Holding

Regulation 7 is a constitutionally valid classification based on legitimate qualitative differences and does not violate Article 14.

Summary

The petitioners, two Grade‑A officers of the State Bank of Patiala, challenged Regulation 7 of the State Bank of Patiala (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979, which placed existing Grade‑A officers into two new grades—Senior Management Grade Scale IV and Middle Management Grade Scale III—based solely on whether they had been promoted to Grade A on or before 31 December 1975. They argued that the classification was arbitrary, amounted to a mere revision of pay scales, and violated Article 14 and the principle of equal pay for equal work. The Bank contended that the regulation created new categories of posts and scales, requiring a rational basis such as experience, reliability and responsibility, and that the cut‑off date was fixed to match the number of senior‑management posts available. The Supreme Court held that the regulation was not a simple pay‑revision; the classification was based on qualitative differences and a legitimate administrative purpose, and therefore did not infringe Article 14. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

The validity of Regulation 7 of the State Bank of Patiala (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979, on the ground that it arbitrarily classifies Grade‑A officers into two pay‑scale groups.
Whether the classification violates Article 14 of the Constitution and the doctrine of equal pay for equal work.
Whether the regulation amounts merely to a revision of pay scales or involves a rational restructuring of posts and grades.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16, s. Article 32
State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act, 1959s. Section 63

Subjects

Article 14Equal pay for equal workClassification of service personnelPay scale restructuringState Bank of PatialaService regulationsAdministrative discretionConstitutional validity

Judgment

TARSEM LAL GAUTAM & ANOTHER
A
v.
STATE BANK OF PATIALA,AND OTHERS

OCTOBER 11, 1988

[RANGANATH MISRA AND M.N. VENKATACHALIAH, JJ.] B

Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 16 and 32-'Equal pay /
for equal work'-Doctrine of-Qualitative differences in regard to
degrees of reliability and responsibility-Applicability oF-Categorisa·
tion of posts under various new categories-Regulations 6 and 7 State
Bank of Patiala (Officers) Service Regulations 1979--Constitutional C
validity of.

State Bank of Patiala (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979--
Schedule I Regulation 7-Constitutional validity of-Fitment of existing
officers of the Bank in new grades and scales of pay-Whether violates
doctrine of'equal pay for equal work'. D

The petitioners were working as Grade A officers on the
appointed date, i.e., 1.10.1979 when the State Bank of Patiala (Qffi.
cers') Service Regulation, 1979 pertaining to the placement and fitment
of existing officers in the new grades and scales of pay became effective.
By virtue of Regulation 7 read with Schedule I, the pre-existing Grade E
A officers were placed in two different grades-Senior Management
Grade and Middle Management Grade-Depending on their date of
promotion to Grade A being before or after 31.12.1975.

The petitioners who were placed in the Middle ··Management
Grade have challenged in their writ petitlm1 tc !his Court the validity of F
Regulation 7 read with Schedule I of the Regulations on the grounds
that (i) the Regulations merely brought about a revision of pay scales;
(ii) to divide the officers of the same cadre and doing the same nature of
work into two groups for the purposes of mere revision of pay scales
purely on the basis of the fortuitous circumstance of the date of their
promotion to the existing Grade A would be arbitrary and violative of G
Article 14; and (iii) the number of posts in the revised senior grade were
far more than the officers arbitrarily cut-off and initially placed in that
grade.

P. Savita v. Union of India, [1985] Suppl I S.C.R. IOI and
Randhir Singh v. Union of India, [1982] 3 SCR 298, relied upon. H
479
480 SUPREME COURT REPORTS \ [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

On behalf of the Bank it was contended that: (i) the Regulations
A
did not contemplate revision simpliciter of pay-scales of the existing
cadres of officers; (ii) new categories of posts and new scales of pay not
corresponding to the pre-existing categories of posts and scales had
been created and, therefore, new criteria had to be evolved and applied
for the placement and fitment of the existing officers into the new
B categories of posts and scales of pay; (iii) all the officers of any parti-
cular pre-existing category could not, en-bloc, be grafted on a parti-
cular new category or .scale of pay; and (iv) there was a rational
differentia in placing certain officers in the Senior Management Posts as
the cut-off date was fixed having regard to the number of posts vacant
in that grade on the appointed date.
c Dismissing the petition, it was,

HELD: (1) The Regulations did not bring about a mere revision
of pay. [490B-C]

D (2) This was not a case to which the principle of 'equal pay for
equal work' could straight away be applied. l490Ef

(3) 'fhe qualitative differences in regard to degrees of reliability
and responsibility could not be put aside as irrelevant. There could not
be any Thumb-Rule to decide the invalidity of the provisions which
E recognised and provided for differentiation on the basis of higher ex-
perience, reliability and responsibility. [490E-F]

Randhir Singh v. Union of India, [1982] 3 SCR 298; All Customs
& Central Excise Stenographers (recognised) v. Union of India, [1988]
2 JT 519 and State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia, C.A. ]'llo. 56of1987 dated
F 27.9.1988, referred to.

P. Savita v. Union of India, [1985] 1 Supp. SCR 10!; •
I
distinguished.

(4) The principle of classification amongst the existing Grade
G A officers for purposes of fitment in the new dispensation brought
about by the statutory regulations could not be said to be unreason-
able and arbitrarj' requiring to be struck down as violative of Article
14. [492C-D]

(5) If more number of posts were categorised under 'Senior
ij Manageme11t Grade Scale IV' than the number of existing-officers
T.L. GAUTAMv. STATEBANKOFPATIALA [VENKATACHALIAH,J.] 481'

placed into the higher scale pursuant to Regulation 7 read with
A
Schedule I, those extra number of posts in the higher scale would have
to be filled-up by promotion under Regulation 17 and not by a continu-
ing process of placement and fitment. [492F]

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13369
of 1984. B

(Under Article 32 of the Constitu.tion of India).

M.K. Ramamurthi and Uma Datta for the Petitioners.

Shanti Bhushan and R.P. Kapur for the Respondents.
t
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

VENKATACHALIAH, J. This Writ Petition under Article 32 of
the Constituti()_ll qf_lndia raises the.ques.t_iQ11 of thevalldity of Regula-
tion 7 read with Schedule I of State Bank of Patiala (Officers') Service D
Regulations, 1979 ("Regulations" for short) pertaining to the place-
ment and fitment of existing officers in the service of the State Bank of
Patiala in the new grades and scales of pay.

2. In the year 1959, all "State Banks"-State Bank of Patiala was
one of them-were made subsidiaries of the State Bank of India under E.
(Subsidiary Banks) Act 1959. Section 63 of this Act provided:

"63. Power of the State Bank to make regulations:

(1) The State Bank may, with the approval of the
Reserve Bank, make in respect of a subsidiary ':Jank regula- F
tions, not inconsistent with this Act and the rules made
thereunder, to provide for all matters for which provision is
necessary or e_xpedient for the purpose of giving effect to
the provisions of this Act.

(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the gener- G
ality of the foregoing power, such regulations may provide
for-

(a)
to
,h (1) .. Omitted as unnecessary
'
482 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

(m) the conditions and limitations, subject to which
A
the subsidiary bank may appoint officers, advisers and
other employees and :rix .their remuneraifon and other
terms and conditions of service;

(n)
B to
(y) .. Omitted as not necessary

Pursuant to an.ct in exercise of the powers of Section 63 State Bank
of Patiala (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 were promulgated. On
the pattern of the recommendations made in re.gard to the Rationalisa-
tion and Standardisation of pay-scales of nationalised banks made by
c what is known as the "Pillai Committee", the pay scales in State Bank
of Patiala were also revised and restructured introducing new grades
and scales. The Regulations were to take effect from 1st October,
1979. Regulation 7 read with Schedule-I provided the placement and
fitment of the existing officers of the bank in the new grades and scales ....
D of pay. In the present case, we are concerned with the placement and
fitment of existing officers "Grade A" to which both the petitioners Sri
Tarsem Lal Gautam and Sri C.V. Madan belong.

3. The "Regulations" were promulgated, -in exercise of the
powers conferred by the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks) Act,
, E 1959, by the Central Board of Directors of the State Bank of India in
consultation with the Board of Directors of State Bank of Patiala· and
with the previous approval of the Reserve Bank of India. Regulation
4( 1) introduced the following new grades and scales of pay for the
officers in the Bank:

F . "4( 1) There shall be the following four grades for officers
with the scales of pay specified against each of the grades:

(A) Top Executive Scale VII Rs. 3000- 125-3500
Grade Scale VI Rs.2750-125-3250

G (B) Senior Management Scale V Rs.2500-100-2700
Grade Scale IV Rs .2000- 100-2400

(CJ Middle Management Scale III Rs. 1800-75-
Grade 2250
Scale II Rs.1200-70-
,H 1550-75·2000
::~~:;:'~.::,:: f-.$,;!; ~;: f' ~i

-;; "
T.L. GAUTAM v. STATEBANKOFPATIALA [VENKATACHALIAH,J.] 483

(D)JuniorManagement Scale!· Rs. 700-40-900-
A
Grade 50-1100-EB-
1200-60- 1800

The petitioners were "existing officers" as on the appointed date
i.e. on 1.10.1979 in Grade A. Existing Officers in Grade A were '
placed in the corresponding new grades and scales of pay. The officers B
in the earlier existing Grade A in the pay-scale of Rs. 1200-60-50-75-
950 were placed in two different cadres and scale of pay, viz., "Senior
Management Grade Scale IV" with the pay-scale of Rs.2000-100-2400,
and "Middle Management Grade Scale III" with the pay-scale of
Rs. 1800-75-2250, on the sole basis whether the officers had been
promoted to the existing Grade A on or prior to 3 l.12.1975 or there- C
af:er. The effect of Regulation 7 read with Schedule I was that all
existing Grade A officers who had been promoted to that grade prior
to 31.12.1975 were placed in the new scale ("Senior Management
Grade Scale IV": Rs.2000-100-2400) and those existing Grade. A
Officers who are promoted as such after 31.12. 1975 were placed in the
new scale of "Middle Management Grade Scale III : Rs. 1800-75- D
2250".

Petitioners challenged this classification of existing-officers 'T
belonging to same grade and scale of pay into two different categories
for fitment in the revised pay-scales solely on the basis of date of their
promotion as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution E
oflndia.

Regulation 7 reads:

"Subject to the provisions of Regulation 6, existing
officers serving in the grades and scales ofpay mentioned F
in column I of the table given in schedule I to these regula-
tions shall be placed as on the appointed date in the grades
and scale specified there against in column 2 of the said
schedule.

Provided that any difficulties ;Jr anomalies arising out G
of the above placement shall be referred to a committee of
such persons as the Board or Executive Committ~e may
appoint and the decision of that committee in this regard
., shall be final. "

Relevant entries in Schedule I are: H
4 ---
484 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

Schedule I [See regulation 71
A
Placement ,of exist_ing Officers in the new grades and scales-
in the State Bank of Patiala - -

Graae and .5eiil&
B Grade and scale
,immediately before the
in which placed
appointed date
1. Omitted as unnecessary
2. -do-

3. Officers 'A' Grade Senior Management
c promoted as such on or Grade Scale IV
December, 1975 Scale Rs.2000-100-2400
Rs .1200-60-1500-
b
-,-
75-1950

D 4. Other Officers 'A' Middle Management
Grade Scale Rs.1200-60- Grade Scale III
1500-75-1950 Rs.1800-75-2250

5. Omitted as not necessary
6. -do-
E
Sri Tarsem Lal Gautam was promoted as Grade A Officer on
1.12.1978. Sri. C.V. Madan was promoted as Grade A Officer on
1.12.1976. Both of them having been promoted after 31.12.1975 in the
matter of their placement they, by circular dated 23.7. 1980 of the First 'I"
respondent, were held to fall outside entry 3 of Schedule I and within
F entry 4 of that Schedule and, accordingly, placed them in the "Middle
Management Grade Scale III" and not in the higher revised scale, viz.
"Senior Management Grade Scale IV".

It is to be mentioned here that_sebondpetitioner Sri C.V. Madan ··-
was removedfrom stirvic;e on 3_0~12.1977. But the prayers in the peti-
G tion, to the extent they bear upon the correctness of his placement in
so far as the benefits that he may be entitled to on that basis up to
30.12.1977, shall survive.

The main grievance of the petitioners is that the new Regulations :
!::!
merely brought about a revision of pay-scales and that the differentia-
lion amongst the existing_ "Grade-A" Officers who were doJng the
.,
'~
--w--·,

T.L. GAUTAMv. STATEBANKOFPATIALA !VENKATACHALIAH,J.I 485

·same nature ofwork and who would continue even after the placement
A
in the new cadre to do the same work into two grades with different
scales of pay based purely on the fortuitous circumstance of the date of
their promotion to the existing "Grade-A" is ar0itrary. The effect of
this is illustrated by the possibility that two officers doing the same
duty both in the existing grades and in the revised grades are placed in
two different scales of pay by reason alone that one of them had been B
promoted to "Grade-A" on 31st December, 1975, would go to the
Higher Grade and scale of pay in the revised scale and the other would
be placed in the lower scale by reason alone of the fact that he was
promoted to the existing Grade the next day.
,,,,
In the memorandum of writ petition, petitioners contend th~t
existing officers belonging to Grade-A are split into two groups with C
reference to their date of promotion to Grade-A and this differentium
is an irrational one. It is averred:

" ..... Thus, the same class of officers i.e. Officers
"A" Grade, were bifurcated into two different categories D '"
with reference to wholly irrational, illegal, inequitable, un-
reasonable and arbitrary criteria like the fortuitous event of
promotion to "A" Grade on or before 31st December,
1975 ...... ,,

"The number of posts in SMGS IV were far more E
than the officers were arbitrarily cut-off and intially placed
in SMGS IV at that time ...... "

In counter affidavit dateg 15.3.1985 filed by the General Man-
ager of the first-respondent-bank it is stated:
F
" ..... It is denied that 'A' grade officers were
bifurcated into two different categories with reference to
irrational, illegal, inequitable, unreasonable and arbitrary
criteria like the fortuitous event of promotion as alleged.
This date was fixed having regard to the number of posts
vacant with the respondent No. 1 in the Senior Manage- G
ment Grade Scale IV and the number of such posts came to
32 and it was further found that 26 officers had been
promoted to then officer Grade 'A' on or before December
31, 1975 ..... The seniority of the officers for placement in
Senior Management Grade Scale IV was strictly main-
tained and no officer ju_nior to the petitioner was placed in H
486 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

Senior Management Grade Scale IV. Thus, there was a
A
rational differentia in placing certain officers in Senior
Management Grade Scale IV and there was rational rela-
tionship of such placement to the objects· sought to be
achieved, procuring the services of seniormost experienced
officers for the senior management Grade Scale IV posts
B "
Setting out the antecedents and the background for this
restructuring of the cadres and pay-scales it is averred:

"It is submitted that in the year 1973, a Committee
known as Pillai Committee was appointed by the Govern-
c ment of ll)dia for bringing uniformity and standardisation
in the conditions of service of the officers of various
nationalised Banks. The recommendations of the Pillai
Committee were later on sought to be applied to the State
Bank of India and its associate banks with suitable modifi-
D cations having regard to their special features ...... "

"I say that the new structure of grades and scales
created by State Bank of Patiala [Officers'] Service Regula-
tions, 1979, does not lay down grades and scales corres-
ponding to the earlier grades and scales, but it is an entirely
'
E new structure created on the basis of recommendations of
the Pillai Committee suitably adopted for the subsidiary .
banks of the State Bank of India with some modifications
and there have been bifurcations, which have resulted in
intermediate grades and scales. As such, it cannot be said \
that the new grades and scales correspond to old grades and
scales and they cannot be construed in a manner that a
person who was in a particular grade or scale earlier, would
automatically get entitled to be placed in some specified
corresponding grade and scale without any reference to the
date of his promotion in an earlier grade or scale. It is very
likely that whenever reorganization of cadres takes place in
G service,. sorrie _grades may have to_pe split up into more _than
one grade or class of posts, or more than one grade or class
of posts may have to l)e merged to form a single cadre and
.as long as the inter-se seniority of the officers is not dis-
turbed, it would be quite permissible to do so in law. In the
present case also, the grades and scales were reorganised,
H but the inter-se seniority_ ..?i the officers vis-a-vis the ; -
T.L. GAUTAM v. STATEBANKOFPATIALA [VENKATACHALIAH,J.] 487

petitioner was not disturbed and no officer junior to the
A
petitioner got higher grade or scale in the reorganised
structure ...... "

We have heard Shri M.K. Ramamurthy, learned Senior Counsel
in support of the petitioners and Shri Shantibhushan, learned Senior
Counsel for the first respondent-bank. B

Though in addition to the challenge to the unconstitutionality of
the classification of the existing A-Grade Officers into two classes for
purposes of fitment into the revised scales of pay, petitioner, Sri
Tarsem Lal Goutam has alleged ma/a fies on the part of senior officers.
It would appear, that he had appeared before the Selection Committee
for purposes of promotion from 'Middle Management Grade Scale Ill'
c
to the 'Senior Management Grade Scale IV' and was allegedly, over-
looked for promotion owing to what according to him was a hostile
bias against him. There are lengthy averments in the memorandum of
petition in regard to these grievances-and equally lengthy reputations
thereof in the counter-affidavit. D

At the hearing, Sri Ramamurthy, did not rest the case on ma/a
fides and bias but confined the arguments to the question of constitu-
tionality of the criteria of classification in Entry 3 of Schedule I.
Sri Ramamurthy contended that the exercise contemplated by the Re-
gulations, in so far as pay-scales were concerned, was a mere revision E
of the scales of pay and that when in the year 1983, the placements and
fitments were undertaken with retrospective effect ferom 1.10.1979,
the two sets of existing-officers Grade A, who were earlier doing the
same kind of work and who even thereafter continued to do same kind
of work, were bifurcated into two classes on the mere fortuitous line of
demarcation of the respective dates of their promotion to the Existing F
Grade-A post. Sri Ramamurthy submitted that the line of demarcation
was irrational in fact and impermissible in law. Those who had put in
longer number of years of service, learned counsel submitted, would,
of course, be entitled to and get highe•· pay in the same pay-scale; but
dividing the Officers of the same cadre into two groups for purposes of
the benefit of revision of pay merely on the basis of the date of their G
promotion would be palpably arbitrary and violative of Article 14.

Shri Ramamurthy contended even on the avowed basis of justifi-
cation of the choice of the cut-off date line of 31.12.1975, namely, that
it was intended to bring about a uniformity in all the subsidiary-banks
would, apart altogether from its legality, by itself negate and detract H
488 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

from the feebly suggested stand of the First-Respondent that the cut-
A. off date was intended to secure the requisite number of senior and
more experienced officers to man certain posts which were to be
categorised against "Senior Management Grade-Scale IV". Sri
Ramamurthy submitted that the words 'promoted as such on or before
3 l. 12.1975' occurring in item 3 of the Schedule I of the Regulations,
B which has the effect of bringing about this hostile discrimination,
would require to be struck down. With those words so deleted from
item 3 of Schedule I, it was urged, the provision would be purged of
the vice of unconstitutionality.

In support of his contention that mere seniority of service cannot
support a classification for purposes of higher pay-scales, Sri
c Ramamurthy placed particular reliance on the pronouncement of this
Court in P. Savita v. Union of India, [1985] 1 Supp. SCR 101. In that
case, Senior Draughtsmen who were holding the posts as on
31. 12.1972, were alone held entitled to a higher pay-scale and those
who had been promoted after 31. 12.1972 were ;Jenied the benefit of
D the revision of th~ pay-scale. The High Court did not see substance in
the challenge of the Senior Draughtsmen who were denied the benefit
to the Rule; but this Court relying on the principle of "Equal pay for
Equal work" as recognised and effectuated in Randhir Singh v. Union
of India, [1982] 3 SCR 298 held that the classification to be bad. Shri
Ramamurthy invited our particular attention to the following observa-
tions of this court made while striking down the basis of the classifi-
cation:

" The. _explanation is that this division is based on
seniority. This cannot be accepted as sufficient to-nie..i"i the
requirements of law. By seniority, a Senior Draughtsman
F will get higher pay with the increments that he earns pro-
portionate to the number of years he is in service. Here
that is riot the case. It is the classification of the Senior
Draughtsmen into two groups, that is responsible for the
higher pay ...... In view of the total absence of any plea
on the side of the respondents, that the Senior Draughts-
0 men who are placed in the advantageous group, do not
perform work and duties more onerous or different from
the work performed by the appellants group, it will'have to
be held that this grouping violates Article 14 of the
Constitution.''

"For the purposes of the case on hand, it is sufficient
T.L. GAlITAM v. STATE BANKOFPATIALA (VENKATACHALIAH, J.J 489

to note that the classification between two groups of Senior A
Draughtsmen is with.out any basis. They do the same work,
they perform the same duties0 and as such the ratio of the . r,
decision in Randhir Singh' s case applies to this case with
greater force ...... "

Shri Ramamurthy submitted that this is a full answer to the First- B
Respondent's contention and stated that the proper authority to plead
any tenable justification for the purported classification in item 3 of
Schedule I of the Regulations was the State Bank of India, which has
framed and promulgated the regulations and said that though the State
Ban1' of India was impleaded as a party, it did not enter appearance
and seek to justify the principle justifying the classification.
c
Shri Shanti Bhushan, however, submitted that the petitioners'
approach to the matter on the strength of Savitha's case somewhat
misconceived as the former case was one of Revision of pay scales
simpliciter while the present Regulations do not contemplate a mere
revision of pay-scales of the existing cadres of officers but an exercise D
involving Rationalisation, Standardisation and Re-structuring of the
whole Administrative set-up of the management-cadres of the
Subsidiary-Ban!<s of the State Bank of India. Shri Shantibhushan sub-
mitted that where, as here, new categories of posts and new Scales of
Pay, not corresponding to the pre-existing categories of posts and
scales are created, criteria will have to be evolved and applied for the E
subsumption and fitment of the existing officers into the new
categories of posts and scales of pay. It might happen that all the
Officers of any particular pre-existing category, it was urged, cannot,
en-bloc, be grafted on a particular new category or scale of pay and a
fair and reasonable criteria would, therefore, require to be formulated
which, while protecting the inter-se seniority of the existing-officers, F
would also make for their absorbtion and distribution in the new- '
cadres and scales of pay on some reasonable basis. Shri Shantibhushan
submitted that the Regulations 4, 6 and 7 read with Schedule I envis-
age such an exercise and that, indeed, similar exercises have been
undertaken and implemented both in the State Bank of India and in all
the other subsidiary banks. Shri Shantibhushan submitted that any G
acceptance of the contentiones urged for by the petitioners would have
the effect of introducing new and unforeseen complications and unset-

I
i~
tlements in respect of a large number of similar cases.

Referring to Savita's case, Shri Shantibhushan submitted that
that was a case of a mere unreasonable withholding of the benefits of H
490 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

A pay-revision to some of the members who were part of a well-defined
class. That apart, that was case where Senior Draughtsmen were
divided into two pay-scales of Rs.330-560 and Rs.425· 700 respectively
and the important factor was that under the same pay-revision the
lesser grade of "Draughtsmen" had the benefit of revised pay scale of
Rs.330-560. The unreasonableness and injustice of the case were writ
B large and set it apart.

On a careful consideration of the matter, we are pursuaded to
the view that the 'Regulations' did not bring about a mere revision of
pay and that the analogy of precedents dealing with revision of pay
would not be wholly determinative and that the contentions urged by
C Shri Shantibhushan are not without force. Regulation 6 required the
categorisation of posts under the various new categories of posts. At
the hearing, Shri Shantibhushan brought to our notice that about 32
posts had been categorised against the "Senior Management Grade
IV" by the statutorily envisaged committee constituted for. the
purpose. It has been urged for the First-Respondent-Bank that the
D seniority and greater experience of the existing-Officers in Grade-A
have been taken into account by the Regulations in the placement and
fitment of the existing officers in the "Senior Management Grade
Scale IV".

This, we think, is not an instance to which the principle of 'equal
ij pay for equal work' could straight away be applied. Indeed, the
qualitative differences of regard to degrees of reliability and responsi-
bility cannot be put aside as irrelevant. There cannot be any Thumb-
Rule to decide the invalidity of the provisions which recognise and
provide for differentiation on the basis of higher experience, reliability
and responsibility.
p
Indeed, the observations of this Court in All Customs & Central
Excise Stenographers (recognised) and Others v. Union of India,
[ 1988] 2 JT 519 are apposite:

"There may be qualitative difference as regards relia-
0 bility and responsibility. Functions may be same but the
responsibilities make a difference. One cannot deny that
often the difference is a matter of degree and that there is
an element of value judgment by those who are charged
with the administration in fixing the scales of pay and other
conditions of service. So long as such value judgment is
H made bona fide, reasonably on an intelligible criteria which
T.L. GAUTAM v. STATE BANK OF PATIALA (VENKATACHALIAH, J.( 491

has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation, such
differentiation will not amount to discrimination ...... " A

"The same amount of physical work may entail diffe-
rent quality of work, some more sensitive, some requiring
more tact, some less-it varies from nature and culture of
employment. The problem about equal pay cannot always B
be translated into a mathematical formula. If it has a
rational nexus with the object to be sought for, as
reiterated before a certain amount of value judgment of the
administrative authorities who are charged with fixing the
pay scale has to be left with them and it cannot be
interfered with by the Court unless it is demonstrated that
either it is irrational or based on no basis or arrived ma/a c
fide either in law or in fact."

In Randhir Singh's case itself it was recognised thus:

" ..... The higher qualifications for the higher grade, D .'
which may be either academic qualifications, or experience
based on length of service reasonably sustain the classifica-
tion of the officers into two grades with differeni scales of
pay. The principle of equal pay for equal work would be an
r) abstract doctrine not attracting Art. 14 if sought to be
applied to them." E

In a recent pronouncement, this Court dealt with a case, the facts
of which, in comparison with those of the present one, would render
the latter as a fortiori position. In State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia and
Ors., (Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1987 dated 27 .9. 1988 this Court noticed
the question thus: F

"The question is whether it is permissible to have two
pay-scales in the same cadre for persons having same duties
and having same responsibility?"

Reversing the decisiOn of the High Court which in the facts of the G
case answered in the negative this Court observed:

"The second question formulated needs careful
examination. The question is not particular to the present
case. It is pertinent to all such cases. It is a matter affecting
the civil services in general. The question is whether there H
492 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988] Supp. 3 S.C.R.

A could be two scales of pay in the same cadre of persons
performing the same or similar work or duties. All Bench
Secretaries in the High Court of Allahabad are undispu-
tedly having same duties. But they have been bifurcated
into two grades with different pay scales ... "

" .... In service matters, merit or experience could
be the proper basis for classification to promote efficiency
in administration. He or she learns also by experience as
much as by other means. It cannot be denied that the
quality of work performed by persons of longer experience
is superior than the work of new comers .... "
c We think that the principle of classification amongst the existing
officers Grade A for purposes of fitment in the new dispensation
brought about by the statutory regulations cannot be said to be
unreasonable and arbitrary requiring to be struck down as violative of
Article 14:
D
Some arguments were advanced on the question if the number of
posts categorised against "Senior Management Grade-Scale IV" was
higher than those filled-up by the initial-fitment under Regulation 7
read with Schedule I, the excess number of posts would automatically
go, by way of placement, to the existing officers in Grade A without
E the requirement of "promotion". The' categorisation of posts under
Regulation 6 is an exercise which is not in any way fettered by Regula-
tion 7. If more number of posts are categorised under 'Senior Manage-
ment Grade Scale IV' than the number of existing-officers placed into
the higher scale pursuant to Regulation 7 read with Schedule I, the
F proper construction to be placed on the scheme of the Regulation is
that these extra number of posts in the higher scale would have to be
filled-up by promotion under Regulation 17 and not by a continuing
process of placement and fitment.

There is thus, no merit in the writ petition which is accordingly
dismissed. But in the circumstances, we make no order as to costs.
Cl
R.S.S. Petition dismissed.