Holding

The principle of equal pay for equal work does not apply where the two categories of employees are not similarly situated in terms of qualifications, recruitment mode, and duties, and the respondents' non‑disclosure of material facts disqualifies them from relief.

Summary

The respondents were appointed as temporary Investigators‑cum‑Computer under a scheme that was later cancelled, but they were allowed to continue in service by an interim order of the Allahabad High Court. While still serving, they filed a writ petition seeking the same salary as regular investigators, invoking the principle of "equal pay for equal work". The State did not file a counter‑affidavit and the High Court granted the respondents regular pay. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the principle of equal pay applies only when two groups of employees are similarly situated and perform similar functions yet receive different pay. The temporary posts differed in essential qualifications, mode of recruitment, and duties from the regular posts, and the respondents had failed to disclose the material fact of their continued service under an interim order. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court's order and allowed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the principle of equal pay for equal work applies to temporary appointees whose qualifications, recruitment process, and duties differ from regular employees.
Whether the non‑disclosure of the fact that the respondents were continuing in service under an interim order bars them from obtaining equitable relief.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 226, s. Article 39(d)

Subjects

equal pay for equal worktemporary appointmentservice lawnon‑disclosure of material factsemployment equalityrecruitment qualificationsSupreme Court of India

Judgment

I

t
--
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS A
v.
RAMASH-YRAYA YADAV AND ANOTHER

FEBRUARY 15, 1996

[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] B

Service Law :

Employment-Equality in-Equal pay for equal work-Principle
of-Applicability-Temporary appointees-Essential qualification, mode of C
recrnitment and duties-Different from those of regular appointees-Held :
principle applicable only when two sets of employees similarly situated and
discharging similar functions get different scales of pay-Hence, the fonner
not entitled to pality in pay with latter-Constitution of India-Art. 39(d).

Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 226. D

Non-disclosure of material facts-Temporary appointees-Cancellation
of appointment-Continuing in service under interim order passed by High
Court-Without disclosing this fact, filing another writ petition seeking parity
in pay with regular appointees-Held: such non-disclosure disentitled them E
to any equitable relief in subsequent writ petition.

The respondents had been appointed as Investigators-cum- Com-
puter on a fixed remuneration, such posts having been created under the
temporary scheme only in 15 districts of the State. While selecting persons
for filling those purely temporary posts apart from considering the cases F
of names which were sponsored by the employment exchange, the ap-
propriate authority of the Directorate received many applications directly
and finally selected the respondents. The Government having come to
know of the irregularity, cancelled the appointments and called upon the
authorities to select persons in accordance with the procedure prescribed. G
The respondents-appointees moved the High Court against the
aforesaid order of cancellation alleging that they having joined, the order
was bad in law. The High Court passed an interim order allowing con-
tinuance of the respondents. Though the State appeared in the said
proceedings and filed application for vacation of stay, the stay order was H
707
708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) 2 S.C.R.

A not vacated and the respondents continued as such. In the meanwhile the
respondents filed another writ petition claiming that they were entitled to
the same salary as the Investigators-cum-Computer were getting in the
Directorate particularly when they were discharging the similar duties as
those of the regular employees, invoking the principle of 'equal pay for
equal work'. Though the State Government was noticed in that proceeding,
B no counter affidavit was filed.

On behalf of the appellants it was contended that the respondents
having been allowed to continue by virtue of an interim order of the High
Court notwithstanding their appointment having been cancelled and even ·
C though the scheme under which they had been appointed not being in force, ..
;
the High Court committed an error in directing the State to pay the
respondents same salary as those in the regular cadre; and that the post
of Investigator-cum-Computer to which the respondents had been ap-
pointed being of a purely temporary nature with a fixed salary the essential
qualification for the same being much less than qualification for a regular
D Investigator-cum-Computer, the mode ~f selection being different than
mode of selection for the regular posts and duties being different, the High
Court was in error in directing the State to pay the respondents the same
scale of pay as is available to the regular Investigator-cum- Computer.

On behalf of the respondents it was contended that since the appel-
E
lants did not file counter affidavit in the High Court it had no other option
than to accept the averments made in the writ petition; that this Court
would not be justified in interfering with the same under Article 136 of the
Constitution; that their nature of work was similar to the work done by
regular Investigator-cum-Computer; and that the High Court was justified
F to follow the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1. The principle of equal pay for equal work is attracted
only when two sets of employees are similarly situated and are discharging
G similar functions but yet are getting different scales of pay. In the instant
case the posts of Investigators-cum-Computer had been created purely on
a temporary basis. The essential qualification for the said post was Inter-
mediate whereas the essential qualification for regular Investigator-cum-
Comp~!er is Bachelor's degree with Statistics or Mathematical statistics
H or Mathematics. The .knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagrik Script was
STATEv. R.Y. YADAV 709

essential qualification for regular Investigator-cum-Computer, which was A
not prescribed for the post held by respondents. The mode of recruitment
to the posts held by the respondents was through Departmental Selection
Committee whereas the mode of recruitment for regular Investigator-cum-
Computer is through State Public Service Commission or State Subor-
dinate Services Selection Board. The nature of duties for the respondents
B
was to collect the data for livestock number and livestock products from
15 Districts of the State only whereas the duties of the regular Investigator-
cum-Computer was (1) to collect data from Districts, Livestock farms and
other Livestock Institutions (2) to complete, tabulate, to assist in the
scrutiny and analysis of the tabulated data and (3) to supervise the
statistical work of the other departmental field staff. In the aforesaid C
premises it is difficult to hold that the principle of 'equal pay for equal
work' can be attracted. The High Court was wholly in error in directing
the appellants to pay the respondents the same scale of pay as is paid to
the regular Investigator-cum-Computer. [711-H, 712-A-E]

1.2. It is no doubt true that the appellants did not file any counter- D
affidavit in the High Court in the present proceedings though an applica-
tion for vacating the interim order in the earlier proceedings had been
filed. The earlier proceedings were in relation to the order of cancellation
of appointment to the post of Investigator-cum-Computer by the State
Government and it is because of the interim order in that proceeding the E
respondents are continuing. The respondents did not disclose this fact in
the subsequent proceedings when they claimed equal pay as the regular
Investigator-cum-Computer. Such non-disclosure in the subsequent
proceedings disentitled them to get any equitable relief from the Court.
[711-F-H]
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3366 of
1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 2.2.95 of the Allahabad High
Court in S.A. No. 534 of 1994.
G
AK. Srivastava for the Appellants.

Vijay Bahuguna, Goodwill Indeevar and S.P. Singh for the Respon-
dents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by H
710 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R.

A G.B. PATI'ANAIK, J. Leave granted.

This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated 2.2.1995 dismissing the
petitioners' appeal and affirming the decision of the learned Single Judge
in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32001 of 1992. This is a glaring instance of
B abuse of judicial process which is partly due to inaction on the part of the
State authorities.

The respondents had been appointed as Investigators-cum-Com- .
puter on a fixed remuneration of Rs. 400 per month by order dated
C 17.9.1986, such posts having been created under the temporary scheme only
upto 28th of February, 1987 in 15 districts of Uttar Pradesh. While selecting
persons for filling up those purely temporary posts apart from considering
the cases of names which were sponsored by the employment exchange,
the appropriate authority of the' Animal Husbandary Directorate received
D about 208 applications directly and finally selected 44 persons among them.
The Government having come to know of the irregularity as stated above
cancelled the appointments by order dated 6.3.1987 and called upon the
authorities to select persons in accordance with the procedure prescribed.
The appointees - respondents moved the Allahabad High Court against the
order of cancellation alleging that they having joined, the order is bad in
E law. The High Court passed an interim order on 14.8.1987 allowed con-
tinuance of the respondents. Though the State appeared in said proceed-
ings and. filed application for vacation of stay, stay efder has not been
vacated and the respondents are continuing as sueh. In the meanwhile the
respondent filed another writ petition claiming that they are entitled to the
F same salary. as the Investigators-cum-Computer are getting in the Animal
H usbandary Department particularly when they are discharging the similar
. duties as those of the regular employees, obviously invoking the principle ;..

of 'equal pay for equal post'. Though the State Government was noticed
jµ tJ:iat proceeding but no counter affidavit was filed. Therefore the learned
Single Judge allowed the writ petition by order dated 3.3.1994 granting the
G regular pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 to the respondents. The State filed a
special appeal before the Division Bench, and by the impugned judgment
the special appeal having been dismissed, the present appeal by special
leave has been filed in this Court.

H Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the respondents
.t
.,
STATEv. R.Y. YADAV[G.B. PATTANAIK,J.] 711

having been allowed to continue by virtue of an interim order of the High A
Court notwithstanding their appointment having been cancelled and even
though the scheme under which they had been appointed not being in
force, the High Court committed an error in directing the State to pay the
respondents same salary as those in the regular cadre. It was further
contended that the post of Investigator-cum-Computer to which the B
respondents had been appointed being of a purely temporary nature with
a fixed salary of Rs. 500 per month, the essential qualification for the same
being much less than qualification for a regular Investigator-cum-Com-
puter, the mode of selection being different than mode of selection for the
regular posts and duties being different, the High Court was in error in
directing the State to pay the respondents the same scale of pay as is c
available to the regular Investigator-cum-Computer. A counter affidavit has
been filed on behalf of respondents. It has been stated in the said counter-
affidavit that since the State did not file any return before the learned
Single Judge the High Court had no other option than to accept the
averments made in that application. Therefore this court would not be D
justified in interferring with the same under Article 136 of the Constitution.
It has further been averred that the nature of work of the respondents is
similar to the work done by regular Investigator-cum-Computer and there-
fore the High Court was fully justified to follow the principle of 'equal pay
for equal work'.
E
It is no doubt true that the State did not file any counter- affidavit
in the High Court in the present proceedings though an application for
vacating the interim order in the earlier proceedings had been filed. The
earlier proceedings was in relation to the order of cancellation of appoint-
ment to the post of Investigator-cum-Computer by the State Government F
and it is because of the interim order in that proceedings the respondents
are continuing. The respondents did not disclose this fact in the subsequent
proceedings when they claimed equal pay as the regular Investigator-cum-
Computer. Such non-disclosure in the subsequent proceedings disentitled
them to get any equitable relief from the Court. Since the original proceed-
ing is still pending we are not expressing any opinion on the legality of the G
order of cancellation though there is some force in the contention raised
by the learned counsel for the appellant - State. But on the materials on
record the conclusion is irresistable that the respondents are not entitled
to claim the same scale of pay as those of regular Investigator-cum-Com-
puter. The principle of equal pay for equal work is attracted only when two H
712 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 2 S.C.R.

A sets of employees are similarly situated and are discharging similar func-
tions but yet are getting different scales of pay. fo the case in hand as has
been stated earlier the posts of Investigators-cum-Computer had been
created purely on a temporary basis. The essential qualification for the said
post was Intermediate wheteas the essential qualification for regular Inves-
tigator-cum-Computer is Bachelor's decree with Statistics or Mathematical
B statistics or Mathematics. The knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagrik
Script was essential qualification for regular Investigator-cum-Computer,
was not prescribed for the post held by respondents. The mode of recruit-
ment to the. posts held by the respondents was through Departmental
Selection Committee whereas the mode of recruitment for regular Inves-
C tigator-cum-Computer is through Public Service Commission Uttar
Pradesh, Allahabad/U.P. or U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board,
Lucknow. The nature of duties for the respondents was to collect the data
for livestock number and livestock products from 15 Districts of the State
only whereas the duties of the regular Investigator-cum-Computer was (1)
D To collect data from Districts, Livestock farms and .other Livestock Institu-
tions (2) to complete, tabulate, to assist in the scrutiny and analysis of the
t!tbulated data and (3) to supervise the statistical work of the other
departmental field staff. In the aforesaid premises it is difficult for us to
hold that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' can be attracted. In
our considered' opinion the High Court was wholly in error in directing the
E State to pay the respondents the same scale of pay as is paid to the regular
Investigator-cum-Computer. In the aforesaid premises the impugned judg-
ment of the Division Bench of the High Court in Special Appeal No. 534
of 1994 as well as the Judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No. 32001 of 1992 are set aside. It is further held that the respondents are
F not entitled to scale of pay which is available to the regular Investigator-
cum-Computer. The appeal is allowed but in the circumstances without any.
order as to costs.

v.s.s. Appeal allowed.