Holding

Because the State itself ignored the difference in educational qualifications while granting a uniform pay scale to Lecturers, the respondents are entitled to parity in pay and the High Court's order stands.

Summary

The respondents, language teachers in Haryana Government Vocational Education Institutes, taught Hindi and English to standard 11‑12 students and claimed parity in pay with Lecturers teaching the same subjects in higher secondary schools. They argued that the work, syllabus, examinations and student outcomes were identical, and that the State's decision to grant a uniform pay scale to Lecturers while ignoring the difference in educational qualifications violated the principle of equal pay for equal work under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The High Court allowed the petition, directing the State to grant the respondents the higher pay scale of Rs 2000‑3500 and to pay arrears from 15 July 1992; the Division Bench affirmed this order. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the qualification difference could justify a separate pay scale and whether seniority lists were relevant, concluding that the State itself had ignored the qualification disparity when it fixed a uniform scale for Lecturers. Consequently, the Court held that the respondents were entitled to the same revised pay scale and arrears, and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

The applicability of the 'equal pay for equal work' principle when there is a difference in educational qualifications.
Whether the existence of separate seniority lists for the two categories of teachers is relevant to the parity claim.
Whether the State can lawfully ignore qualification differences while fixing uniform pay scales.
Whether the respondents are entitled to arrears of pay from the date of the High Court judgment.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16, s. Article 309

Subjects

Equal Pay for Equal WorkParity in EmploymentService LawPay RevisionEducational QualificationsArticles 14 and 16Haryana Civil ServicesSeniority List

Judgment

STATE OF HARYANA A
v;
RAM CHANDER AND ANR.

MAY 9, 1997

I [S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.)
B
-1

Service Law :

Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1987.
c
Parity in employment-Equal Pay for Equal Work-Principle---Ap-
plicability of-Teachers of different educational institutes taught the same
syllabus, the students appeared at the same type of exami11atio11s a11d were
eligible for further admission to degree colleges-However, there was dif-
ference in educatio11al qualifications-Held : Claim for parity i11 pay scale of D
teachers of differe11t educatio11al i11Stitutes, established-17ie difference in
educational qualifications would have made some vital difference but for tlze
fact that the State Government ignored the difference while granting unifomz
pay scale to its teachers-Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 14 and 16.

Parity in employment-Equal Pay for Equal Work-Different sets of E
seniority lists-Maintenance of-Held : Totally in-elevant consideration in
deciding the questio11 of parity i11 pay scale.

Parity in employment-Equal pay for Equal Work-Arrears of
pay-Date of comi11g i11to effect~High Cowt grallted higher pay scale 011 F
notional basis retrospectively but gra11ted arrears prospectively from the date
of judgment of Single Judge-Employees did not challenge validity of such
'< directions of High Court-He11ce, date of payme11t of arre.ars 11ot i11tetfered
with.
G
The respondents were language teachers in Government Vocational
Education Institute and taught Hindi and English to standard 11 and 12
students in the said Institute. The respondents' grievance was that they
should be given parity in pay scales with the teachers who taught standard
11 and 12 students in higher secondary schools in the State on the principle
of 'Equal pay for Equal Work'. The teachers in higher secondary schools H
309
310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
'
A were designated as Lecturers.
. I
The responde.n.~ taught the same syllabus of Hindi and English to
standard 11 and 12 students who appeared in the same type of examination
and wrote the same papers as were written by the standard 11 and' 12
students who were taught Hindi and English in higher secondary schools.
B The students of standard 11 and 12 who were taught Hindi and English
by the respondents were examined in the same subjects by the same
institution, namely, State School Education Board which set the same type
of examination papers on the basis of same syllabus, to the students taught
by the respondents as well as to the students who were taught by Language ·,..
C Teachers attached to the regular higher secondary schools who also taught
standard 11 and 12 students the very same languages, English and Hindi,
based on the same syllabus. The studen'ts who were taught by the respon·
dents and passed out standard 12 examination got the certificate of 10 +2
examination on the same lines as students who passed standard 12 ex-
amination from higher secondary schools.. These certificates obtained by
D vocational education institutes' students were exactly at par with the
certificates .issued on completion of successful passing of standard 12
examination by general education students coming out of higher secondary
schools. Both these sets of students were eligible to get admission in B.A.,
B.Com. etc. and to pursue higher studies in colleges.
E
Even quantitatively also the respondents did teachiii~ work for a
longer period. The respondents taught for 24 hours in a week r-hereas the ...
Lecturers in higher secondary schools taught for 20 hours in a week. >

However, the respondents were required to possess only a pass class in
Master's degree whereas the Lecturers in higher secondary schools were
F required to possess a Master's Degree in 2nd Division with 50% marks.

The pay scales revised by the State Government were based on the
recommendation of the Pay Revision Committee, which in turn took into
consideration the recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commis-
G sion constituted by the Central Government. Prior to the pay revision there
wt;re different pay scales for Lecturers in higher secondary schools. Sub-
sequently, the State Government ignored this difference and granted
uniform pay scale to all Lecturers in higher secondary schools under
Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1987.

H The respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming
STATEv. RAMCHANDER 311

that they were entitled to the same pay scale as was made available to the A
Lecturers in higher secondary schools. The Single Judge of the High Court
while allowing the petition granted higher pay scales on notional basis
from retrospective dates but granted arrears prospectively from the date
of judgment. The respondents did not challenge the validity of the judg-
ment of the High Court regarding date of payment of arrears. The Division B
Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants.
Hence this appeal.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1. The difference in educational qualification between the
respondents and the Lecturers of higher secondary schools would have
c
made some vital difference but for the fact that the appellants themselves
thought it fit to ignore this difference while granting uniform pay scale to
all Lecturers in higher secondary schools. [325-D-F]

1.2. Whether a teacher teaches Hindi and English languages to D
standard 11 and 12 students in a technical institute or in a higher secon-
dary school makes no difference in the nature of duties and functions
performed by these two sets of teachers. [324-D]

13. Whether separate institutions under which these teachers work
maintain a different set of seniority lists or not would be a totally irrelevant E
consideration for deciding the question in controversy. [324-D-E]

Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Kamataka University & Anr., AIR (1986)
SC 1448, relied on.

State of M.P. & Anr. v. Pramod Bhartiya & Ors., [1993] 1 SCC 539; F
Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers (Recog-
nised) & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1988] 3 SCC 91 and Harbans Lal
& Ors. v. State of H.P. & Ors., [1989] 4 SCC 459, held inapplicable.

2. The respondents have not challenged the validity of the judgment G
of the High Court regarding date of payment of arrears of pay which was
with effect from the date of the judgment of the Single Judge of the High
Court. Therefore, that part of the order has become final qua the respon·
dents. The appellants will, therefore, have to make good to the respondents
the arrears of pay in the revised pay scale as claimed by them with effect
from the date of judgment of the Single Judge of the High Court though H
312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A their earlier pay scales stood notionally revised retrospectively. [327-D-F]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2450 OJ
1995.

From the Judgment and Order dated 4.10.93 of the Punjab &
B Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 1267/93 in C.W.P. No. 16543 of 1990.

Jasbir Malik, for Prem Malhotra for the Appellants.

B.S. Malik and Balbir Singh Gupta for the Respondents.

C The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. MAJMUDAR, J. State of Haryana and Director of Industrial
Training & Vocational Education having obtained special leave to appeal
from this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India have moved
this appeal against the judgment and order rendered by the Punjab &
D Haryana High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1267 of 1992 which was
dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court and whereby the
judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court against the
appellants was confirmed. '
E In order to highlight the grievance of the appellants it is necessary
to note a few backdrop facts. Respondent nos. 1 and 2 who only remain in
the arena of contest as respondent nos. 3 and 4 were ordered to be deleted
by an earlier order of this Court dated 08th April 1997, are working as
Language Teachers in Haryana Government Vocational Education In-
stitute. They teach Hindi and English to standard 11 and 12 students who
F study in such institutes. The respondents were appointed in pay scale of
Rs. 600-1100 which was subsequently revised to Rs. 1400-2600 with effect
from 1.1.1986 as per Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1987. The
respondents' grievance is that as they were Language Teachers teaching
students of standard 11 and 12 forming part of higher secondary educa-
G tional system should have been paid the same pay scale that was made
available to their counterparts who were teaching standard 11 and 12
students in higher secondary schools in the State. That they were equally
circumscribed as their aforesaid counterparts and consequently on the
principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' they were entitled to higher pay
H scale which was made available to higher secondary school teachers in
STATE v. RAM CHANDER [S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.] 313

these schools. Said higher pay scale was initially Rs. 1640-2900 which was A
further revised by the appellant-State with effect from Olst May 1990 to
Rs. 2000-3500. It is this revised pay scale which, according to the respon-
dents, should have been made available to them and as that was not granted
they filed Civil Writ Petition No. 16543 of 1990 in the High Court of Punjab
& Haryana. B
A learned Single Judge of the High Court after hearing the appel-
lants herein as well as the contesting respondents came to the conclusion
that there was no justification for the appellant-State to deny equal pay
scales to the respondents as were made available to Lecturers in higher
secondary schools as the nature of work carried out by the respondents C
was identical with the work of the teachers in higher secondary schools.
The learned Judge negatived the contention of the appellants that respon-
dents were not comparable with the higher secondary school teachers as
the respondents' educational qualifications differed from those which were
required to be possessed by higher secondary school teachers-cum-lee-_ D
turers. In the view of the learned Single Judge educational qualification
wise respondents were better situated. The learned Single Judge accord-
ingly allowed the writ petition and directed the appellants to make avail-
able to the respondents higher pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 as was granted
to higher secondary school teachers. However the arrears payable to the
respondents were made payable from the date of the judgment of the E
learned Single Judge which was rendered on 15th July 1992.

The appellants being aggrieved by the said decision of the learned
Single Judge carried the matter.in appeal before the Division Bench of the
High Court. The respondents were on the other hand satisfied with the F
direction of the grant of back wages as awarded by the learned Single
Judge. The Division Bench dismissed the said Letters Patent Appeal by its
judgment and order dated 4th October 1993 duly endorsing the view of the
learned Single Judge. That is how the appellants have landed in this Court.
After issuing earlier notice in the Special Leave Petition a Bench of two G
learned Judges of this Court by an order dated 20th February 1995 granted
special leave to appeal and also directed that pending appeal, there shall
be an interim stay. Accordingly, the order under appeal has remained
stayed till date.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently submitted H
314 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. lS.C.R.

A that the educational qualifications of language Teachers in vocatimial.
training institutes are different from the educational qualifications for
being appointed as a Lecturer or Teacher in higher secondary schools. He
placed in juxtaposition the educational qualifications of both these classes
of employees as under :

B Lecturers in the Language teacher in the
school cudre Vocational Education Institutes
Master's Degree in 2nd i) Language Teachers (Hindi) B.A.
Division with 50% B.Ed. with Hindi as one of

c
marks in the relevant
subject.
Teaching subjects in B.Ed. with a
Master's Degree.
..
ii) Language Teachers (English) B.A.
B.Ed. with English as one of the
Teaching subjects in B.Ed. with a
Master's degree.
D
He, therefore, submitted that a Language Teacher like respondents having
ordinary Pass Class Master's Degree cannot claim parity of pay scale with
a Lecturer in school cadre who is required to have Master's Degree in
second division with 50% marks in the relevant subject. He next submitted
E that the cadres of both these categories of employees are different. Institu-
tions in which they work are also differents. Though they teach standard
11 and 12 students the respondents cannot be said to be teaching the same
type of students as are taught in standard 11 and 12 in higher secondary
schools which are non-technical schools. He also submitted that the
seniority of respondents-Language Teachers in the vocational institutes is
F kept in common with the seniority of Technical Instructors. He further
submitted that granting of pay scales is within the domain of a policy
decision which the appellants have to take in the light of Expert Committee
report and such an exercise cannot be undertaken by courts on the abstract
principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work'. In support of his contention he
G invited our attention to some of the judgments of this Court to which we will
niake a reference at an appropriate stage in latter part of this judgment. In
short he submitted that the respondents were not at all comparable from the
point of view of quality of work and educational qualifications with the
Lecturers in school cadre and consequently the High Court had patently erred
H in law in directing the appellants to pay the same pay scales to the respondents
STATEv. RAMCHANDER[S.B.MAJMUDAR,J.] 315
as were available to the Lecturers in school cadre. A

On the other hand learned senior counsel for the respondents vehe-
mently submitted that the respondents were doing the same type of work
as their counterparts in school cadre. That both these categories of
employees were teaching standard 11 and 12 students who were belonging B
to higher secondary system of education, that is, 10 + 2 system. That in
vocational education institutes more emphasis was given to technical type
of education. But so far as respondents-Language Teachers were con-
cerned they had to teach standard 11 and 12 students, that is to say,
students in higher secondary classes English and Hindi for which the same
syllabus which 'was pres~ribed for standard 11 and 12 students in higher C
secondary schools was to be taught. That the nature of examination in these
subjects was also same for both these sets of students. Thus qualitatively
and even quantitatively the work which the respondents were doing was
almost identical with the work which their counterpart-Language Teachers
were doing while teaching higher secondary school students of standard 11
and 12. That so far as the educational qualifications were concerned it was D
true that the Lecturers in school cadre were required to have Master's
Degree in second division with 50% marks in the relevant subject, but the
said educational qualification was more than offset so far as the education-
al qualifications of the respondents-Language Teachers were concerned as
they had to have additionally B.A. B.Ed. Degree with Hindi or English, as E
the case may be, as one of the teaching subjects in Bachelor of Education
course along with a Master's Degree. Therefore, even though they might
be holding Pass Class Master's Degree their expertise in teaching was
better being armed with Bachelor of Education Degree which was not the
requirement for Lecturers in school cadre. According.- to learned senior
counsel for the respondents, therefore, the High Court was right in taking F
the view that even educational qualifications of the respondents were
almost at par if not better than those of secondary school teachers.

Having given our anxious consideration to these rival contentions we
find that before a set of employees can claim parity of pay scales on the G
principal of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' it has to be shown by such
claimants that qualitatively and quantitatively the work which they do is of
the same type and nature as that of their counterparts whose pay scales
are pressed in service for getting parity. Not only that but even educational
qualifications must be identical. It is well settled by a series of decisions of
this Court that different pay scales can be prescribed for employees having H
316 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A different educational qualifications. Consequently if the matter had rested
at this stage we would have been required to closely consider whether it
..
was open to the High Court to undertake the exercise of trying to find out
whether Master's Degree in second division with 50% marks in the relevant
subject being the educational qualification for becoming a Lecturer in
school cadre, represented an educational qualification which was parallel
B and equivalent to the educational qualification possessed by a Language
Teacher in technical institutes having B.A. B.Ed. Degree with the con-
cerned subject as one of the teaching subjects in B.Ed. and a Master's
Degree which may be even a Pass Class Master's Degree. However the said
exercise is spared for us for the reasons which we now proceed to unfold.
c On 2nd May, 1995 a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court consist-
..
ing of K. Ramaswamy and B.L. Hansaria, JJ., passed the following order:

"Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to produce the
record of the pay commission relating to the fixation of the pay
D scales to the language teachers working in Training Institutes and
Lecturers in School cadre fixing 1400-2600 and 2000-3500 respec-
tively.

Learned counsel seeks for and is granted six weeks' time for
doing the needful."
E
Despite the aforesaid order being passed as early as 02nd May 1995 the
appellants did not produce the relevant requisite material. That was noted
by us when this matter reached for final hearing before us. By our order
dated 08th April 1997, therefore, we passed the following order :

F "I.A. No. 4 stands granted.

Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 will stand deleted from the record of the
case. After this matter was heard for some time we were informed
that the appellant State has not complied with the order of this
Court of 2nd May, 1995 despite being granted many opportunities
G to comply with the same. By a~ order dated 21st March, 1996,
another Bench of this Court granted further 6 weeks' time to
comply with the order. Still till date nothing has been done. When
this was brought to the notice of the learned counsel for the
appellant, he prayed for a last opportunity to comply with the order
H of this Court and requested for some more time. It is made clear
STA'm v. RAM CHANDER [S.B. MAJMU DAR, J.] 317

to him that within this further time if this order is not complied A
with and the necessary papers are not produced, the appeal will
stand dismissed for non-prosecution. Accordingly as a last oppor-
tunity 2 weeks' time is granted to comply with the order of 2nd
May, 1995 and to produce necessary information required thereby.
It is clarified that this will be the last opportunity. The appeal is B
adjourned to 29.4.1997 as part heard. It is further made clear that
in case there was no Pay Commission as stated, but any other body
of Experts which went into the question and had given any report,
record of the said report may be produced."
.. It was only thereafter that the appellants filed a printed copy of the C
Haryana Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 1987 framed by the Governor
of State of Haryana in exercise of his powers under the proviso to Article
309 of the Constitution of India. As the said response by the appellants
did not amount to full compliance with our order dated 08th April 1997
in continuation of the earlier order of 02nd May 1995 we directed learned
counsel for the appellants to produce the copies of the report of the Pay D
Commission or any other expert body whose advice was made available to
the appellants when they fra~ed the aforesaid rules. Thereafter the
learned counsel for the appellants placed for our consideration Interim
Report of the Pay Revision Committee in respect of Group. B, C and D
employees. He submitted that the respondents' case is covered by the said E .
Report and it was that Report which was taken into consideration by the
appellant-State while promulgating the aforesaid Revised Pay Rules. He
also placed for our consideration Report of the Pay Anomalies Commis-
sion which was required to consider the anomalies in the revision of pay
scales as granted by the aforesaid Revised Pay Rules. He submitted that
in the light of the Report of the Pay Anomalies Commission the pay scales F
were appropriately revised for the classes of employees concerned. He
made it clear that the pay scales made available to Lecturers in secondary
school cadre were revised with effect from 1.1.1986 from Rs. 550-900 to
Rs. 1640-2900 as per the said Revised Pay Rules while respondents' earlier
existing pay scales were revised from Rs. 525-1050 to Rs. 1400-2600. The G
revised pay scale of Lecturers in higher secondary schools were further
revised in the light of Pay Anomalies Commission Report to Rs. 2000-3500
from Olst May 1990. In view of this material placed before us we have to
see as to whether the appellants in their own discretion created a situation
in which the revised pay scales made available to Lecturers in higher
secondary schools should almost automatically be made available to Ian- H
318 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A guage Teachers in technical institutes teaching standard 11 and 12 stqdents ' ~- ..
who also can legitimately be said to be higher secondary school students
though styled as studying in technical institutes. When we turn tp the
interim report of the Pay Revision Committee we find that the said 'Com-
mittee in the light of the IVth Central Pay Commission recommend~tions
undertook the task of suggesting appropriate revision of pay scal~s of
B Haryana Government employees by drawing an analogy from the reivised
pay scales suggested for Central Government employees by IVth Central
Pay Commission. In para 10 of the Report the Committee has observed
that it has broadly taken, amongst others, various factors into considerfltion
while giving its recommendations. In para lO(b) it has been observ4d as
C under: •
"lO(b). As per the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commi~sion
and the notification issued by the Government of India regailding
the employees of the Central Government and the Union Ter-
ritories, different scales have been given for posts with the $ame
D designations in the Central Government and various Union Ter-
ritories. The Committees has recommended such of the scales in
such categories as suit the State Government employees be$! in
order to maintain the existing parities."

In sub-para (c) of the said para 10 the following observations are foujid :
E
1
"lO(c). The experience, qualifications, mode of recruitment and
job content etc. being different in the Central and State Govern-
ments, the Committee could not go into the details of these ma~ters
on account of constraints of time."

F Thus it appears that the Expert Committee while recommending upward
revision of pay scales of Haryana Government employees had kept in \[iew
the revised pay scales made available to Central Government servants
under the IVth Pay Commission subject to certain relevant adjustments.

G In para 12 of the said Report, they referred to their first optioq. to
go simply by the 'designations' of the posts in Central Government and
r~commend same scales to the State Government employees. They sai~ :
"........... In this option, the same scales are recommended for the
1

State Government employees as have been given by the Central
H Government in such cases where the designations are similar ~nd
STATEv. RAMCHANDER[S.B.MAJMUDAR,J.] 319

the posts are identical.. ......" A
.J

(Emphasis supplied)

and in para 16, they decided to recommend the first option. Read along
with para 10(c) quoted above, it is clear that the Committee, on account
of constraints of time, did not think fit to go by comparison of experience, B
qualification, mode of recruitment or job content but by the comparative
designation and nature of post. In other words, the distinction based on
difference in educational qualification was not to be the basis for the first
option recommended by the Committee.

When we turn to the annexures to the said Report containing the C
suggested revision of pay scales of cmploy~es concerned we find at An-
nexure A-2 revised scales of posts carrying present scales in Group 'C' and
'D' except posts for which different revised scales are indicated separately.
Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that at serial no. 4 at An-
ncxure A-2 to the said Report are listed employees having earlier pay scale D
of Rs. 525-1050 as was available to the respondents and the said scale was
proposed to be revised to Rs. 1400-2600 and it was this proposed hike
which was accepted by the appellant authorities for being made available
to the respondents. It is not possible to agree with this contention. The
reason is obvious. At serial no. 4 at Annexure A-2 to the Report is found
list of employees who were getting pay scale of Rs. 525-1050 and who were E
proposed to be given a hike of pay scale by raising it to Rs. 1400-2600. In
that list are found Librarians, Assistants, Draftsman, Statistical Assistants,
Veterinary Compounders, Assistants (of Directorates at Headquarter) etc.
Respondents obviously do not belong to that category. On the other hand
we find at Annexure 'B' to the said Report the proposals regarding revised
pay scales of certain other categories of staff which are common to the F
State Government and the Central Government. In the Education Depart-
ment at serial no. 2 are listed Trained Graduate Teachers, Headmasters
Primary Schools while at serial no. 3 arc listed Post Graduate Teachers
and Head Masters of Middle Schools. Columns 2, 3, 4 and 5 referred to
the posts, pay scales, emoluments as on 1.1.1986 and revised scales given G
by Central Government to these employees while at column nos. 6 to 11
are found the posts under the State Government with the existing pay
scales, total emoluments as on 1.l.1986, total emoluments after adding 20%
over 320 Consumer Price Index and the recommended scales. It would be
profitable to reproduce the relevant entries at serial nos. 2 and 3 for
comparative analysis : H
::i:: a 'Tl m 0 n tD >-
'-».
Central Government State Government ~
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Total Recom- Remarks
Emoluments mended
Total Emoluments
Pay on 1.1.86 Scales Exist- scale
SL Emoluments after "adding
Posts scale on including given by posts ing Pay as on 1.1.86 20% over
No.
200 CPI 20% benefit GOI Scale 320 CPI Ul
c::
'"ti
Min. Max. Min. Max. Min. Max. :;tl
tT:I
2. Trained 440- 1401 2174 1400- Master/ 525-1050 1047 1906 1152 2116 ~
Graduate Mistress, (Start 585) tT:I
Teachers/
750 2600 Trained 700-1150 n
0
Head- Gradu- (S.G.) 1163 1280 c::
~
Master atesi H.M. of
Prim. Shastri/ M.S. S.P.
:;tl
School Sanskrit Rs. 50. tT:I
Teachers,D 1280 2087 1420 2317 1400- '"ti
2600 0
PE :;tl
;;j
3. Post 550- 1603 2582 1640- Lectu- 600-1100 1178 1997 1298 2217 Lecturers
Graduate
900 2900
re rs 700-1250
1280 2269 1420 2519 have been >=
Teachers
and Head
(Hr.Sec.
Schools)
(S.G.) treated at
par with
~
- Masters of Lectu- the
(/)

Middle rers I &
700-1250 1280 2269 1420 2519 1640- P.G.Ts of ~
Schools II Div.)
800-1600
(S.G.)
1452 2687 1612 3007 2900 Central :c
.....
Govt. (/)

h
~

•. ~
~
STATE v. RAM CHANDER [S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.) 321

A mere look at these entries shows that the Central Government Trained A
Graduate Teachers were given a higher pay scale of Rs. 1400-2600 while
Post Graduate Teachers and Head Masters of Middle Schools were given
a higher pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900. So far as their counterparts in the State
service were concerned for Trained Graduates in State service the existing
pay scale of Rs. 525-1050 was sought to be revised to Rs. 1400-2600 while B
so far as the Lecturers in higher secondary schools who were having
degrees in Division 1st or 2nd and who were earlier getting Rs. 600-1100
were sought to be given a higher pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900. The 'Remarks'
column against serial no. 3 is more instructive. It says that the Commission
recommended that Lecturers be treated at par with Post Graduate
Teachers of Central Government. It becomes, therefore, obvious that even C
though earlier in the State service Lecturers in higher secondary schools
who were having first or second class degrees like M.A. 1st Class or 2nd
Class were having higher pay scale of Rs. 600-1100 as compared to Trained
Graduate Teachers who were having lesser pay scale of Rs. 525-1050, they
were now sought to be treated at par in so far as a uniform revised pay D
scale of Rs. 1640-2900 was suggested for all of them. Thus so far as
Lecturers in higher secondary schools were concerned, earlier distinction
in the pay scales on the basis of first or second class Post Graduate Degrees
was sought to be done away with and these Lecturers were to be treated
at par with Post Graduate Teach~rs of Central Government. When we turn E
to column 2 of, Entry 3 we find that under Central Government Post
Graduate Teachers were all given a uniform hike in pay scale of Rs.
A
1640-2900 meaning thereby the distinction between Post Graduate
Teachers having 2nd class or 1st class M.A. Degree and those having a
Pass Class Post Graduate Degree was given a go· by and it is this uniform
hike in pay scale which was recommended for acceptance of the State F
Government by the Pay Revision Committee. It is of course true, as
submitted by learned counsel for appellants, that these recommendations
were not necessarily binding on the State Authorities and it was open to
them to suitably modify the pay scales which could be revised for different
categories of employees in their discretion. Even though that is so when G
we turn to the Revised Pay Rules themselves we find that the appellants
in their own discretion and wisdom have accepted the aforesaid recom-
mendations of the Pay Revision Committee and have done away with the
difference between the pay scales of 1st Class or 2nd Class Post Graduate
Degree holder Lecturers in higher secondary schools and the Pass Class H
322 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP .1 S.C.R.

A Post Graduate Degree holder Lecturers in higher secondary schools
wherever they may be working and teaching standard 11 and 12 students.
It has to be kept in view that both these classes of teachers have a common

B
employer, State of Haryana. Respondents may be working as Teachers
teaching higher secondary students of Class 11 and 12 in technical institutes
while their counterparts who are styled as Lecturers may be teaching
similar class of students in standard 11 and 12 in higher secondary schools.
-
Both of them, therefore, must be treated to be on par and were in fact
treated to be on par by the appellants themselves while promulgating the
Revised Pay Rules and making available to them revised pay scales as will
be seen presently.
c
When we turn to the relevant rules we find that Rule 4 states that as
from the date of commencement of these rules, the scales of pay of every
post specified in column 2 of the First Schedule shall be as specified against
it in column 4 thereof. In the First Schedule at part 'A' are listed revised
D scales for posts carrying present scales in Groups 'D', 'C', 'B' and 'A'
except posts for which different revised scales were notified separately.
Learned counsel for the appellants relied upon serial no. 6 dealing with all
posts carrying present scale specified in Column 3 and took us to Column
3 which mentioned Rs. 525-1050 dealing with Groups 'C' and 'B'. It is not
in dispute that the respondents fall within that group. Revised pay scale
E made available to them as per these Rules from l.l.1Q86 was Rs. 1400-
2600. But the respondents contend that these scales would not be ap-
plicable to them as they will be covered by Part 'B' dealing with 'Revised
scales of pay for certain other categories of staff'. Learned senior counsel
.
for respondents invited our attention to Education Department and under
p that caption are found at serial no. 2 Master/Mistress, Trained Graduates,
Shastri/Sanskrit teacher D.P.E. whose pay scale from Rs. 525-1050 was
revised to Rs. 1400-2600. But at serial no. 3 are listed Lecturers in higher
secondary schools whose revised pay scale was shown as Rs. 1640-2900.
Once the respondents are found to be teaching in higher secondary schools
they would obviously not fall in serial no. 2 dealing with 'Master/Mistress,
G Trained Graduates, Shastri/Sanskrit Teacher D.P.E.'. They fall within the
category of Lecturers in higher secondary schools. They would obviously,
therefore, become entitled to uniform time scale of Rs. 1640-2900. It is
pertinent to note that in these Revised Pay Rules lesser revised pay scale ·
is not made available to Pass Class Post Graduate Teachers as compared
H to 1st and 2nd Class Post graduate Teachers in higher secondary schools.
. •: -

STATE v. RAM CHANDER [S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.) 323

· ·~To that extent it must be held that the recommendations of the Pay A
Revision Committee for treating all Post Graduate Lecturers in higher
secondary schools at par for the purpose of revised pay scales with Post
Graduate Teachers of Central Government and to make them available a
uniform pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 appear to have been wholly accepted.
For grant of such a uniform revised pay scale the earlier distinction B
between a Pass Class Post Graduate teacher and a second class or first
class Post Graduate degree-holder teacher was totally effaced by the
appellants themselves. On this short ground alone the respondents are
entitled to succeed. They would be entitled to get the uniform pay scale
made available to Post Graduate teachers in higher secondary schools as
revised to Rs. 1640-2900 under the Revised Pay Rules with effect from C
1.1.1986. It is not in dispute that the said pay scale was further revised on
the recommendations of Pay Anomalies Commission to Rs. 2000-3500 from
Rs. 1640-2900 .with effect from Olst May 1990. A feeble attempt made by
learned counsel for the appellants for submitting that these revised pay
scales were available only to those Post Graduate Higher Secondary School D
Teachers who were entrusted with administrative duties, cannot be coun-
tenanced for the simple reason that such a distinction was never canvassed
for consideration by the appellants before the High Court at any stage.
Their only ground for defeating the claim of the respondents was that they
were teaching in technical institutes while the Post Graduate Lecturers in
higher secondary schools were teaching in higher secondary schools and E
were having different types of Post Graduate qualifications. It was sub-
... mitted by learned senior counsel for the respondents that all the higher
secondary school teachers having Post Graduate qualifications who were
admittedly granted the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900 by the appellants with
effect from 1.1.1986 got the further revision of pay scale to Rs. 2000-3500 p
from Olst May 1990 in the light of Pay Anomalies Commission Report
which was accepted and no distinction was made on the ground of any
higher administrative duties and, therefore, this distinction sought to be
raised by learned counsel for the appellants at this belated stage should
not be accepted. We find considerable force in this contention as the
appellants have not even whispered on this aspect at any time all G
throughout before the High Court and even in their Special Leave Petition
in these proceedings.

We have also to keep in view the salient features of this case which
have remained well established on record and which have been heavily H
324 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A relied upon both by the learned Single Judge and by the Division Bench
of the High Court. They can be catalogued as under :

1. The respondents are Language Teachers, namely, they teach Hindi
and English to standard 11 and 12 students who study in higher secondary
classes. They however, teach these students in technical institutes. But
-
B these students join these institutes after passing standard 10 examination.
Their counterparts also join standard 11 in higher secondary schools after
passing the same examination of standard 10..

2. The respondents teach the. same syllabus of Hindi and English to
C standard 11 and 12 students who appear at the same type of examination
and write the same papers as are written by the standard 11 and 12 students
who are taught Hindi and English in higher secondary schools.

3. Whether a teacher teaches Hindi and English languages to stand-
ard 11 and 12 students in a technical institute or in a higher secondary
D school makes no difference in the nature of duties and functions performed
by these two sets of teachers.

4. Whether separate institutions under which they work maintain a
different set of seniority lists or not would be a totally irrelevant considera-
E tion for deciding the question in controversy.

5. The students of standard 11 and 12 who are taught Hindi and
English by the respondents are examined in the same subject by the same
institution, namely, Haryana School Education Board which sets same type
of examination papers on the basis of same syllabus, to the students taught
F by the respondents as well as to the students who are taught by Language
Teachers attached to the regular higher secondary schools who also teach
standard 11 and 12 students the very same languages English and Hindi
based on the same syllabus.
.•
6. The students who are taught by respondents and pass out standard
G 12 examination will get the certificate of 10 + 2 examination on the same
lines as students who pass standard 12 examination from higher secondary
schools. These certificates obtained by ,vocational education institutes' ·
students are exactly at par with the certificates issued on completion of
successful passing of standard 12 examination by general education stu-
H dents coming out of higher secondary schools.
STATE v. RAM CHANDER [S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.] 325

7. Both these sets of students are eligible to get admission in B.A., A
B.Com. etc. and to pursue higher studies in colleges.

These aspects deal with the quality of work. So far as the quantity of work
is concerned it is well established that in school cadre in Education
Department a Lecturer teaches 30 periods in a week, one period is of 40 B
minutes' duration, i.e., 20 hours in a week whereas the Language Teachers
like the respondents teaching in technical institutes teach for 24 hours in
a week, one period being of one hours' c'.uration, i.e., 24 hours in a week.
Thus even quantitatively the work which the respondents do is ·more
intensive as compared to the work done by their counterpart teachers in
higher secondary schools. That the difference in the nomenclature between C
the two sets of employees, namely, Language Teachers like the respondents
in technical institutes and Lecturers in higher secondary schools does not
represent any substantial cleavage in the quantity and quality of work done
by both these sets of employees.
D
In the light of these salient features which are well established on
record there would be no escape from the conclusion that but for the
difference in educational qualifications both these sets of employees are
similarly circumscribed. So far as the educational qualifications' difference
is concerned that would have, as noted above, made some vital difference
but for the fact that the appellants themselves in their own wisdom thought E
it fit to ignore this difference in the educational qualifications by offering
' a uniform time scale of Rs.1640-2900 to all Post Graduate Lecturers in
higher secondary schools. For all these reasons no fault can be found with
the decision rendered by the High Court especially in the light of latter
developments at the end of the appellants themselves who treated all these F
teachers at par by promulgating the Revised Pay Rules in the light of the
recommendations of the Pay Revision Committee as well as Pay Anomalies
Commission as noted in details by us earlier.

Now is the time for us to refer to a few decisions of this Court to
which our attention was invited by learned counsel for the appellants. In G
the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Pramod Blzmtiya & 01:r.,
(1993] 1 SCC 539 a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court speaking
through B.P. J eevan Reddy, J. held that in the . absence of any clear
allegation and/or material suggesting that functions and responsibilities of
both the categories of lecturers are similar, they cannot claim parity of pay H
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.

A scales. It is obvious that the aforesaid decision is rendered on the peculiar
facts of that case. In para 12 of the Report this aspect is highlighted. The
relevant observations are found in the said para as under :

"The material abovementioned goes to show that (a) the qualifica-
tions prescribed for the lecturers in the Higher Secondary Schools
B and the non-technical lecturers in Technical Schools are the same;
(b) service conditions of both the categories of lecturers are same
and (c) that the status of the schools is also the same. There is,
however a conspicuous absence of any clear allegation and/or
material suggesting that functions and responsibilities of both the
c categories of lecturers are similar. Much less is there any allegation
or proof that qualitatively speaking, they perform similar functions.
It is not enough to say that the qualifications are same nor is it
enough to say that the schools are of the same status. It is also not
sufficient to say that the service conditions are similar. What is
more important and crucial is whether they discharge similar
D
duties, functions and responsibilities. On this score there is a
noticeable absence of material. Whether we look at the averments
in, and the material produced along with, the original petition or
to the averments in the counter-affidavit or even to the averments
in the counter-affidavit filed by the Government in M.P. No. 2277
E of 1985 (upon which the counsel for the respondents has placed
strong reliance), we do not find any clear material to show that
the duties, functions and responsibilities of both the categories of
lecturers are identical or similar."

F It becomes at once obvious that this Court, in the absence of material
showing equal quality and quantity of work which was being carried out by
Lecturers in higher secondary schools and non-technical Lecturers in
technical institutes in that case, came to the conclusion that both these
groups of employees could not claim identical pay scales. As discussed
earlier there is ample material on the other hand in present case. Our
G attention was also invited to a decision of this court in the case of Rajendra
Prasad Mathur etc. etc. v. Kamataka University & Anr. etc. etc., AIR (1986)
SC 1448 for submitting that fixation of pay scales is the function of an
Expert Body and the Court should not interfere with the same. There
cannot be any dispute on this aspect. But as we have seen earlier the
H appellants themselves in their discretion accepted the advice and recom-
STATE v. RAM CHANDER [S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.] 327

mendations of the Expert Body, namely, Pay Revision Committee and A
offered uniform revised pay scales to all the Post Graduate Teachers
teaching in higher secondary schools. Learned counsel for the appellants
also invited our attention to the following judgments,

1. Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers B
(Recognised) and others v. Union of India & Ors., (1988] 3 SCC 91.

2. Harbans Lal and others v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., [1989]
4 sec 459

for submitting that'Equal Pay for Equal Work' is a concept which C
requires for its applicability complete and wholesale identity between a
group of employees claiming identical pay scales and the other group of
employees who have already earned such pay scales. In the light of what
we have discussed earlier the ratio of the aforesaid decisions do not get
attracted on the peculiar facts of this case. D

In the result this appeal fails and is dismissed. Interim stay granted
by this Court on 20th February 1995 shall stand vacated. The appellants
will have now to make good to the respondents' arrears of pay in the
revised pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 as claimed by them with effect from the
date of the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court, that E
is, from 15th July 1992, though their earlier pay scales will stand notionally
revised to Rs. 1640-2900 from 1.1.1986 and to Rs. 2000-3500 from 01st May
1990 and their increments in the said pay scales will have to be worked out
accordingly and their present pay will have to be re-fixed accordingly. Only
the actual arrears will have to be made available to them in the said revised F
pay scales from 15th July 1992 as ordered by the learned Single Judge and
which part of the order has become final qua respondents as seen earlier.
The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out by the appellants and all the
monetary benefits shall be made available to the respondents within a
period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order at
the end of the appellants. In the facts and circumstances of the case there G
will be no order as to costs.

v.s.s. Appeal dismissed.