Holding

The circular fixing the employee’s pay at the Assistant Education Officer scale is wholly justified and not arbitrary or irrational.

Summary

The Calcutta Municipal Corporation was formed by merging three municipalities, including Garden Reach, under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980. Respondent No.1, who had been an Education In‑charge in Garden Reach Municipality on a pay scale of Rs. 380‑910, was placed after the merger in the post of Education Officer ‘Unit’ with a pay scale of Rs. 610‑1270, the scale for an Assistant Education Officer, pursuant to a Governor’s notification and Circular No. 31 of 1985. He filed a writ petition claiming entitlement to the higher Education Officer pay scale of Rs. 660‑1600, invoking the principle of equal pay for equal work. The Calcutta High Court allowed his claim, but the Supreme Court held that the circular’s placement was neither arbitrary nor irrational, considering his previous pay and duties, and that the High Court erred in granting the higher scale. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, dismissed the writ petition, and allowed the corporation’s appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the placement of the employee in the pay scale of Rs. 610‑1270 under Circular No. 31, 1985 is arbitrary or irrational.
Whether the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ obliges the corporation to grant the employee the higher pay scale of Rs. 660‑1600.
Whether the Governor’s notification and the circular are valid exercises of power under the Bengal Municipal Act.

Legislation cited

Bengal Municipal Act, 1932s. 120(2), s. 120(2A)
Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980
Constitution of Indias. Article 14

Subjects

municipal mergeremployee placementequal pay for equal workarbitraryirrationalpay scalesadministrative lawconstitutional lawarticle 14Bengal Municipal ActCalcutta Municipal Corporation

Judgment

\
)
I
. , THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL A
CORPORATION AND ORS.
v. ~' " ,, ',. -, i

PIJUSH KANT! DAS AND ANR.

JANUARY 22, 1996 .,,.
., B
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]
... ''
Service Law :

Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 : c
Ss. 120(2) and (2A):-Notification dated 21.12.1983, Circular No ..~I
dafed 29.6.1985 :. Merger of Jadhavpur, South Suburban and Garde~1 R,~ach
Municipalities in Calcutta Municipal Corporation-Placement
. . of
'
employees
,,
of erstwhile municipal units in comparable posts and pay scales under the
Corporation on the basis of their pay and nature of duties in er.itwhile D
municipal units-Held to be wholly justified.

Constitution of India, 1950 :

Articies 14, Jfi"Merger of Jadhavpur, South Suburban and· Garden
Reach municipalities in Calcutta Municipal Corporation-Placement of E
employees of erstwhile municipalities in comparable posts and pay scales
under the C01poratio11 keeping in view their pay and nature of duties in the
erstwhile municipalities-Held, neither arbitrary nor irrational.

With the constitution of Calcutta Municipal Corporation under the
F
provisions of Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, with effect from
4.1.1984, comprising erstwhile Calcutta Corporation and t.hree other
mu,nicipalities, namely Jadhavpur Municipality, So.nth Suburban
Municipality and Garden Reach Municipality, employees of all the four •
municipalities were taken over by the Corporation on the same ter'!'s .and
.conditions of service as in. force in municipality concerned immediately G
before the date of merger. Jn view of the disparity in the. stalling pattern
and the distinction in the functioning of the erstwhile municipalities the
merged municipalities were identified as 'Units' under the Corpor~tion
nntil framing of appropriate rules and regulations. The Governor of West
Bengal, in exercise of powers under Ss. 120(2) and (2A), issued Notification. I
H
831
(
'
832 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] 1 S.C.R.

A dated 21.12.1983 making arrangement for the employees of erstwhile Gar·
den Reach Municipality, Circular No. 31 dated 29.6.1985 issued in this
regard stated that the officers and the employees of the three units, i.e.,
erstwhile municipalities of Jadhavpur, South Suburban and Garden
Reach, who were in service on 3.1.1984 and continued till date would be
B placed in the comparable posts and pay scales under the Corporation.
Under the Corporation there were 4 categories of Education Officers,
namely, Assistant Education Officer in the pay-scale of Rs. 610-1270,
Deputy Education Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 540-1470, Education
Officer in the pay scale of Rs. 660-1600 and Senior Education Officer in
C the pay scale of Rs. 1100-1900. Respondent no. 1, who was working as
'Education Incharge' in a much "lower pay scale of Rs. 380-910, in the
erstwhile Garden Reach Municipality was, on merger, given the pay scale
of Rs. 610-1270, admissible to Assistant Education Officer in the Corpora·
tion, with the designation Education Officer 'Unit'.

D Respondent no. 1 filed a writ petition before the High Court claiming
that he was entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 660-1600 meant for Education
Officer of the Corporation as he was also an Education Officer. The
High Court allowed the writ Petition. The letters patent appeal of the
Corporation was dismissed. Aggrieved, the Corporation filed the present
E appeal.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : Taking into account the pay which the respondent was
getting in the erstwhile Garden Reach Municipality and his nature of
F duties, fixing of his pay comparable to the Asstt. Education Officer by
application of Circular No. 31 dated 29.6.1985 can neither be said to be
arbitrary nor irrational, on the other hand, the decision contained therein
must be held to be wholly justified. The respondent has rightly been
granted the pay scale of Rs. 610-1270 with the designation Education
G Officer 'unit'. Before the merger, the respondent had been drawing the pay
scale (of Rs. 380-910) much less than that of Assistant Education Officer
under the Corporation. The High Court erred in allowing the claim of the
respondent, since by such direction not only the respondent has been given
promotion by two hierarchy but also he would march over the other Deputy
H Education Officer under the Corporation. [835-H, 836-A, B, 835-G]
MUNICIPAL COMMNR. v. PIJUSH KANT! DAS [PATIANAIK, J.] 833

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2202 of A
1996.

From the Judgment and Order dated 11.7.95 of the Calcutta High
Court in 0. Order No. 146 of 1993.

Tapas Ray and L.C. Agrawala for the Appellants. B
N.R. Choudhary, AL. Basu and Somnath Mukherjee for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
c
G.B. PATTANAIK, J. Leave granted.

This appeal is directed against the Judgment of the Calcutta High
Court in Letters Patent appeal arising out of the Judgment of the Single
Judge in Writ Petition No. 10421(W) of 1988. The question that arises for
consideration is whether the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has at D
all got any application to the case in hand following which principle the
High Court has directed that respondent no. 1 would be entitled to the pay
scale of 660-1600, which is the pay scale of the Education Officer under
the Calcutta Municipal Corporation?

The Calcutta Municipal Corporation was constituted under the E
provisions of Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 with effect from
4.1.1984. Prior to the constitution of the aforesaid Corporation, there was
in existence the Calcutta Corporation under the Calcutta Municipal Act,
1951 and three other Municipalities called Jadhavpur Municipality, South
· Suburban Municipality and Garden Reach Municipality which had been F
constituted under the Bengal Municipal Act. By Notification dated 21st of
December, 1983 the Governor in exercise of power conferred upon him by
sub-section (2A), read with sub-section (2) of Section 120 of the Bengal
Municipal Act, 1932 made arrangement for the employees of the erstwhile
Garden Reach Municipality. Admittedly the respondent was serving as
·• 'Education in-charge' on a pay scale of 380-910. In the Notification dated G
21st of December, 1983, it was clearly stated that for continuing civic
services employees of the Commissioner of the Garden Reach Municipality
shall, on and from the said date, be taken over by the Corporation and
shall continue to serve, on the same terms and conditions of service as in
force in the said municipality immediately before the said date, under the H
834 : ,,.· .. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) 1 S.C.R.

A Corporation until further orders. In other, words, the servi.ce conditions of
employees of Garden Reach municipality includi~g that of the r~;P~11\l'qt
remained unaltered under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. N·ot-
withstanding the constitution of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and
the merger of all the four municipalities referred to earlier, in view of.the
disparity in the staffing pattern and the distinction in the functioning of the
B erstwhile municipalitic·s, the merged municipal units of J adhavp\Jr, South
Suburban
'\ •
and111.Garden
• ·· I
Reach
.
continued
'
to be identified
.
as 'Units'
·•··. ·
under
the Corporation until framing of appropriate rules and regulations. Under
the Calcutta Municipal Corporation there were 4 categories of Edilcatiob
Officers namely (1).Asstt. Education Officer in the pay scale of 610-1270,
(2) Deputy Education Officer in the pay scale of 550-1470, (3) Education
Officer in the pay scale of 660-1600 and (4) Senior Education Officer in
the pay scale of 1100 - 1900, Since the respondent as 'Education Incharge'
'cif 'Garded Reach lyiunii::ipality was in the pay scale of380-910 'which is
~ilch Jes; ih~n the pay scale of Asst. Education Officer 610-1270; he was
•D 'given the saltl pay stale with the designation Education Officer 'Unit'. The
said respondent, however, filed the writ petition claiming that he is entitled
to the:p~isc,\Je'of 660-1600 meant for Education Officer of the Corpota-
tidn since he °Ir also Education Officer. The said writ petitioii. having b~en
allowed and ihe appeal against the same to the Division Bench having been
dismissed, the present appeal has been preferred. · · " · .. 1
E ;,,

., , " ·The.learned counsel for,the appellant apart from bringing it t~ our
notice the Notification.of the.Governor dated 21st of December,
' . -
1983 'to
.
which reference has already be'n m.ade also brought to. our notice t'-':o
.circulars namely Circular. No. 31 1985-86 as well as Circular No. 35 of
F . 1985-86, which squarely deals with• the dispute with regard to the fixa\i~n
'of pay scales .. Under Circular .No. 31 dated 29th June, 1985 it h~s been
,.clearly i!idica\ed that the officers and the e111ployees including the lab.our
·staff of the three units viz.. Jadhavpur, South suburbal\ and Garden Reach
(erstwhile:rnunicipalities) who were in service of the municipalities, on
, . 3.1.1984 and·ralso·those who. have been appqinted thereafter in'' ih.e p~y
' G .. scales .of the. Units and· are continuing in service.tiUdate be placedio, the
· comparable posts and pay-s~ales under Calcutta Municipal Corporation.as
indicated by ·designations and pay scales under Ann.exure-A, B &. C respec-
t. lively for J.adhavpur, South S11burban and Garden Reach Units with effect
• • • • J • • • ' ' • '

nfrom .1st day of .July, 1985 subject {o exercising option by .individual
} H .. ·employee .to come under the recommende<\ <)esignations. and pay spal~s
MUNJCIPALCOMMNR. v. PJJUSHKANTI DAS [PATIANAIK;J.) 835

shown in the Annexure-A,B & C. So far as the respondent is concerned ·A
who was earlier serving as 'Education Incharge' under Garden Reach ·
Municipality approved designation was Education Officer' 'Unit' and his
pay scale fixed at 610-1270: The Circular No: 35 of 1985-86 which was
issued on 7th August, 1985 pursuant to the order of the administrator had
been issued as there had been certain changes in designation and/or pay B
scales in respect of certain posts under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation
between the period from 4.1.1984 to 30.6.1985. Even in that Circular while
• fixing of pay ·of employees in comparable posts; so far as the post of
erstwhile 'Education Incharge' in Garden Reach Municipality, the same
has been notified and pay scale of 500-1360 has been given with the
designation of Education Officer 'Unit'. But the learned Single Judge being C
of the opinion that the Education Officer 'Unit' discharges the same
functions and duties as Education officer of the Municipal Corporation had
directed the Corporation grant him the pay scale of 660-1600 as is admis-
sible to th~ Education Officer of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. The
Division Bench has also affirmed the said decision having examined the D
matter on .record and after hearing the counsel for the parties. We un-
hasitatingly come to the conclusion that both the learned Single Judge as
well as the Division Bench of the High Court have committed gross error
in directing the Corporation to grant the pay scale of 660-1600 to the
respondent. There is no manner of dispute that before the merger, the E
respondent as Education Incharge under the Garden Reach Municipality
was drawing the pay scale of 380-910 which was much less than the pay
scale of Asst Education Officer under the Calcutta Municipal Corpora-.
lion. After the merger of the Garden Reach Municipality with Calcutta
.Municipal Corporation the question arose for posting the employees of the
erstwhile municipality against any comparable post. Circular No. 31 had F
been issued and rightly the respondent had been granted the pay scale with
the designation as Education Officer 'Unit'. In complete ignorance of the
aforesaid Circular the High Court appears to have granted the pay scale
of 660-1600 to the respondent which is admissible to the post of Education
Officer under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. By such direction not G
only the respondent has been given promotion by two hierarchy but also
would march over the other Deputy Education Officers under the Cor-
poration. Taking into account the pay which the respondent was getting in
the erstwhile Garden Reach Municipality and his nature of duties, fixing
of his pay comparable to the Asst. Education Officer by application of H
j
{

836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] 1 S.C.R.

A Circular No. 31 can neither be .said to be arbitrary nor irrational, on the
other hand the decision contained therein must be held to be wholly
justified. The High Court on the other hand failed to consider the pay scale
which the respondent was drawing in the erstwhile Garden Reach
Municipality and the duties discharged by him thereunder and merely from
the designation of Education Officer jumped to the conclusion that the
B respondent should be entitled to the same pay scale as is admissible to the
Education Officer under the Corporation. The aforesaid conclusion of the
High Court on inaccurate premises, and on non consideration of the
relevant materials as well as the Circular No. 31 of 1985-86 is thus vitiated
and the judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as that of the Division
C Bench has become vulnerable. In the circumstances we set aside the
judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court as well as that of the
learned Single Judge and the writ petition filed by the respondent stand
dismissed. This appeal is allowed. No costs.

R.P. Appeal allowed.