Holding

The doctrine of equal pay for equal work does not apply because the posts differ in essential qualifications and nature of duties, and no discrimination is established; therefore the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The Union of India appealed against a decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court that had granted Mahajabeen Akhtar, a former Research Assistant of the Bureau of Promotion of Urdu Language, a replacement pay scale on the basis of equality with research assistants in other language departments. The Supreme Court examined whether the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" under Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution applied, given the differences in essential qualifications, nature of duties and responsibilities between the Urdu post and the posts in other departments. The Court held that the posts were not similarly situated and therefore the doctrine of equal pay could not be invoked. It further found no evidence of discrimination by the Government in fixing her pay scale. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, but the Court exercised its power under Article 142 to direct that the modest amount already paid to the respondent not be recovered.

Issues considered

The applicability of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work under Articles 14 and 39(d) to the respondent's pay‑scale grievance.
Whether the Tribunal and High Court erred in treating the Research Assistant (Urdu) post as equivalent to research assistant posts in other language departments.
Whether the respondent was discriminated against in the fixation of her pay scale.
Whether the amount already paid to the respondent can be recovered.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 142, s. Article 39(d)

Subjects

equal pay for equal workArticle 14Article 39(d)pay scale fixationdiscriminationCentral Administrative Tribunalresearch assistantpay revision commissiondoctrine of equality

Judgment

UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. A
V.
MAHAJABEEN AKHTAR

NOVEMBER 1, 2007
B
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]

Service Law:

Pay Scale-Revision in-Research Assistant working in Bureau C
ofPromotion ofUrdu Language (BPU) in pay scale ofRs.1640-2900-
NCPUL constituted in place of BPU-Option given to employees of
BPU to either get transferred to NCPUL or continue to work in
Government Department-Respondent opted to stay in Government
service as surplus-Deployed as Librarian-Application for D
upgradation ofpay scale-Allowed by Tribunal on the ground that
Research Assistant in BUP and Institutions like CHD, CIIL are
similarly qualified andperforming similar fanctions-Affirmed by High
Court-On appeal, held: Doctrine of equal pay for equal work not
applicable as essential educational qualifications and nature ofduties E

- of incumbent in other departments are different-As Union of India
has already applied its mind and revised respondent's pay, it was for
respondent to show that she had been discriminated against-Neither
in fact nor in law, any case of discrimination has been made out-
Hence, in the facts and circumstances ofthe case, no reliefgranted to F
appellant-However, in exercise ofjurisdiction under Article 142,
amount already paid to respondent not to be recovered-Pqy Scale-
Fixation of-Determining factors-Stated-Constitution of India,
1950-Articles 14, 39(d), 142-Doctrine ofequal payfor equal work.

The Respondent was appointed as Technical Assistant of Urdu G
Language in the Bureau of Promotion of Urdu Language (BPU). She
was promoted as Research Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.550-900.
The said pay scale was revised to Rs.1640-2900 on the
807 H
808 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 11 S.C.R.

A recommendations of the Fourth Pay Revision Commission. The
Central Government constituted National Council for Promotion of
Urdu Language (NCPUL) in place of the BPU. NCPUL started
functioning from 1.4.1996. Employees of the BPU were given an
option either to continue to work in the Government Department or
B get themselves transferred to NCPUL. Respondent opted ·for
Government service. Her name was, therefore, referred to surplus
cell for redeployment. She was redeployed as Librarian in National
Gallery of Modern Art and designated as Assistant Librarian and
Information Assistant. Her pay was upgraded in the scale of
c Rs.6500-10500. Indisputably, the scale of pay ofRs.1640-2900 was
revised to Rs. 5500-9000.
Consequent upon the recommendations of the Fifth Pay
Commission, Respondent filed a representation for upgradation of
her pay-scale which was not acceded to. Her application before the
D Tribunal was allowed based on the analogy of the scale granted to
Research Assistant in other Offices in the Education Department,
in view of the similarity in qualifications, functions and
responsibilities of the post of Research Assistant in the BPU on one
hand and in the CHD, CSTT, CITL on the other. High Court dismissed
E the writ petition on the principle of equality on the basis of similarity
in the nature of discharging of duties.
In appeal to this Court, the appellant contended that the
Tribunal and the High Court failed to take into consideration the fact
F that the nature of qualification and other relevant factors clearly
point out that the post of Librarian is not equivalent to that of the
post of Research Assistant in other regional languages.
Dismissing the appeal in view of observations made, the Court
''
G HEI ,D: 1. Respondent has been paid the amount by way of
difference in the scale of pay only for a short period. She has been
held to be entitled only for a sum ofRs.7,000/- and odd. Therefore, 1
in exercise of jurisdiction underArticle 142 of the Constitution, it is
directed that the amount already paid need not be recovered.
[Para 27] [822-D, E]
H
UNION OF INDIA v. MAHAJABEEN AKHTAR 809

2.1. The requisite criteria in regard to appointment, promotion, A
transfer as well as the nature of duties required to be performed by
the incumbents of posts of Research Assistant (Hindi) and Research
Assistant (Other languages) vis-a-vis that of Research Assistant
(Urdu) are different. Knowledge of English for Research Assistant
(Urdu) is not necessary whereas for the Research Assistant (Hindi) B
and other regional languages, the same is essential.
[Para 17} [819-B,C\
2.2. The essential qualifications are absolutely different for the
Research Assistant for CIIL. So far as the educational qualifications
nquired for promotion to the said post by the incumbents of the C
Research Assistant to Research Assistant (Hindi) is concerned,
different educational qualifications are required. Not only that, the
nature of duties is also different. Whereas the Research Assistants
in respect of Urdu language are required to assist the officer with ,
whom they are attached, the Research Assistants in Hindi and D
Research Assistants of CIIL are required to assist implementation
of the scheme. The Tribunal and consequently the High Court might
not, thus, be correct in opining that the educational qualifications as
also the nature of duty being the same, respondent was entitled to
the benefit of the said scale of pay. [Para 18] [819-C, D, E] 'E
3. Large number of factors, namely, educational qualifications,
nature of duty, nature of responsibility, nature of method of
recruitment etc. are relevant for determining equivalence in the
matter of fixation of scale of pay. [Para 19] [819-F]
:F
Secretary, Finance Department & Ors. v. West Bengal
Registration Service Association & Ors., [1993] Supp.I SCC 153;
State ofUP. & Ors. v. JP. Chaurasia & Ors., (1989] 1SCC121; Union
ofIndia & Ors. v. Pradip Kumar Dey, [2000] 8 SCC 580; and State of
Haryana & Anr. v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff G I

Association, (2002] 6 SCC 72, relied on.
Government ofWest Bengalv. Traun K Roy & Ors., [2004] 1 SCC
347; UP. State Sugar Corporation Ltd & Anr. v. Sant Raj Singh &
Ors., (2006] 9 SCC 82; and State ofHaryana & Ors. v. Charan}it Singh
H
-A,
\
810 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A & Ors., (2006] 9 SCC 321, referred to.
4. On the facts obtaining in this case, therefore, the doctrine of
equal pay for equal work has no application. The matter may have
been different, had the scales of pay have been determined on the
basis of educational qualification, nature of duties and other relevant
B factors. Ordinarily the scales of pay of employees working in different
departments should be treated to be at par and the same scale of
pay shall be recommended. Respondent did not opt for her services
to be placed on deputation. She opted to stay in the Government
service as a surplus. She was placed in list as Librarian in National
C Gallery of Modern Art. She was designated as Assistant Librarian
and Information Assistant. Her pay scale was determined at
Rs.6500-10500 which was the revised scale of pay. Her case has
admittedly not been considered by the Fifth Pay Revision
Commission. If a scale of pay in a higher category has been refixed
D keeping in view the educational qualifications and other relevant
factors by an e~pert body, no exception thereto can be taken. 4
Concededly it was for the Union oflndia to assign good reasons for
placing her in a different scale of pay. It has been done. Not only
the essential educational qualifications are different but the nature
E of duties is also different. Article 39(d) as also Article 14 of the
Constitution oflndfa must be applied, on the premise that equality
clause should be invoked in respect of the people who are similarly
situated in all respects. [Para 24] [821-A, B, C, D, E]
The Employees of Tennery and Footwear Corporation of India
F Ltd & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., [1991] Supp.2 SCC 565; and r
Alvaro Noronha Ferriera & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., [1999] 4
sec 408, relied on.
5. As the Union oflndia has already applied its mind and revised
the respondent's pay in the scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000, it was for
G the respondent to show that she had b~en discriinated against.
Neither in fact nor in law, any case of discrimination has been made 1

out. [Para 25] [822-A, B]
State of UP. & Ors. v. UP. Sales Tax Officers Grade II
H Association, [2003] 6 SCC 250; and Haryuna State Adhyapak Sangh
t;

UNION OF INDIA v. MAHAJABEEN AKHTAR[SINHA,J.] 811

"" "
& Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., (1988] 4 SCC 571, referred to. A
6.1. The findings of the Tribunal was that the incumbents to the
post of Research Assistants in the BUP and Institutions like Central
Hindu Directorate and Central Institution oflndian Languages etc.
are similarly qualified and they have been performing similar
functions. There was no factual foundation for arriving at the said B·
finding. Consequently, the said conclusion was wrongly drawn by the
Tribunal. Furthermore, no formula having mathematical exactitude
can be pressed into service in a situation of this nature. The Tribunal
and consequently the High Court, therefore, was not correct in
arriving at the said decision. (Para 26] [822-B, C, D] c
Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. Manjeet Singh & Anr., (2006} 8
sec 64 7' relied on.
6.2. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, no
relief is granted in favour of appellant. [Para 28] (823-A)
D
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5087 of
2007.
From the final Judgment/Order dated 19.8.2004 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 3719/2002.
E
A. Sharan, A.S.G., Sunita Sharma and Sushma Suri for the
Appellants.
Sudhir Kulshreshtha for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
--I
-;. F
S.B. SINHA, J. I. Leave granted.
2. Applicability of the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' is in
question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated
19.08.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in
Civil Writ Petition No.3719 of2002 dismissing the writ petition filed by G
-,
the appellant questioning an order dated 11.9.2000 passed in Original
,...J

' Application No.52 of 2000 by the Central Administrative Tribunal
directing to consider the question of grant of replacement pay-scale of
Rs.6500-10500 to the respondent, with consequential benefits in her
favour. H
812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A 3. Basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.
4. Respondent herein was appointed as Technical Assistant of Urdu
Language in the Bureau of Promotion of Urdu Language. She was placed
in the pay scale of Rs.425-700. She was promoted as Research Assistant
in the scale of pay ofRs.550-900. The said scale of pay was revised to
B Rs.1640~2900 on the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Revision
Commission.
5. The Central Government constituted National Council for
Promotion of Urdu Language (NCPUL) in place of the Bureau of
c Promotion of Urdu Language. NCPUL started functioning from 1.4.1996.
Employees of the Bureau were given an option either to continue to work
in the Government Department or get themselves transferred to NCPUL.
Respondent opted for Government service. Her name was, therefore,
referred to swplus cell for redeployment. She was redeployed as Librarian
D in National Gallery of Modem Art and designated as Assistant Librarian
and Information Assistant. Her pay was upgraded in the scale of Rs.6500-
10500.
6. Indisputably, the scale of pay of Rs.1640-2900 was revised to
Rs.5500-9000.
E
7. Consequent upon the recommendations of the Fifth Pay
Commission, Respondent filed a representation for upgradation of her pay-
scale which was not acceded to. She thereafter filed an application before
the Central Administrative Tribunal. By reason of an order dated
F 11.9.2000, the learned Tribunal allowed the said application opining:
"In the above view of the matter the application succeeds and is
accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the
grant of the replacement scale ofRs;6500-10500/- to the applicant,
keeping in view the similarity in essential qualification, functions in
G responsibilities with those in CHD, CIIL, CSIT w.e.f 01.01.96,
with consequential benefits. This should be done within four months
from the receipt ofthis order. Parties to bear their own costs (sic f •-;
manner)."
In arriving at the said conclusion, the Tribunal held :
H
,t'
......,, UNIONOFINDIAv. MAHAJABEEN AKHTAR[SINHA,J.] 813

"All the institutes including BPU were functioning on 01.01.1996 A
when the recommendations of the 5th Pay Comniission were
implemented. BPU came to be abolished only on 31.3 .1996, and,
therefore, there is no reason why the Research Assistant in BPU
should have been treated in a different matter."
8. A writ petition filed by the appellant herein against the said order B
has been dismissed by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment
stating:
"The case of the respondent in her OA was that the post of
Research Assistant in the Bureau of Urdu and also in the other c
sister departments was in the pay scale of Rs.1640-2900 upto
31.12.1995 and that qualifications required for th~ incumbents also
were the same and that duties, functions perfqrmed were also
similar in nature and, therefore, if post of Researeh Assistant was
- '

t- placed in the pay scale ofRs.6500-10500 in those Department D
under the same Education Department, she was also entitled to
the same pay scale on the principle of equality. We find that then~
is no specific denial or rebuttal to this by the petitioners in their
reply to the OA. Their stands seems to be couched in general
terms. They also seem to be suffering from some misconception
E
that since the post of Research Assistant was abolished in thy
Bureau ofl.Jrdu (NCPUL) and, therefore, the analogy of the pay
scale granted to Research Assistant in other sister Departments
could not be applied to her case. What is missed is that respondeQ.t
was asking for the revised pay scale at par with the Research
Assistants in other offices under the Education Department on tiie F
basis of similarity in the nature of discharging of duties etc. which
was not controverted by the petitioner and to which she W<J.S
entitled in the absence of any denial in this regard. Therefore, it
can't be said the Tribunal has gone wrong in directing petitioner
~
...
I
to consider this respondent for grant of pay scale of Rs.6500- G
l 0500 from 1.1.1996 on the analogy of the scale granted to
Research Assistant in other Offices in the Education Department,
in view ofthe similarity in qualifications functions and responsibilities
of the post of Research Assistant in the Bureau on one hand and
H
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A in the CHD, CSTT, CUL on the other. The Tribunal order is
accordingly affmned and petition is disposed of."
9. Mr. Amrendra Sharan, learned Additional Solicitor General of
India appearing on behalf of the appellants, submitted that the Tribunal
and consequently the High Court committed a serious error in arriving at
B the aforementioned conclusion in so far as they failed to take into
consideration the fact that the nature of qualification and other relevant
factors clearly point out that the post of Librarian is not equivalent to.that
of the post of Research Assistant in other regional languages.
c 10. Mr. Kulshreshtha, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe
respondent, on the other hand, would submit that as the respondent had
been in the job of the Bureau of Promotion of Urdu Language as on
1.1.1996 from which date the recommendations of the Fifth Pay
Commission came to be implemented, the impugned judgment and order
. D should not be interfered with.
11. Promotion of regional languages is undertaken by various bodies
including Central Hindi Directorate of the Ministry of Human Resources
Development, Department of Education, Central Institute of Indian
Language, Commission for Scientific and Technical Terminology, Ministry
E of Human Resources Development, Department of Education and Bureau
for Promotion.
12. So far as the educational and other qualifications required by
direct recruits for promotion of the Urdu language are concerned, following
F are stated to be the essential qualifications : r .
"(i) Master's Degree of a recognized University or equivalent.
(ii) Mµst·have taken Urdu as optional subject at the graduation
level for 3 years/2 years degree course in the case of M.As.
or must have taken Urdu as a second language upto 2nd years
G of 3 years.degree graduation in case of MAIM.Sc. M.Com
( .....
or must have taken Urdu at High School/Higher Secondary
School level in the case of M.Sc/M.Com where offering Urdu
as a second language at degree level is not furnished. ·

H (Iii) One years experience of teaching or terminological and/or
UNION OF INDIA v. MAHAJABEEN AKHTAR[SINHA,J.] 815

translation/editing work in Urdu A
Note 1 : Qualifications are relax.able at the discretion of the Union
Public Service Commission in case of candidates otherwise well
qualified.
Note 2 : The qualification regarding experience is relax.able at the ij
discretion of the Union Public Service Commission in the case of
candidates belonging to the scheduled castes and Schedules Tribes
if, at any stage of selection, the Union Public Service Commission
is of the ppinion that sufficient number of candidates from these
communities possessing the requisite experience are not likely to C
be available to fill up the vacancies reserved for them.
Desirable: Working knowledge of one or more, modem Indian
languages other than Urdu."
13. However, in respect of Hindi language, the qualifications D
prescribed are as under:
'-'(i) For post of Research Assistant (Hindi): Master's Degree in
Hindi or Sanskrit with Hindi as an elective subject at Degree
stage from a recognized university or equivalent and should
have studied English as a compulsory/optional subject at degree E
level.
(ii) For Post of Research Assistant (Regional Language) Master's
Degree in Hindi with knowledge of regional language
concerned and English at Secondary School level or Master's
Degree in the regional language concerned with Hindi and F
English as compulsory/optional subject at secondary school
examination level. (Regional language includes only those
languages which have been specified in the Eighth Schedule
of the Constitution oflndia, as amended from time to time,
baring Hindi and Sanskrit). G

(lii) For post of requiring knowledge of Medicine : Degree in
Integrated System of Indian Medicine Bachelor of Indian
Medicine and Surgery/Bachelor of Ayurvedic Medicine and
Surgery or Ayurveda/Pharmacy or equivalent from a
H
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A recognized university or board with Hindi and English as
. compulsory/optional subject at secondary school examination
level. -
(iv) For post requiring knowledge of Engineering : (Civil,
Mechanical, Electrical, Electronics, Computer Science, Textile,
B Mineral Leather Technology) : Diploma of a recognized
Institution/University or equivalent in the subject concerned
with Hindi and English as compulsory/optional subject as
secondary school examination level.
(v) For post of Research Assistant (Management)/Research
c Assistant (Public Administration) : Post-graduate diploma in
Management/Public Administration respectively from a
recognized university or equivalent with knowledge of English
and Hindi as compulsory/optional subject at secondary school
examination level or equivalent.
D
(vi) For post of Research Assistant (Journalism): Master's degree
in Hiridi with Diploma in Journalism/Mass Communication with
English as comp1:1lsory/optional subject at secondary school
examination level.
E (vii) For posts in any subject other than these mentioned above:
Master's Degree of recognized University or equivalent in the
subject concerned with English and Hindi as compulsory/
optional subject at Secondary School Examination level.
Note 1 : Qualification are relaxableat the discretion of the Union
F
Public Service Commission in case of candidates otherwise well
qualified.
Note 2 : Selected candidates will have to complete a departmental
training programme during their probation.
G
Desirable : Only for posts of Research Assistant (Hindi) : Certificate/ f ......
Diploma from a recognized Institute in Translation or Applied
Linguistics or Functional Hindi."
14. The essential qualifications required for other languages in CUL
H
;_
UNION OF INDIA v. MAHAJABEEN AKHTAR [SINHA,J.] 817

are stated to be as under : A
"(i) Master's Degree in Linguistic/Comparative Philology/Indian
Language and Literature/ Psychology/Education/Sociology/
Anthropology/Folklore/Statutics from recognized University or
equivalent
B
(ii) One years research/teaching experience.
(lii) Proficiency in any Indian Language as a subject at the
Secondary School Level in the case of Master of Arts in
Linguistics or Comparative Philology or as a subject at the
degree level in the case of Master of Arts in Subject other C
than Linguistics and Comparative philology.
Note 1 : Specific requirement will be indicated at the time of
recruitment"
15. We may also note that in the case ofrecruitment by promotion, D
deputation, transfer and grades from which promotion or deputation or
transfer to be made, the following are the requisite qualifications :
Urdu
Promotion: E
Technical Assistant (Urdu) working in the Bureau for Promotion
of Urdu with 5 years regular service in the grade.
Transfer or deputation :
(a) Officers under the Central Government/State Government: F

(i) holding analogous posts; or
(ii) with 5 years service in posts in the scale of pay ofRs.425-
700 or equivalent; and
G
(b) Possessing the Education qualifications and experience
prescribed for direct recruits under column-7. Period of
deputation including period of deputation in another ex-cadre
post held immediately preceding this appointment in the same
organization/department shall ordinarily not exceed 3 years." H
818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A Hindi
Transfer on deputation/transfer:
Officers under the Central Governments
(a) (i)Holding analogous posts in regular posts on regular basis, or
B
(ii) With 5 years regular service in post in the scale of pay of -\
Rs.1400-2300/2600 or
(lii) with 15 years regular service in post in the scale ofRs.950-
1500 or equivalent.
c (b) possessing the educational qualifications and experience
prescribed for direct recruitment under column 8. (period of
deputation including period of deputation in another ex cadre
post held immediately preceding this appointrnerit in the same
or some other organization/department of the Central
Government shall ordinarily not to exceed 3 years. The
maximum age limit for appointment by transfer on deputation
-+
including transfer shall be not exceeding 56 years, as on the
closing date of receipt of applications."
E 16. We may now consider different nature of duties required to be
performed by the these categories of officers :
"Urdu
To assist the officer with whom they are attached in implementing
F the publication programme BPU at various stages. This includes
organizing of subjects panel melting, implementing their decisions,
checking and editing mss, organizing Terminology committee
meeting and preparing of glossary of technical terms maintenance
of record of all the above mentioned activity and programming the
G duty allotted from time to time in furtherance of the activity of BPU.
{ .....,
Hindi
To assist in the implementation of schemes relating to periodicals,
preparation of Dictionaries- Lingual Bilingual, Trilingual and
H Multilingual, preparation of Dictionaries in Foreign Languages under
UNIONOFINDIAv. MAHAJABEEN AKHTAR[SINHA,J.] 819

Cultural Exchange Programme. A
Other Regional Languages
To assist in Linguistic and in material production in various Indian
Languages including the non-scheduled languages."
B
17. The requisite criteria in regard to such appointment, promotion,
transfer as well as the nature of duties required to be performed by the
incumbents of posts vis-a-vis that of Research Assistant (Urdu) therefor,
are different. Knowledge of English for Research Assistant (Urdu) is not
necessary whereas for the Research Assistant (Hindi) and other regional C ,
languages, the same is essential.
18. So far as the Research Assistant for CUL is concerned, the
essential qualifications therefore are absolutely different. So far as the
educational qualifications required for promotion to the said post by the
incumbents of the Research Assistant to Research Assistant (Hindi) is o
concerned, therefore also different educational qualifications are required.
Not only that, the nature of duties is also different. Whereas the Research
Assistants in respect of Urdu language are required to assist the officer
with whom they are attached, the Research Assistants in Hindi and
Research Assistants of CIIL are required to assist implementation of the E ,
scheme. The Tribunal and consequently the High Court might not, thus,
be correct in opining that the educational qualifications as also the nature
of duty being the san1e, respondent was entitled to the benefit of the said
sca~e of pay.

ii -1. 19. The question came to be considered in a large number of F
decisions of this Court wherein it unhesitantly came to the conclusion that
a large number of factors, namely, educational qualifications, nature of
duty, nature of responsibility, nature of method of recruitment etc. will be
relevant for determining equivalence in the matter of fixation of scale of
pay. {See Secretary, Finance Department & Ors. v. West Bengal G
..JI ~ Registration Service Association & Ors., [1993] Supp. 1 SCC 153;
State of UP. & Ors. v. J.P. Chaurasia & Ors., [1989] 1SCC121;
Union of India & Ors. v. Pradip Kumar Dey, [2000] 8 SCC 580 and
State of Haryana & Anr. v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff
H
\
820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.

A Association, [2002] 6 SCC 72}.
20. In Government of West Bengal v. Traun K. Roy & Ors.,
[2004] 1 SCC 347, this Court held as under:
"Question of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution oflndia on
B the part of the State would arise only ifthe 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"
c 21. In UP. State Sugar Corporation Ltd & Anr. v. Sant Raj Singh
& Ors., [2006] 9 SCC 82, this Court opined :
"The doctrine of equal pay for equal work, as adumbrated under
Article 39(d) of the Constitution oflndia read with Article 14
D thereof, cannot be applied in a vaccum. The constitutional 8Cheme
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"
E 22. Same principle was reiterated by a Three Judge Bench of this
Court in State of Haryana & Ors. v. Charanjit Singh & Ors., [2006]
9 sec 321.
23. We are not oblivious of some decisions of this Court wherein
F salary on the basis of revised pay scales has been directed to be paid on
the premise that no change in the duties and functions of employees
similarly situated had taken place although the concerned employees were
working in the different public sector undertakings {See The Employees
ofTennery and Footwear Corporation ofIndia Ltd. & Anr. v. Union
G ofIndia & Ors., [1991] Supp. 2 SCC 565} or where scale of pay is to
be fixed for the judicial officers posted in the State cadre vis-a-vis Union
Territory Cadre {Alvaro Noronha Ferriera & Anr. v. Union of India { ....
& Ors., [1999] 4 SCC 408} but such a question does not arise herein,
as different scale of pay was recommended by an expert body having
H regard to the nature of duties and functions. It is not a case where ·
(

f
UNION OF INDIA v. MAHAJABEEN AKHTAR [SINHA, J.] 821
.. .,
discrimination is sought to be made on the basis of territory or posting in A
public sector undertaking.
24. On the facts obtaining in this case, therefore, we are of the opinion
that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work has no application. The
matter may have been different, had the scales of pay have been
B
determined on the basis of educational qualification, nature of duties and
other relevant fa~tors. We are also not oblivious of the fact that ordinarily
the scales of pay of employees ~orking in different departments should
be treated to be at par and the same scale of pay shall be recommendeq.
Respondent did not opt for her services to be placed on deputation. She
opted to- stay in the Government service as a surplus. She was placed in c
list as Librarian in National Gallery of Modem Art. She was designated
as Assistant Librarian and Information Assistant. Her pay scale was
determined at Rs.6500-10500 which was the revised scale of pay. Her
case has admittedly not been considered by the Fifth Pay Revision,
Commission. If a scale of pay in a higher category has been refixed, D
t keeping in view the educational qualifications and other relevant factors
by an expert body, no exception thereto can be taken. Concededly it was
for the Union of India to assign good reasons for placing her in a different
scale of pay. It has been done. We have noticed hereinbefore that not
only the essential educational qualifications are different but the nature of E
duties is also different. Article 39(d) as also Article 14 of the Constitution
oflndia must be applied, inter alia, on the premise that equality clause
should be invoked in respect of the people who are similarly situated in
all respects.
~
F
25. Mr. Kulshreshtha has placed strong reliance on State of UP.
& Ors. v. UP. Sales Tax Officers Grade II Association, [2003] 6 SCC
250. In that case the Pay Revision Commission did not consider cases
of a group of employees. On the aforementioned premise, they were held
to be entitled to the scale of pay which had been granted to the persons
G
similarly situated. We are not concerned with such an issue herein as the
~
"' case of the respondent has been considered and she has been given the
benefit of a revised scale. It was not necessary for the Government which
had the requisite jurisdiction to remove anomaly as has been held by this
Court in Haryana State Adhyapak Sangh & Ors. v. State of Haryana
H
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 11 S.C.R.
t )>

A & Ors., [1988] 4 SCC 571, whereupon Mr. Kulshreshtha relied on. As
the Union of India has already applied its mind and revised the
respondent's pay in the scale of pay of Rs.5500-9000, it was for the
respondent to show that she had been discriminated against. We have
noticed hereinbefore that neither in fact nor in law, any case of
B discrimination has been made out.
--\ .
26. Our attention has been drawn to the findings of the Tribunal that
the incumbents to the post of Research Assistants in the Bureau and
Irntitutions like Central Hindu Directorate and Central Institution of Indian
Languages etc. are similarly qualified and they have been performing similar
C functions. There was no factual foundation for arriving at the same finding.
Consequently, the said conclusion was wrongly drawn by the Tribunal.
Furthermore, no formula having mathematical exactitude can be pressed
into service in a situation ofthis nature. The Tribunal and consequently
the High Court, in our opinion, therefore, was not correct in arriving at
D the said decision.
27. Another aspect of the matter, however, cannot be ignored.
Respondent has been paid the amount by way of difference in the scale
of pay only for a short period. She has been held to be entitled only for
E a sum ofRs.7,000/- and odd. We are, therefore, of the opinion that this
Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution,
should direct that the amount already paid need not be recovered. Similar
direction has been passed by this Court in Haryana Civil Secretariat
Personal StaffAssociation (supra) stating:
F "The courts should approach such matters with restraint and 'r (
interfere only when they are satisfied that the decision of the
Government is patently irrational, unjust and prejudicial to a section
of employees and the Government while taking the decision has
ignored factors which are material and relevant for a decision in
G the matter. Even in a case where the court holds the order passed
by the Government to be unsustainable then ordinarily a direction f ...
should be given to the State Government or the authority taking
the decision to reconsider the matter and pass a proper order. The
court should avoid giving a declaration granting a particular scale
H of pay and compelling the Government to implement the same."
UNION OF INDIA v. MAHAJABEEN AKHTAR [SINHA, J.] 823

{See also Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. Manjeet Singh & Anr., A
(2006] 8 sec 647}
28. We, therefore, although agree with the submissions ofleamed
Additional Solicitor General, in the facts and circumstances of this case,
decline to grant any relief in favour of the appellant. The appeal is B
dismissed in view of our observations aforementioned. There shall,
however, be no order as to costs.
D.G. Appeal dismissed.