PURNA CHANDRA NANDAversusSTATE OF ORISSA AND ANR.

                             PURNA CHANDRA NANDA                                    A
                                       v.
                            STATE OF ORISSA AND ANR.

                                    MAY 1, 1996

             [K. RAMASWAMY AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.]                              B

            Service Law :

          Equal pay for equal work-Dairy Overseer under Government of Oris-
    sa-<:laiming to have been promoted as Dairy Supervisor in 1969 and posted C
    as Fam1 Manager-Claim for pay as Fann Manage,-.ffeld, Fann Manager
    is a Class II post-Claimant obtained B. V.S. degree in 1977 and on its basis
    he was given the pay scale applicable to class II Gazetted post - He can not
    claim pay equivalent to Fann Manager from 1969 to 1977-f'rinciple of equal
    pay for equal work cannot be used as a shield to reach higher cadre of service. · D

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 509 of
    1992.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 13.9.91 of the Orissa Ad-
    ministrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in T.A. No. 302 of 1986.                     E

                ..
            P.N. Misra for the Appellants .
                 ~-
            AK. ?!nda for the Respondents.

            The following Order of the Court was delivered :                        F
                              •
         . This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Orissa
    Administrative Tribunal made on September 13, 1991 in T.A. No. 302/86.
    The admitted position is that the appellant.was appointed as a Veterinary
    Extension Officer on 10.10.1958. Thereafter in 1965, he was posted as a G
    Supervisor in Milk Service Scheme at Rourkela as In-charge of animals
    stationed at Khapuria. In 1969 also, he was posted as Dairy Overseer. The
    appellant claimed to have been promoted to the rank of Dairy Supervisor
•   on 26.11.1969 and was posted as a Farm Manager in District Livestock
    breeding Firm. He claimed that he is entitled to equal pay for equal work. H
                                        235
    236                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A   from 1969 to 1974 and from 1974 to 1977 as From Manager. It is an
    admitted position that in 1977, he obtained B.V.S. degree and on his
    securing the degree he was given the pay-scale of Rs. 525-975 applicable
    to Oass II Gazetted scale from 1.7.77. Farm Manager is Class II post. The
    Tribunal has pointed out in the order that though the Farm Manager is an
B   inter-changeable post, it is not an intermediary between Gazetted cadre
    and the immediate post held by the appellant. It has pointed out that in
    the Dairy Department of Dairy wing, the service consists of Diary Over-
    seer, Diary Snpervisor and Dairy Inspector last of which is equivalent to a
    Gazetted post. The Farm Manager post is held by both Class II and Class
C   I officers depending upon the exigencies of the post.

         Shri Misra, Learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the
  High Court in Writ Petition OJ.C. No. 1189m and other matters had held
  that the Farm Manager post is an intermediary post for promotion to the
D Gazetted cadre. All person who hold that post are entitl~d to equal pay.
  The order came to be final by dismissal of the SLP by this Court. Conse-
  quently, the appellant having held the post of a Farm Manager is entitled
  to equal pay. In the counter-affidavit filed in the Tnbunal as well as in this
  Court, the Government has pointed that the holders of the post are having
E different scale of pay. Mere exigency of holding the post as a Farm
  Manager do not per se entitle the incumbant to the same scale of pay which
  was not admissible to the person who held that post as a Dairy Supervisor.
  It is pointed out that the scale of pay varies according to the Gazetted or
  non-Gazetted cadre. In paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit filed in this
F Court, they have reiterated the distinction between the various posts held       t


  by the persons in the Farm Branch and Dairy branch. Merely because the
  post' are inter-changeable as Fann Manager, they do not automatically
  became entitled to be the holder of the post and for the same scale of pay.
  The meet of the matter is that scales of pay are different and direction to
G grant equal pay is to allow the appellant to jump the queue and land in a
  higher ladder. The Tribunal, therefore, was right in refusing to grant the
  same scale of pay to the appellant on the day on which be was not entitled
  as per his seniority. Though Shri Misra contended that the appellant was
  promoted to the post of a Farm Manager, we do not find any acceptable
                                                                                   •
H material on record to conclude that be was holding Class II Gazetted post
                          P.C. NANDA v. STAIB                          237

in his own right. Under these circumstances, the principle of equal pay for   A
equal work cannot be used as a shield to reach higher cadder of service in
accordance with rules of promotion and seniority. The Tribunal is well
justified in distinguishing the judgment of the High Court not giving the
same benefit.

       The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
                                                                              B

R.P.                                                    Appeal dismissed.