.86 Foreman Gr. I 1640-
2900
H
956 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.

A 01.05.90 Foreman Gr. I 1800- 01.05.90 Technician 1350-
3105 Gr. I 2200

F<Jreman Gr. 11 1400- Technician 1200-
2600 Gr. II 2040
01.01.96 Foreman Gr. I 6000- 01.01.96 Technician 4500-
B 9500 Gr. I 7000

Foreman Gr. II 5000- Technician 4000-
8000 Gr. II 6000

4. One Anil Kapoor and others who were working at the
c Faridabad Thermal Power Station in view of the discrepancies
in the scale of pay of Senior Technicians and Technicians vis-
a-vis the scale of pay payable to the holders of the same post
at Panipat, filed a suit relying on or on the basis of the doctrine
of 'equal pay for equal work'. Plaintiffs of the said suit had joined
D their respective services prior to 1.01.1986. In the said suit, it
... .
was averred:

"3. That the defendant No. 1&2 ever since the date of
appointment of plaintiffs in Thermal Power House at
E Faridabad are giving them the following pay scales:

(i) Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 11 who are Senior Technicians
t
are getting pay scale: Rs. 450-760/-
'
(ii) Plaintiffs Nos. 12 to 16 who are Technicians are
F getting pay scales: Rs. 400-700/-

The above scales of the plaintiffs were made
effective w.e.f. 1.4.1979.

4. That on the other hand the counter parts of plaintiffs who
G are working as Senior Technicians ;ind Technicians at
i- ~
Thermal Power House, HSEB Panipat were given the
following initials pay scales, made effective from 1.4.1979

(a) Senior Technicians Rs. 700-1250/-
H
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. v. 957
GULSHAN LAL AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

(b) Technicians . Rs. 600-1100/-" A

One of the contentions raised in the said suit by the
appellant - Board was that the educational qualification
prescribed for the said posts at Panipat and Faridabad was
different which having not been proved, the said suit was B
decreed. An appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed.
Appellant filed a Second Appeal before the High Court which
was marked as RSA No. 800 of 1992. After the passing of the
decree in Anil Kapoor's suit, several other suits claiming similar
reliefs were filed.
c
5. Gulshan Lal and Others filed Civil Suit No. 180 of 1999
praying inter alia for the following reliefs:

"(a) a decree of declaration in favour of plaintiffs and
against the defendants, declaring the plaintiffs entitled to D
receive the said higher pay scales of Rs. 1400-2600 w.e.f.
24.10.1991 and of Rs. 5000-150-8000/- w.e.f. 1.1.1996
along till actual payment, as mentioned in para No. 2
above of the plaint on the basis of principle of 'equal pay
for equal work'. E
(b) a decree of mandatory injunction in favour of plaintiffs
and against the defendants, directing the defendants to
release/ pay to the plaintiffs the said higher pay scales of
Rs. 1400-2600 w.e.f. 24.10.1991 and of Rs. 5000-150-
8000 w.e.f. 1.1.96 along with interest@ 18% p.a. from the F
date of due till actual payment forthwith;

(c) Any other relief to which the plaintiffs are found entitled
to in the circumstances of the case and in the eyes of law,
may also be awarded to the plaintiffs and against the G
-ii --* defendants with costs of suit;"

6. Kashmir Singh and Others also filed a suit which was
marked as Civil Suit No. 324 of 1993. Similar reliefs were

H
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.

A prayed for in the said suit also.
,.
In the said suits, the anomaly in the scale of pay of two
thermal power stations under the Board was pointed out.

7. Whereas Anil Kapoor was in the grade of Senior
8
Technician, Gulshan Lal and Kashmir Singh were in the
Technician Grade I. The said suits were decreed, subject to the
decision of the aforementioned RSA No. 800 of 1992.

8. On or about 13.01.1986, for the purpose of
C implementing the staffing pattern vis-a-vis recruitment and
promotion policy for thermal power plants of the Board, inter
alia a decision was taken to re-designate the regular technical
posts in the thermal organization of Faridabad with effect from
15.01.1986 in the respective trades; the relevant entries thereof
D are as under:
Sr. Existing Scalf New Scale
No. Designation Designation

5. Special Foreman/ 700-1250 Foreman - 700-1250
Inst. Mechanic Gr. I
E
6. Foreman 700-1150 Foreman - 700-1150
Gr. I

10. Assistant Foreman 570-1020 F.M. Grade- 570-1020
Welder Ill

F 14. Electrician, 450-760 Tech. Grade - 450-760
Plumber-cum-
Fitter

16. Fitter, Carpenter, 400-700 Technician 400-700
Tel. Mechanic, Boiler Grade - II
Mech. Turbine Mech.
G Blacksmith, Moulder,
Masson, Pattern
Maker, Turner,
Assistant Welder

H 9. Kashmir Singh and Others were redesignated from
·' HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. v. 959
GULSHAN LAL AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

i- Assistant Foreman Welder to Foreman Grade-Ill whereas A
)• Gulshan Lal and Others were redesignated as Technician
Grade II. Those who were in Item Nos. 14 and 16, as noticed
hereinbefore, also filed a suit inter alia for grant of mandatory
injunction.
B
10. The note appended to the said order specifying re-
designation is as under:

"1. Due to change in designations as indicated above, no
financial benefits will be admissible to any category of
staff." C

11. So far as thermal plant at Panipat is concerned, similar
office order was issued on 17 .01.1986, redesignating the
relevant posts, which are as under:
D
Sr. Existing Scale New Scale
No. Designation Designation

3(iv) Sr. Technician 700/1250 Foreman - Gr. I 700/1250

7. Carpenter 4001700 Tech. Grade - II 4001700 E
(Car)

8. Fttter 4001700 Tech. Grade - II 4001700
Plant Attendant
Grade - II
F
12. Whereas at Faridabad, the post of Foreman was sub-
divided in several grades, viz., Foreman Grade- I, II and Ill, the
post of technician was sub-divided into two grades only, viz.,
Technician Grade - I and 11, at Panipat, the post of Technician
was abolished, as would appear from the office order dated G
--/ -+ 10.12.1987, the relevant portion whereof reads as under:

"1. The Board vide Office Order No. 2843/Cadre dated
22.5.85 and Office Order No. 2897 Cadre dated 27.8.85
etc. introduced "Staffing Pattern" in respect of Thermal H
960 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.

{
•
A Power Stations at Faridabad/ Panipat. Consequent upon
the introduction of this "Staffing Pattern" the names of somE~ •
of the posts have been re-designated and some posts
have been dropped. In order to keep the record straight
and avoid confusion, the Board had decided that the posts
B mentioned in Annexure 'A' annexed with this order be
deleted, posts as per Annexure 'B' be added and posts
as per Annexure 'C' be re-named. Accordingly, necessary '!'.
deletion/ addition/ corrections may be made in Board's
Office Order No. 384/Finance dated 19.8.87 and Office
c Order No. 391/F dated 2.11.87, notifying the revised pay
scales for the employees in the Board with effect from
1.1.1986.
..-'
2. The Board is further pleased to order that the deletion
of posts as shown in the aforesaid Annexure 'A' shall take ,.I 1
D effect from 1.1.86 (date on which the revised pay scales
were introduced in the B..iard) or from the date of Staffing
Pattern was adopted at Thermal Plants, whichever is later."

Annexure 'A' appended thereto specified various types of
E posts in respect whereof scale of pay was revised. We hereat
are concerned with Group - X, which reads as under:

"Sr. No. Name of the Post Pre-revised Revised
of the scale scale '
group
F
5. Sr. Technician 700-1250 1600-2660

7. Electrical Winder 700-1250 1600-2660

8. Fitter Instructor 700-1250 1600-2660
G
9. Welder Instructor 700-1250 1600-2660

19. Control Room 700-1250 1600-2660"
Operator
H
'
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. v. 961
GULSHAN LAL AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

13. With the aforementioned backdrop of events in mind, A
\
we may have a look at the contentions raised by Gulshan Lal
and Others in their suit which was filed in 1999. They had been
working as Technician Grade - II anct not as Senior Technician.
They were appointed during the period 15.01.1986 and
30.11.1988. All of them were, thus, appointed after 1.01.1986. B
They could not, thus, have claimed parity with Anil Kapoor. Their
scales of pay were also different.
.~
They prayed for a decree for declaration for their
entitlement to higher pay scales as also grant of a decree for
mandatory injunction.
c

A bare perusal of the averments made in the plaint would
clearly go to show that no foundational fact as regards basis
of their entitlement was laid. The entire claim proceeded on the
;. lo. basis that they were senior to Anil Kapoor and Others. D

14. So far as suit filed by Kashmir Singh and Others is
concerned, we may notice that, according to them, they had
been working as Foreman Grade - Ill. In the said suit, the
following reliefs were prayed for: E
"(a) A decree of declaration in favour of plaintiffs and

,;
.. against the defendants, declaring the plaintiffs supervisory
staff entitled to get and receive from the defendants, more
pay/ higher grades, and arrears from the date of
anomalies/ discrimination and from which the plaintiffs are F
legally entitled, than that their junior/ subordinates, the view
of their length of service, more and higher responsibilities,
much more experience, qualification and designations,

(b) A decree of mandatory injunction as a consequential G
.... ......
relief in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendants
directing the defendants to pay to the plaintiffs forthwith
their higher grades and arrears of such higher grade, pay
scales from the date of anomalies/ discrimination alongwith
applicable interest, if any, that of their juniors and superiors H
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.

A and keep on paying the higher grades in future continuously
than that of their subordinates."

In both the suits, the basis for their claim was stated to be
as under:
B "3. That the plaintiffs have felt great humiliation and
embarrassment and disappointment when they came to
know, that the official working under them in the capacity Y,
of Senior Technicians who were and are juniors to the
plaintiffs in rank and job/ designations have been given
c more pay and allowances in a higher grade than the
plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are supervisors whereas the
Technicians are working under the control and supervision
of the plaintiffs ... "

0 15. Indisputably, in the case of Gulshan Lal and Others,
both the writ petition and suit were allowed subject to the
decision of the High Court in Anil Kapoor's RSA No. 800 of
1992. The said second appeal was dismissed by the High
Court on 9J 0.2001. A special leave petition filed thereagainst
E had been dismissed. A review application filed has also been
dismissed.

16. In Kashmir Singh's case, the writ petition was allowed,
stating:

F "Mr. Arora states that the judgment, Annexure P-3 has
attained finality as the SLP filed against the said judgment
l1as been dismissed on 30.1.2003. He further states that
RSA No. 281 of 2001 arising out of the same matter has
also been dismissed by this Court on 4.2.2004. We
G accordingly, direct that the petitioners be given the benefits
as laid in Annexure P-3 within a period of six months from
the date a certified copy of this order is received by the
respondents."

17. A civil suit being RBT No. 324/93/98 was decreed on
H 20.09.1999 holding that the plaintiffs had been in service for a
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. v. 963
GULSHAN LAL AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

long time and had been placed on a lower scale of pay than A
\ their counter-parts. Opining that it was established that the
~·
plaintiffs had been doing the same nature of job which eleven
other co-employees mentioned in paragraph 4 of the plaint had
been doing and relying on or on the basis of the decision in
Anil Kapoor's case, it was held: B

"10. In rebuttal DW1 Sh. T.R. Diwakar Superintendent
• 'i admitted those seniority list Ex. P3 are correct. But he
admitted that the grade of Foreman - Ill is more than
Technicians. He further admitted that Anil Kapoor and etc.
are receiving more pay scales than the plaintiffs as per the
c
order of the court but RSA is pending in the High Court.
,, He further admitted that appointing authority of the plaintiffs
-.~ .~

' and on these 11 co-employees is same and all these
persons are working under the same Board. The plaintiffs
~ ,~ are working under the same Board. The plaintiffs have D
proved legal notice served by them through their counsel
as Ex. P2."

The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the
appellant holding: E
__,,'
"11. I have considered the above referred authorities. The
)'
plaintiffs have neither pleaded nor proved that the cadre
,, of the plaintiffs and that of these 11 persons who have
been granted the scales equivalent to that of senior
technicians of Thermal Power Plant Panipat ate in the
F
same cadre. It is their case that they being senior in the
same status and rank cannot be paid less than their
subordinates. In fact it is a case on the basis of
discrimination and this aspect could effectively be looked
into by the Hon'ble High Court and by Hon'ble Supreme G
y4 ~
Court under Article 226 and Article 32 of the Constitution
of India. Because it is a violation of fundamental rights.
However, in the present case, if the appeal is allowed and
the suit is dismissed, then an anomaly may accrue that the
juniors may continue to get more pay than the seniors in H
964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.

A the Board. Thus, in these circumstances, it cannot be said
that the finding recorded by the learned trial court is
improper. The appeal as such fails. However, it is ordered
that the benefits granted to the plaintiff as ordered by the
trial court would be subject to the decision of the appeal
B of other 11 employees who ha1;.; been granted the scale
as per direction of the Hon'ble High court. It will be
immaterial whether the Board files appeal against this
judgment or not, because the findings in that appeal would l( •

be binding on the present plaintiffs too. With this
c clarification the appeal fails and I dismiss it with no order
as to costs. Lower court file be sent back and appeal file
be consigned to records."

The High Court in the case of Gulshan Lal inter alia on the
premise that the respondents are similarly situated to Anil
D Kapoor held as under: .J. .•

"We are not impressed by the arguments raised on behalf
of the Respondents that the Petitioners cannot derive any
benefit from judgment date 9.10.2001 rendered in RSA
E No.800 of 1992 and CWP No. 1632 of 1999, in so much
as from a perusal of the Trial Court judgment passed in
the case of the Petitioners, the stand taken by the
Respondents was that the matter was sub-judice on·
account of pendency of Anil Kapoor's case. The
F Respondents went to the extent of objecting to the
maintainability of the suit pleading that the matter was sub-
judice (on account of pendency of Anil Kapoor's case). It
therefore follows that the Respondents relied on the
adjudication of Regular Second Appeal No.800 of 19B2
in the High Court to controvert the plea taken by the
G
Petitioners-plaintiffs in the civil suit. It was on this count that
the Petitioners were not being granted the relief and
maintainability of the suit itself was being questioned.
While deciding Issue Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. relevant issues, the
Trial Court vide judgment dated 17.11.2000 decided the
H
-<
'

HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. v. 965
GULSHAN LAL AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
\- issues in favour of the plaintiff-Petitioners in this petition A
holding them entitled to receive pay scale of Rs.1400-
2600 with effect from 24.10.1991 and Rs. 5000-8000 with
effect from 1.1.1996 subject to the decision of RSA
No.800 of 1992. Therefore, the arguments of the
Respondents in these regards have to be rejected. It is not 8
disputed that Judgment dated 17.11.2000 rendered in civil
~ 'i suit has attained finality. Further, judgment dated
~

~ 9.10.2001 rendered in RSA No.800 of 1992 titled Haryana
State Electricity Board & another's versus Anil Kapoor &
others and CWP No. 1632 of 1999 titled Anil Kapoor & c
others Versus Haryana Power General corporation has
also attained finality. Once the appeal filed on behalf of the
Respondents in the Supreme Court has been dismissed,
the lis stands finally settled. We therefore can safely rely
;. ~
on the findings recorded in the judgment dated 9.10.2001
D
appended with the writ petition as Annexure P-2. It is not
in dispute that Anil Kapoor & others were on equal
pedestal as the Petitioners. The only issue sought to be
raised by the Respondents is that the qualifications in the
Panipat Thermal Power Station were different from those
E
in the Faridabad Thermal Power Station."
~
The Court noticed the directions issued in Anil Kapoor's
~
case, which are as under:

"Prjor to 1.1.1986, the units were independent but with F
effect from 1.1.1986 and on account of the circular dated
19.8.1987, all the thermal plants in Haryana have been
brought under one employer. The recruitment and
promotion policies are now governed by the same set or
rules whether the employees are at Faridabad or at
G
._ .... -+ F'anipat. In these circumstances, I am of the considered
opinion that the plaintiffs are entitled to the same pay
scales as were given to their counter parts working at
F'anipat but in the cadre of senior technicians and
__. tHchnicians, both the courts have rightly held that the
H
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.

.., ,
A principle of equal pay for equal work is applicable in the
present case and the plaintiffs could not be discriminated.
"
Resultantly, I hold that the plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 11 are entitled
to the pay scale of Rs.700-1250 w.e.f.01.04.1979. Thus
they are entitled to the grade of Rs.1600-2600 as senior
B
technician w.e.f.01.01.1986. Similarly, plaintiff Nos. 12 to
16 are entitled to the pay scale of Rs.600-1100 with effect Y,
from 01.04.1979 and further they are entitled to the pay
scale of Rs.1400-2600 w.e.f.01.01.1986 as technician.

c Further, I give the declaration of the plaintiffs that all the
Petitioners are entitled to the grade of Rs.1640-2900
w.e.f.15.01.1986 and the grade of Rs.1800-3105 w.e.f.
01.05.1990. They shall also be entitled to the standard
scale after 10 years regular service of Rs.2100-331!5 as
.J. ..
D per the recommendation of the 4th Pay Commission.
Further they shall be entitled to the grade of Rs.6500-9900
w.e.f.1 st January, 1996 as per the recommendation of the
5th Pay Commission.

I further give declaration that all the Petitioners shall be
E
designated as Fofeman Grade-I w.e.f. 15-01-1986 so that
they may be able to claim the grade which I have awarded
to them. 'i
...
The net result is that Appeal No.800 of 1992 falls and the
F same is hereby dismissed, while C.W.P. No. 1632 of
1999 is hereby allowed. The parties shall bear their own
costs."

Opining that they are similarly situated to Anil Kapoor and
G others, it was held: ~ .... __
"In our considered opinion, the afore-reproduced portion
of the judgment rendered in Anil Kapoor's case (supra)
would be applicable to the case of the Petitioners. The
department cannot be allowed to treat two sets of equal
H employees unequally. Further, sequence of facts of the
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. v. 967

..
~
GULSHAN LAL AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA. J.]
petition show that in the civil suit instituted by the A
Petitioners, the defence taken was that the issues are
common and relevant as in Anil Kapoor's case, therefore,
neither the department had taken any decision nor the suit
would be maintainable. The department cannot be allowed
to reprobate at subsequent stage when faced with the B
contentions raised in the writ petition, to contend that Anil
.... Kapoor's case being a different litigation would not be
applicable to the present case and the relief allowed to the
employees equally situated involved in Anil Kapoor's case
cannot be allowed to the Petitioners in the present c
petitions. Some sense of responsibility is expected of the
instrumentalities of the state and they cannot be allowed
to behave like an ordinary litigant taking technical
objections particularly when fundamental principles like
~ .l "equal pay for equal work" are involved."
D
It was furthermore held:

"The Respondents have not been able to show from any
material that the employees in Anil Kapoor's case were
differently situated than the Petitioners in this writ petition. E
It thus follows that the employees in Anil Kapoor's case
y are placed at·equal pedestal with the Petitioners in this writ
. petition and the law laid down in Anil Kapoor's case has
to be applied and followed by the Respondents."
F
However, the arrears were restricted to three years and
two months.

18. Whereas in Kashmir Singh's case, the writ petition was
allowed, it appears that the second appeal filed by the appellant
was dismissed on the ground of their non-appearance before G
__. -~
the High Court. The writ petition of the respondents was allowed
on the premise that the judgment passed in CWP No. 7620 of
2002 (Anil Kapoor's case) had attained finality as the Special
Leave Petition preferred thereagainst had been dismissed. It
H

'
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.

A was furthermore brought to the notice of the court that RSA No. -f '.
281 of 2001 was also dismissed on 4.02.2004."

19. We may place on record that on an application filed
by the appellant, RSA No. 281 of 2001 was restored. By an
order dated 23.04.2004, a review application was filed for
B
review of the order dated 19.02.2004 on 15.07.2004,' which ·
was marked as Review Application No. 286 of 2004. The
aforementioned RSA No. 281 of 2001 was directed to be
.. .'

admitted for regular hearing by an order dated 29.09.2004. The
review application was dismissed by an order dated 1.10.2004.
c
20. Appellant filed special leave petition thereagainst,
which was marked as SLP (C) No. 11980 of 2004. By reason
of an order dated 20.01.2005, this Court dismissed the said
application, stating: j .
D
"There is no proper explanation for the inordinate delay of
196 days in filing the Special Leave Petition against the
order dated 19.2.2004. Application for condition of delay
is dismissed. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petition is
dismissed.
E
The Review application has been rightly dismissed
because no ground for review had been made out. We, i
therefore, see no reason to interfere. The Special Leave
Petition against the order dated 1.10.2004 is also
F dismissed."

21. By an order dated 8.05.2007, the said RSA No. 281
of 2001 was dismissed opining that the said appeal being RSA
No. 800 of 1992 was pending which having been dismissed
G and affirmed by this Court, there was no ground to interfere with
the concurrent findings of the courts below. }--."-

22. Mr. P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsei appearing
on behalf of the appellant, would submit:

H
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. v. 969
GULSHAN LAL AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

(i) The suits and writ petitions in the instant cases have A
been decreed/ allowed by the civil courts/ High
Court on a wholly wrong premise, viz., that the
plaintiffs/writ petitioners were simiiarly situated to
Anil Kapoor and others.
B
(ii) The post of 'Technician' having been abolished at
Panipat Thermal Power Station and a new post of
Foreman having been created at Faridabad
Thermal Power Station and moreover in view of the
fact that the respondents having been appointed C
after 1.01.1986 could not be said to be similarly
situated to Anif Kapoor and others.

(iii) The judgments and orders passed in the suit both
by the civil courts as also the High Court have a
cascading effect, viz., those who had been working D
on a post of Foreman Grade - Ill at Faridabad and
Technician Grade - II at Panipat would also claim
their designation as Foreman although they could
not have been promoted to the said post in regular
course. E
(iv) For the purpose of appointment to the post of
,. Foreman Grade - I, the qualifications and
~ experience being different, by following a wrong
order of redesignating Anil Kapoor and Others as F
Foreman, others also could not have given the
same benefit particularly in view of the
redesignation of the posts vis-a-vis the revision in
the scale of pay.

(v) It is wholly impermissible in law to place the G
respondents in the supervisory category and that too
for all intent and purport by granting them
designation and scale of pay which is four grades
above the posts which the respondents had been
holding. H
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.

A (vi) Although Article 14 of the Constitution of India -; '
forbids inequality, but, it is well-settled that equality
cannot be claimed in illegality; but, as in this case,
reliefs granted in the suit as also the writ petitions
proceeded wholly on a wrong premise, viz.,
8 equivalence in the scale of pay vis-a-vis the persons
similarly situated in both the thermal power stations,
and, thus, the impugned judgment cannot be y"
sustained.

(vii) The High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in
c passing the impugned judgments insofar as not only
higher scales of pay had been directed to be
granted but also higher designations have been
directed to be given which is wholly illegal.
..)_ ...
D (viii) Appellant although suffered orders of this Court in
other writ petitions but keeping in view the fact that
the correct factual aspects as also the circular
letters containing providing for re-designation in the
revised scale of pay could not be brought to its
E notice, the same should not be held to have any
binding effect on the appellants in all subsequent
litigations.
.. ..._
23. Mr. Salman Khurshid, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, has placed before
F us a composite seniority list which is effective from 29.02.1988
to contend that whereas Anil Kapoor was placed therein at
Serial No. 72, some of the respondents herein were placed at
Serial Nos. 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, etc. and, thus, there is absolutely
no reason as to why the respondents herein shall be
G discriminated against vis-a-vis the said Anil Kapoor.
I>-- ......
It was furthermore submitted that all the respondents having
requisite qualifications and/ or sufficient experience to hold a
higher post, this Court should not interfere with the impugned
H
HAHYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. v. 971
GULSHAN LAL AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

\, judgment. It was urged that there does not exist any anomaly, A
as ha1s been submitted on behalf of the appellants, with regard
to pay scales so far as the Senior Technicians and Technicians
of th13 Faridabad Plant are concerned vis-a-vis the Panipat
Plant.

In any view of the matter as either before the learned Trial B
Judge as also before the High Court no grievance had been
.-- ~. raised to the effect that the respondents had not been holding
sufficient qualification or experience nor having raised any other
contention which have been raised before us for the first time,
this Court may not permit the appellants to do the same. C

:24. The Board by an office order dated 27 .05.1985 issued
the following revised recruitment and promotion policy for the
employees working in the Thermal Power Projects of the
> ...l Board: D

*** ***

8. Foreman Grade - I

(Scale Rs. 700/1250, SG 750/1450 for 20% posts) E

(i) 10% shall be filled up by direct recruitment by
Matriculates wich ITI two years course with eight
,,,.
years experience or 8th Class with ITI two years
Course and eleven years experience.
F
(ii) 90% shall be filled up by promotion from Foreman
Gr-II with four years experience/ service as such."

!19% of the respondents, we are informed, do not fulfill
these basic/ essential qualifications. G

"'" ~ 25. So far as the promotion to the posts of Foreman Grade
II and Ill is concerned, the experience in the next below post was
a requisite criterion but as would appear from the discussions
madE~ hereinafter none of the respondents had the experience
H
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.

A in the next below post. -{
•
For the purpose of proper appreciation of the question
involved, we may notice the qualifications held by the
respondents.

B In Civil Appeals arisirig out of SLP (C) No. 15718 of 2006
(Gulshan Lal's case) and SLP (C) No. 15758 of 2007 (Kashmir
Singh's case), some of the respondents are not even
matriculate. For example, qualification of some respondents is
.... ..
only 3rd class, 6th class etc ..
c In Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 20792 of 2006,
most of the respondents are not having even the qualification
of matric. Qualification of one of the respondents, viz., Chaman
Lal is only 2r.d Class. Similarly in other appeals also, some
respondents are not even matriculates. Some have passed only
D .; '
4th standard, 5th standard and 6th standard examinations

26. The question, which, therefore, arises for consideration
is as to whether such unusual two/three/four promotions in the
hierarchy is permissible in law.
E
Evidently, it is not.

27. Appellant is a State within the meaning of Article 12
of the Constitution of India. For holding a public office, an " '·
employee must possess the requisite prescribed qualification,
F in absence whereof the additional reliefs could not have been
granted to them relying on or on the basis of the judgment
passed in the earlier cases. Conditions of service of the
employees of the appellants are governed by the statutory
rules. Violation thereof is impermissible in law. Whereas the
G appellants are bound by the doctrine of equality as envisaged
under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, it is also well-settled }.-, ~--

that unequals cannot be treated as equals. Herein, equality
doctrine has been invoked only on the basis of relief granted
in the case of Anil Kapoor. In Anil Kapoor's case, a writ petition
H
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. v. 973
GULSHAN LAL AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

• was also filed for the purpose of grant of designation. The same A

...
" has rightly or wrongly been allowed. That would not mean that
equality can be claimed on the basis thereof which would lead
to a wholly anomalous situation. Decree granted by a
competent court of law is no doubt binding on the employer.
But, when in a subsequent litigation the absurd result emanating B
from the cascading effect thereof becomes apparent before
another court and it is found that the said judgment is illegal, it
" "' is well-settled, that by application of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India alone, similar relief should not be granted.
c
Equality clause carries with it a positive effect. It signifies treating
persons. equally who 1are situated similarly. Those who had been
occupying the position of Foreman Gra-:1;; - I and/ or Foreman
Grade - II and other employees who were far below them either
for the purpose of seniority or otherwise could not have been
treated equally. The cascading effect thereof would be that for D
~ 1- all intent and purport those who are in the joint seniority list being
above Anil Kapoor and others in the seniority list wou~d derive
the same benefit irrespective of the fact as to whether they are
qualified to hold the post of Foreman Grade - I and/ or
othE~rwise gained sufficient experience therefor for promotion
E
to that post.

28. Submission of Mr. Salman Khurshid that the right to
+ obtain same remuneration would carry with it the designation
·" also is not correct. Promotion to a higher post cannot be
claimed as a matter of right. Before a person claims promotion, F
subject of course to just exceptions, the prevailing rules must
be followed. If the employee concerned while working in a
particular grade does not acquire experience of working
therein, he cannot be promoted to the next higher grade
although experience in the immediately below post forms part G
of an essential qualification.
- --4:
A person, thus, who is ineligible to hold the post cannot
be dir,ected to be promoted thereto only on the ground of so
called equality doctrine or otherwise.
H
974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.

A 29. We have noticed hereinbefore that even in Kashmir --{
•
Singh's case, the High Court committed a serious illegality in ,.
treating the Senior Technicians and Technicians together.
Similar reliefs were granted to both the categories of
employees which was impermissible.
8
30. The basis on which the other judgments were passed,
viz., the decision of the High Court in the second appeal is
I.·
subject matter of one of the SLPs. The Trial Judge following ·~

the case of Anil Kapoor and Kashmir Singh had evidently not
only directed grant of scale of pay but also an additional relief
c viz. designation. It was also, in our opinion, wholly impermissible
in law.

31. It is one thing to say that having regard to the provisions
contained in Article 39(d) of the Constitution of !ndia read with
D Article 14 thereof, a court invokes the doctrine of equal pay for 1 4

equal work but the same wowd not mean that a person is not
only granted the same relief but also granted a higher status
to which he was not otherwise entitled to.

32. In these appeals, the legality or otherwise of the
E
judgment of the High Court passed in Regular Second Appeal
No. 281 of 2001 itself is in question. We have noticed
hereinbefore that the High Court proceeded on the basis that +
the second appeal had been dismissed although the same was "
merely dismissed for default and which has since been
F
restored. Merit of the matter was considered at a later stage.
A decision rendered on merit by the High Court. being open
to question, in our opinion, this Court is entitled to go thereinto.

It is a trite law that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work
G cannot be applied automatically. Application of the said
doctrine involves several factors.

33. In Deb Narayan Shyam v. State of WB. [(2005) 2
._ -
SCC 286], this Court held:
H
- HAHYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. v.
GULSHAN LAL AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
975

•). "A large number of decisions have been cited before us A
with regard to the principle of "equal pay for equal work"
• by both sides. We need not deal with the said decisions
to overburden this judgment. Suffice it to say that the
principle is settled that if the two categories of posts
perform the same duties and functions and carry the same B
qualification, then there should not be any distinction in pay

,,,. " scale between the two categories of posts similarly
situated. But when they are different and perform different
duties and qualifications for recruitment being different,
then they cannot be said to be equated so as to qualify c
for equal pay for equal work."

{See also Union of India v. Mahajabeen Akhtar [(2008)
1 sec 368]}
~ J. 34. Same or similar nature of work, by itself, does not entitle D
an employee to invoke the aoctrine of equal pay for equal work.
Qualification, experience and other factors would be relevant
for the' said purpose.

3!5. From the averments made in the plaint, it is evident E
that the premise on which they could claim a higher designation
had not been specified. Respondents herein in their respective
~ plaints admit that they have been working on a much lower
"' grade than the post of Senior Technician or Technician.

3€i. Furthermore, neither the learned Trial Judges nor the F
High Court considered the effect of abolition of certain posts
as also re-designation thereof. It is furthermore evident that
Gulsha1n Lal and others having been working in Technician
Grade - II could not have claimed parity with those who had
been occupying the post of Senior Technician . G
... _J
37. It may be true that this Court has dismissed the special
leave petition on the ground of delay. The same, however, does
not preclude us from considering the matter on merit. We would
therefoir assume that even no appeal was filed. Even in such a H
976 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.
-
A situation, this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Digambar •
-,('
[(1995) 4 sec 683] considered the following contention:
,,
"9. Shri Ashok Desai, in his reply to the submissions made
on behalf of the respondent and others who had obtained
judgments in their favour from the High Court on the basis
B
of the judgment impugned in this appeal, did not dispute
the position that certain judgments of the High Court in
lo; .,.
similar matters had not been appealed against by the
State in this Court. But, according to him such a thing had
happened obviously under an impression that they were
c stray cases and not fit enough to be appealed against
before this Court, having regard to smallness of the
amounts involved. When the High Court allowed certain
other writ petitions based on its earlier judgments in similar
matters, the State, according to him, inevitably filed SLPs
D in this Court in respect of latter judgments, but, l •
unfortunately those SLPs hJd come to be dismissed. But,
when the High Court allowed the writ petition by the
judgment under appeal and when that judgment was
followed in allowing other 191 writ petitions and when
E innumerable persons were trying to take advantage of the
said judgments of the High Court to file further writ petitions
which was estimated to involve an expenditure of about
~
400 crores of rupees for the State of Maharashtra, there ...
was no escape from filing the special leave petition out of
F which the present appeal has arisen and other SLP/SLPs
to wriggle out of the unanticipated situation. It was his
submission that in the peculiar facts and circumstances
adverted to by him, the earlier non-questioning of certain
judgments of the High Court in this Court and the dismissal
G of SLPs in limine by a Division Bench of this Court filed
against a few judgmE3nts of the High Court, cannot be a
~- ...
bar against the State filing this appeal against the judgment
concerned seeking a decision of this Court on merits,
when the judgment impugned was wholly unsustainable
H and called for interference so that the State Government
HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. v. 977
GULSHAN LAL AND ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
~
)(
may be saved from the calamitous situation which it had A
,. . . . .
to face otherwise on account of 191 judgments rendered
by the High Court by following it and when innumerable
persons were waiting to take advantage of the judgment
by filing fresh writ petitions in the High Court."
B
The said contention was negatived, holding:
., -~

"Therefore, the circumstance of the non-filing of the appeals
by the State in some similar matters or the rejection of
some SLPs in limine by this Court in some other similar
matters by itself, in our view, cannot be held as a bar c
against the State in filing an SLP or SLPs in other similar
matter/s where it is considered on behalf of the State that
non-filing of such SLP or SLPs and pursuing them is likely
~ ~ to seriously jeopardise the interest of the State or public
interest. D

It was observed :

"Therefore, the fact that the State has faUed to file appeals
in :similar matters or this Court has rejected SLPs in similar
matters, cannot be held to be a total bar or a fetter for this E
Court to entertain appeals under Article 136 of the
, ~
Constitution against similar judgments of the High Court
where need to entertain such appeals is found necessary
to meet the ends of justice, in that, the ambit of power
invested in this Court under Article 136 allows its exercise, F
wherever and whenever, justice of the matter demands it
for redressal of manifest injustice."

38. Yet again in Coromandel Fertilizers Ltd. v. Union of
India and Others [1984 (Supp) SCC 457], it was held: G
.. -__.+.
"13. Mr Setalvad made a grievance that the authorities
concerned had allowed the benefit of the notification under
similar circumstances to a rival company. If the grievance
of the appellant is true, the appellant may no doubt have
H
978 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R.

)(
•
A reasons to feel sore about it. We have, however, to point
out that the grievance of the appellant even if it is well
founded, does not entitle the appellant to claim the benefit
of the notification. A wrong decision in favour of any
particular party does not entitle any other party to claim the
8 bE~nefit on the basis of the wrong decision. We are,
therefore, clearly of the op:nion that the fertilizer
manufactured by the appellant in respect of which claim ).;- .,.
for exemption under the notification is made is not a mixed
fertilizer within the meaning and scope of the notification
c and we have no hesitation in rejecting the case of the
appellant, expressing our agreement with the reasons
stated in the judgment of the High Court."

39. We are not oblivious of the fact that anomalous
situation would be created in the sense that juniors of the .. -l

D respondents may be getting a higher pay but things as they
stand cannot be allowed to continue. It has a cascading effect,
viz., those employees who are junior to the respondents and/
or even Anil Kapoor and others would be entitled to claim parity
in the scale of pay as also in designation.
E
40. It is now a well-settled principle of law that nobody
should suffer owing to the mistake on the part of the court in ~
view of the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit. ....

41. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned
F judgments cannot be sustained which are set aside accordingly.
The appeals are allowed. However, in the facts and
circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

8.8.8. Appeals allowed.
~- ..