Holding

Educational qualification is a valid basis for classification of employees for pay, and a person lacking the requisite qualification cannot claim equal pay with those possessing it; therefore the High Court order granting the respondent the higher scale is set aside.

Summary

The case concerned a supervisory‑B employee of a sugar mill who, after the mill was nationalised under the Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971, sought to be placed in the corporation’s higher pay scale that was being paid to two other employees – one whose higher pay was protected under Section 16 of the Act and another who had been promoted by a selection committee. The High Court ordered the corporation to grant him the same pay, but the corporation appealed. The Supreme Court examined whether lack of the prescribed scientific degree could be a valid ground for distinguishing pay categories under Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution. Relying on earlier decisions, the Court held that educational qualification is a permissible classification and that a person who does not possess the required qualification cannot claim equal pay with those who do, even if the other cases involved different factual circumstances. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the corporation was not required to pay the respondent the higher scale. The Court also affirmed that policy decisions on pay scales are within the State’s discretion and not subject to reversal on the basis of alleged inequality.

Issues considered

Whether educational qualification can be a valid basis for classifying employees for payment of wages under Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution.
Whether a supervisory‑B employee lacking the prescribed degree is entitled to the same pay scale as employees who possess the degree and are placed in a higher scale.
Whether the High Court erred in directing the corporation to grant equal pay to the respondent.
Whether the corporation’s policy decision on pay scales is subject to challenge under the equality clause.
Whether the classification based on qualification is reasonable and not arbitrary.

Legislation cited

Equal Remuneration Act, 1976s. 2(h)
Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971s. 16, s. 3

Subjects

Article 14Article 39(d)equal pay for equal workeducational qualificationclassification of employeespay scaleUttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Actpublic sector corporationpolicy decisionwage boardservice law

Judgment

A U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPORATION LTD. AND ANR.
v.
SANT RAJ SINGH & ORS.

MAY 12, 2006

B (S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.]

Constitution of India, 1950:

Articles 14 and 39 (d)-Equal pay for equal work-Applicability of-
Held-/t cannot be applied in a vacuum-It applies to those who are equally
C placed in all respects-Possession of a higher qualification is a valid basis
for classification of two categories of employees-In the facts of the case,
claim ofhigher scale ofpay ofemployee not possessing requisite qualification
only on the ground that others had it, rejected especially cases of other
employees stood on different footing-Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings
D (Acquisition) Act, 1971.

Articles 14-Wrong decisions-Applicability to other cases-Held -
Such decisions would not clothe others with legal right-Article 14 has a
positive concept, and nobody can claim equality in illegality.

E Service law: Matter relating to grant ofscale ofpay-Helq-lt may be
based upon a policy decision of State.

Respondent was working in supervisory Grade-B in a sugar mill
when it was nationalized in terms of Uttar Pradesh Sugar Undertakings
(Acquisition) Act, 1971. His services were taken over in terms of the
F provisions of the Act with effect from the date of nationalisation and
his scale of pa} stood protected in terms of Section 16 of the Act. He
did not have Degree in Science and for that reason was not entitled to
be placed in the Corporation pay scale and continued to be paid in the
pay scale prescribed by the Sugar Wage Board.
G One B.P.S., working in another mill which also vested in the
Corporation, had been getting A-II grade before nationalisation thereof,
and his pay was protected.

With a view to remove certain anomalies a Selection Committee
H was constituted by the Corporation and for the said purpose called
636
U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPN. LTD. v. S.R. SINGH 637

seven candidates for interview. S was also one of the candidates called A
for interview. By reason of recommendations made by the Committee,
four employees out of the seven called for interview, including S were
placed in the revised pay scale meant for laboratory in-Charge in the
Corporation.

The Respondent continued to be placed in the Supervisory B-
B
Grade. The Third Sugar Wage Board was constituted. In terms of the
said recommendations, category B-Grade was not prescribed. The
respondent was placed in Supervisory A-Grade. He was, however, not
placed in the Corporation Scale of Pay.
c
Respondent filed a writ petition praying for grant of scale of pay
which was being paid to B.P.S. and S. High Court directed the appellants
to pay him similar pay scale from the date from which B.P.S. and S were
being paid. Hence the present appeal.
D
Appellant contended that (i) respondent was not possessing the
requisite qualification and could not be placed on a higher scale of pay
(ii) cases of both B.P.S. and S stood absolutely on different footings;
former was already drawing a higher scale of pay and the same was
required to be protected in terms of Section 16 of the Act and insofar
as latter, he was placed on a higher scale of pay by a Committee.
E

Respondent contended that when he entered into service, no such
qualification was prescribed; the laboratory in-charges performed the
same nature of duty and in that view of the matter the educational
qualification prescribed for the siad post was wholly immaterial. F

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD 1.1. The doctrin'e of equal pay for equal work as adumbrated
under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India read with Article 14 G
thereof, cannot be applied in a vacuum. The constitutional scheme
postulates equal pay for equal work for those who are equally placed
in all respects. Possession of a higher qualification has all along been
treated to be a valid basis for classification of two categories of
<!mployees. (643-H, 644-A]
H
638 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A State ofJammu and Kashmir v. Shri Triloki Nath Khosa, (1974) 1 SCC
19; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pramod Bhartiya, (1993) l SCC 539;
Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, [1994] 2 SCC 521; Government of
W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy, (2004] 1 SCC 347 and MP. Rural Agriculture
Extension Officers Association v. State of MP., (2004] 4 SCC 646, relied
on.
B
2.1, Respondent admittedly did not possess the requisite
qualification. He merely claimed a higher scale of pay only because
B.P.S. and S had been paid. It has not been disputed that the case of
S stood on different footing and his scale of pay had to be protected in
C terms of Section 16 of the Act. (646-CJ

2~2. The decision regarding S was not questioned by the Respondent
before the High Court. No foundational facts had been placed before
the High Court in relation thereto. Assuming that the Corporation was
wrong, the same by itself would not clothe the Respondent even legal
D right to claim a higher scale of pay. (646-D-E)

2.3. Article 14 has a positive concept. Nobody can claim equality
in illegality. (647-H, 648-A]

2.4. On wt.at basis the Selection Committee selected four employees
E out of the seven is not known. Three persons admittedly were not
selected. Jf the plea put forward by the Respondent is accepted, these
employees also would be entitled to the same scale of pay as given to
the said S although they have been found to be not fit therefor.
Educational qualification was made the basis for a valid classification
F in the matter of payment of salary in a particular scale of pay by the
Wage Board itself. Only in the year 1989, such a classification was
obliterated. The respondent had been granted the benefit of the
recommendations of Third Wage Board also. It was a matter of policy
decision for the Corporation to consider as to whether a particular
category of employees should be taken outside the purview of the pay
G scales recommended by the Wage Board and place them in a higher
scale of pay. Therefore, only because no such qualification was prescribed
at the time of recruitment, it cannot be said that the classification made
on that basis would be bad in law. Even otherwise the said contention
is not correct as scale of pay was determined by the award of the Wage
H Board. [646-E-H, 647-A]
U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPN. LTD. v. S.R. SINGH [SINHA, J.] 639

2.5. The validity or otherwise of the said policy decision is not in A
question. The said policy decision has been taken as far back in 1984.
It cannot be assumed that the Respondent was not aware of the same.
Despite knowledge, he did not question the validity of such a policy
decision. The matter relating to grant of scale of pay may be based upon
a policy decision of the State. [647-A-BJ
B
State of Orissa v. Balaram Sahu, [2003) 1 SCC 250 and Union of
India v. International Trading Co., [2003) 5 SCC 437, relied on.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6588 of
2003. c
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.12.2002 of High Court of
Uttaranchal at Nainital in C.M.W.P. No. 235 (M/S)/2001.

WITH
D
Civil Appeal Nos. 8237-8238 of 2003.

Civil Appeal No. 2656 of 2006.

Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, Adv. for the Appellants. E

Dinesh Dwivedi, Sr. Adv., Shakil Ahmed Syed, Mukesh Verma,
Manish Shankar, Ashish Mohan, Vinay Garg, Avatar Singh Rawat, Jatinder
Kumar Bhatia and Mrs. Nandini Gore (NP), Advs. with him for the
Respondents.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. SINHA, J. : Leave granted in S.L.P.

Whether educational qualification can be considered to be a relevant G
criteria for the purpose of payment of wages is the question involved in these
appeals which arise out of a judgment and order dated 11.12.2002 passed
by a Division Bench of the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in
C.M.W.P. No. 235(M/S) of 2001 allowing the writ petition filed by the
Respondent herein and an order dated 13.5.2003 refusing to review the said H
640 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A order.

Doiwala Sugar Company Limited (Company) was having a sugar mill
at Maholi. There exists a post of Assistant Laboratory lncharge in all the
sugar mills. The post carried certain grades. The wages of the employees in
the sugar factory in the State of Uttar Pradesh used to be governed by the
B terms of awards of the Wage Board appointed by the Government of India
from time to time. An award was made by U.P. Sugar Wage Board in the
year 1970 prescribing different scales of pay for different categories of
employees working in all the Vaccum Pan Sugar Factories in the State of
Uttar Pradesh. Educational qualifications were laid down as criteria for
c classifying the employees in different grades, which are as under:

(a) for the post of Laboratory lncharge Supervisory Al, - Degree in
Science with Physics and Chemistry and Mathematics as subjects and
Associate Membership of National Sugar Institute, Kanpur or any other
D equivalent qualification.

(b) for the post of Laboratory lncharge, Supervisory A-II, Degree in
Science with Physics and Chemistry as subjects and at least two years
practical experience in the sugar industry.

E However, it was prescribed that in the event the laboratory Incharge,
i.e., Supervisory Grade A-II were having the educational qualification of less
than a Degree, he would be placed in Supervisory B Grade.

The Legislature of the State of U.P. enacted the Uttar Pradesh Sugar
Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971 to provide, in the interest of the
F
general public, for the acquisition and transfer of certain sugar undertakings
and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

"Appointed Day" in the said Act was defined to be 3rd July, 1971. In
terms of Section 3 of the said Act, on the appointed day, every scheduled
G undertaking shall, by reason thereof, stand and be deemed to have stood
transferred to and vest and be deemed to have vested absolutely in the U.P
State Sugar Corporation Limited (for short "the Corporation"). Section 16
of the said Act provided that every person working in any of such sugar mills
which stood vested under the said Act shall on and from the date of such
H acquisition become an employee of the Corporation and shall hold his office
U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPN. LTD. v. S.R. SINGH [SINHA, J.] 641
,
or service therein by the same tenure, at the same remuneration and upon A
the same terms and conditions and with same rights and privileges as to
pension, gratuity and other matters as he would have held the same on the
appointed day if the undertaking had not been transferred to and vested in
the Corporation and shall continue to do so until his employment in the
Cotporation is terminated or until his remuneration or other terms and
B
conditions of services or revised or altered by the Corporation under or in
pursuance of any law or in accordance with any provision which for the time
being governs his service.

The provisions of the said Act, however, were implemented in phases.
c
On or about 3.2.1984, an order was issued by the Corporation in terms
whereof certain categories of employees like Assistant Engineers,
Manufacturing Chemists and Laboratory lncharges posted in various units
of the Corporation who had been drawing salary in Supervisory Grade A-
I and A-II Grade of the Wage Board of the Sugar Industry were placed in D
the Corporation scale of pay with effect from l.2.1984. The scale of pay for
such Laboratory Incharge was fixed at Rs. 550-1200 for those who had
earlier been working on the initial pay scale of Rs. 375-1000 in terms of the
recommendations of the Wage Board. However, those who have been
working in the pay scale of Rs. 355-755 were put in the scale of Rs. 500-
E
1000. A revision of pay was effected by the Corporation by a notification
dated 23 .I 0.1984 in terms whereof those laboratory in charges who had
earlier been put in the pay scale of Rs. 550-1200 were put in the pay scale
of Rs. 900-1770 and those who had been placed in the pay scale of Rs. 500-
1000 were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 770-1600. It had, however, been
clarified that pay scale of Rs. 900-1770 would be admissible only to those F
laboratory incharges who possessed B.Sc. Degree with Post Graduate
Diploma of Sugar Technology from National Sugar Institute and all other
laboratory incharges under Supervisory A-I or A-II would be entitled for the
Corporation revised pay scale of Rs. 770-1600.
G
Maholi Sugar Mill belonging to the Company vested in the Corporation
with effect from 28. l 0.1984. The First Respondent herein was appointed in
the Sugar Mill on 1.3 .198 l. He was not possessed of the qualification of
Degree in Science. His services were taken over in terms of the provisions
of the Act with effect from the date of nationalisation of the sugar mill. It H
642 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A is not in dispute that his scale of pay stood protected in terms of Section 16
of the Act.

The First Respondent being in Supervisory Grade-B at the time of
acquisition of the factory was, thus, not entitled to be placed in the
Corporation pay scale. He was, therefore, continued to be paid in the pay
B scale prescribed by the Sugar Wage Board even after 28.10.1984.

One B.P. Srivastava, working in another mill which also vested in the
Corporation, had been getting A-II Grade before nationalisation thereof. His
pay was protected.
c
With a view to remove certain anomalies allegedly a Selection Committee
was constituted by the Corporation on or about 28.3.1985. The Committee
for the said purpose called seven candidates for interview. It is stated that
the basis for calling the said candidates for interview is not known. Shri
Shyam Sunder Shukla was also one of the candidates called for interview.
D By reason of recommendations made by the said Committee, four employees
out of the seven called for interview including Shri Shukla were placed in
the revised pay scale of Rs. 770-1600 meant for laboratory incharge in the
Corporation. Shri Shukla was placed in the Corporation scale in Bijnore unit
of the Corporation. The First Respondent herein thereafter was transferred
E to a unit of the Corporation at Rohana Kalan. He continued to be placed in
the Supervisory B-Grade and had been drawing salary in the prescribed scale
of pay therefor. The Third Sugar Wage Board was constituted. It made its
recommendations on 3 l. l.199 l. The said recommendations were given
retrospective effect and retroactive operation from 29.12.1989. In terms of
F the said recammendations, category B-Grade was not prescribed. The First
Respondent was also placed in Supervisory A-Grade. He was, however, not
placed in the Corporation Scale of Pay. He was transferred from the said
Rohana Kalan Unit to Maholi Unit again.

In the year 1996, he filed a writ petition before the High Court of
G Allahabad inter alia praying therein for grant of scale of pay which was being
paid to Shri B.P. Srivastava and Shri Shukla. The State ofUttaranchal having
been created, the said writ petition was transferred to the High Court of
Uttaranchal. By reason of the impugned order, the High Court directed the
Appellants to pay similar pay scale of Rs. 2000-3500 from the date from
H which Shri B.P. Srivastava and Shri Shyam Sunder Shukla were being paid.
U.P. STATE SUGAR CORPN. LTD. v. S.R. SINGH [SINHA, J.] 643
·..
Civil Appeal Nos. 6588 and 8237 of 2003 have been filed against the said A
order. An application for review was filed which was rejected by an order
dated 13.5.2003. Civil Appeal No. 8238 and Civil Appeal arising out ofSLP
(C) No. 18327 of 2004 have been filed against the said order.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant submitted
that the High Court committed a manifest error insofar as it failed to take B
into consideration that the cases of both Shri B.P. Srivastava and Shri Shyam
Sunder Shukla stood absolutely on different footings. It was conteµded so
far as the case of Shri B.P. Srivastava is concerned, he having 'afrell~ been
drawing a higher scale of pay, the same was required to be protected in terms
of Section 16 of the Act and insofar as the case of the said Shri Shyam Sunder c
Shukla is concerned, he was placed on a higher scale of pay by a Committee.
It was submitted that as the First Respondent was not possessing the requisite
qualification, he could not have been placed on a higher scale of pay.

Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
First Respondent, urged that when the First Respondent entered into ~ervice,
D
no such qualification was prescribed. The laboratory incharges performed the
same nature of duty and in that view of the matter the educational
qualification prescribed for the said post was wholly immaterial. The learned
counsel urged that the Wage Board having made a distinction in the scales
of pay based on educational qualification and the same having been E
withdrawn by the same authority which came into force with effect from
29.12.1989, at least from the said date the First Respondent should have been
placed in the Corporation Scale of Pay.

Our attention was also drawn to the fact that the Committee purported F
to have been appointed by the Corporation for reasons best known to it called
only seven candidates for interview. The Corporation has not disclosed as
to why the case of the First Respondent had not been considered by the said
Committee. The case of Shri Shyam Sunder Shukla, thus, could not have
been considered by the said Committee and in that view of the matter as he
although is not possessed of a Degree, he having been placed in the G
Corporation Scale of Pay, there was absolutely no reason as to why he should
be discriminated.

The doctrine of equal pay for equal work, as adumbrated under Article
39(d) of the Constitution of India read with Article 14 thereof, cannot be H
644 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A applied in a vacuum. The constitutional scheme postulates equal pay for
equal work for those who are equally placed in all respects. Possession of
a higher qualification has all along been treated by this Court to be a valid
basis for classification of two categories of employees.

In The State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Shri Triloki Nath Khosa and
B Others, [1974) 1 SCC 19, the validity of such a classification came to be
considered before this Court. Chandrachud, J., (as the learned Chief Justice
then was), opined:

" ... Formal education may not always produce excellence but a
c classification founded on variant educational qualifications is, for
purposes of promotion to the post of an Executive Engineer, to say
the least, not unjust on the face of it and the onus therefore cannot
shift from where it originally lay."

D Krishna Iyer, J. supplemented stating:

" ... The social meaning of Articles 14 to 16 is neither dull uniformity
nor specious "talentism". It is a process of producing quality out
of larger areas of equality extending better facilities to the latent
capabilities of the lowly. It is not a methodology of substitution of
E pervasive and slovenly medicority for activist and intelligent - but
not snobbish and uncommitted-cadres. However, ifthe State uses
classification casuistically for salvaging status and elitism, the point
of no return is reached for Articles 14 to 16 and the Court's
jurisdiction awakens to deaden such manoeuvres. The soul of
F Article 16 is the promotion of the common man's capabilities, over-
powering environmental adversities and opening up full opportunities
to develop in official life without succumbing to the sophistic
argument of the elite that talent is the privilege of the few and they
must rule, wriggling out of the democratic imperative of Articles
G 14 and 16 by the theory of classified equality which at its worst
degenerates into class domination."

In State of Madhya Pradesh and Another v. Pramod Bhartiya and
Others, [1993] 1 SCC 539 referring to the provisions of Section 2(h) of the
H Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, this Court stated:
U.P. STATE SUGARCORPN. LTD. v. S.R. SINGH [SINHA, J.] 645

"13. It would be evident from this definition that the stress is upon A
• the similarity of skill, effort and responsibility when performed
under similar conditions. Further, as pointed out by Mukharji, J. (as
he then was) in Federation of All India Customs and Excise
Stenographers the quality of work may vary from post to post. It
may vary from institution to institution. We cannot ignore or
overlook this reality. It is not a matter of l\Ssumption but one of
B
proof. The respondents (original petitioners) have failed to establish
that their duties, responsibilities and functions are similar to those
of the non-technical lecturers in Technical Colleges. They have also
failed to establish that the distinction between their scale of pay and
that of non-technical lecturers working in Technical Schools is c
either irrational and that it has no basis, or that it is vitiated by ma/a
fides, either in law or in fact (see the approach adopted in
Federation case)"

Yet again in Shyam Babu Verma and Others v. Union of India and D
Others, [1994] 2 SCC 521 a 3-Judge Bench of this Court opined:

" ... The nature of work may be more or less the same but scale of
pay may vary based on academic qualification or experience which
justifies classification. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work'
should not be applied in a mechanical or casual manner. Classification
E
made by a body of experts after full study and analysis of the work
should not be disturbed except for strong reasons which indicate the
classification made to be unreasonable. Inequality of the men in
different groups excludes applicability of the principle of'equal pay
for equal work' to them .... " F

In Government of WB. v. Tarun K. Roy, [2004] l SCC 347, it was
clearly laid down that the holders of a higher qualification can be treated to
be a separate class, holding :
G
"20. Question of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution ofindia
on the part of the State would arise only if the persons are similarly
placed. Equality clause contained in Article 14, in other words, will
have no application where the persons are not similarly situated or
when there is a valid classification based on a reasonable differentia ..."
H
··'". _7-fv---:· ~ ' \
. '-'
.
646 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.
, . ·---
·---~- -- -

A nie said decision has been noticed by another Bench of this Court in
MP, Rural Agriculture Extension Officers Association v. State of MP. and
Anot~; (2004] 4 sec 646 stating: ·

"22. Furthermore, as noticed hereinbefore, a valid classification
based on educational qualification for the purpose of grant ·of pay
B has been upheld by the Constitution Bench of this Court in P.
Naras(nga Rao.

The First Respondent admittedly did not possess the requmte
qualification. He merely claimed a higher scale of pay only because Shri B.P.
c SrivaSt,ava and Shri Shyam Sunder Shukla had been paid. It has not been
disputed bCfo;e us that the case of Shri Srivastava stood on different footing
and his scale of pay had to be protected in terms of Section 16 of the Act.
So far as Shri Shyam Sunder Shukla is concerned, we may proceed on the
basis that the Corporation took a wrong decision. The said decision, however,
was not questioned by the First Respondent before the High Court. No
D
foundational facts had been placed before the High Court in relation thereto.
We would not like to enter into the controversy as to whether his case could
have ..tic:l:n.i:onsidered by the Committee or on what basis the Committee
considci'.ed the cases of seven candidates and granted higher scales of pay
to four candidates as the validity thereof is not in question. Assuming that
E the Corporation was wrong, the same by itself would not clothe the First
Respondent even legal right to claim a higher scale of pay. On what basis
the Selection Committee selected four employees out of the seven is not
known. Three persons admittedly were not selected. If the plea put forward
·by the Respondent is accepted, these employees also would be entitled to
F the same scale of pay as given to the said Shri Shukla, although they have
been found to be not fit therefor. Educational qualification was made the
basis iQii; a valid classification in the matter of payment ~f salary in a
particular scale of pay by the Wage Board itself. Only in the year 1989, such
a classification was obliterated. The First Respondent had been granted the
benefit of the recommendations of the Third Wage Board also. It was a
G matter of policy decision for the Corporation to consider as to whether a
particular category of employees should be taken outside the purview of the
pay scales recommended by the Wage Board and place them in a higher scale
of pay. We, therefore, cannot accept the contention ofShri Owivedi that only
because no such qualification was prescribed at the time of recruitment, the
H classification made on that basis would be bad in law. Even otherwise the.
U.P. STATE S_UGAR CORPN. LTD. v. S.R. SINGH [SINHA, J.] 647

said contention is not correct as scale of pay was detennined by the award A
• of the Wage Board.

Yet again the validity or otherwise of the said policy decision is not
in question. The said policy decision has been taken as far back in 1984. It
cannot be assumed that the First Respondent was not aware of the same.
B
Despite knowledge, he did not question the validity of such a policy
decision. The matter relating to grant of scale of pay may be based upon a
policy decision of the State.

In State of Orissa and Others v. Balaram Sahu and Others, [2003] 1 C
SCC 250, this Court opined:

" ... Though "equal pay for equal work" is considered to be a
concomitant of Article 14 as much as "equal pay for unequal work"
will also be a negation of that right, equal pay would depend upon D
not only the nature or the volume of work, but also on the qualitative
difference as regards reliability and responsibility as well and
though the functions may be the same, but the responsibilities do
make a real and substantial difference."

Yet again in Union of India and Another v. International Trading Co. E
and Another, [2003] 5 SCC 437, this Court opined:

" ... A party cannot claim that since something wrong has been done
in another case direction should be given for doing another wrong.
It would not be setting a wrong right, but would be perpetuating
F
another wrong. In such matters there is no discrimination involved.
The concept of equal treatment on the logic of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India (in short "the Constitution") cannot be pressed
into service in such cases. What the concept of equal treatment
presupposes is existence of similar legal foothold. It does not.
countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring both wrongs on G
a par. Even if hypothetically it is accepted that a wrong has been
committed in some other cases by introducing a concept of negative
equality the respondents cannot strengthen their case"

Moreover, Article 14 has a positive concept. Nobody can claim equality H
648 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A in illegality.
•
For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the impugned
judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. If any amount
has been paid to the First Respondent, pursuant to or in furtherance of the
B judgment of the High Court, the same may be recovered from his salary in
twelve equal monthly instalments.

These appeals are allowed accordingly. The parties shall pay and bear
their own costs of the appeals.

c v.s. Appeals allowed.
...