UNION OF INDIA & ORS.versusRAJESH KUMAR GOND

                         [2013] 8 S.C.R. 132


A                     UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
                                   V.
                     RAJESH KUMAR GOND
          (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17419/2009)

                            JULY 25, 2013
B
         [H.L. GOKHALE AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.]

         Service Law - Equal pay for equal work - Respondent, a
    Junior Hindi Translator under the Commerce Ministry - He
C   sought parity of pay with junior Translators in the Central
    Secretariat Official Language Service (CSOLS) - Plea of
    respondent not accepted - He filed application in the
    Administrative Tribunal on the basis of 'equal pay for equal
    work' - Application opposed by the petitioners who stated that
o   the Fifth Central Pay Commission had recommended that the
    pay-scales of Junior Hindi Translators for the Central
    Secretariat (CSOLS) may be applied to all subordinate offices
    subject to their functional requirement - However, no material
    placed before the Tribunal to show as to how the functional
E   requirement of the concerned job in the Commerce Ministry
    was different from that in the Central Secretariat - Tribunal held
    in favour of respondent stating that there was no reason to
    deny parity in pay - Order challenged - Held: Since no
    material was placed before the Tribunal about the functional
F   distinction, the order of the Tribunal cannot be faulted -
    Though principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not expressly
    declared by the Constitution to be a fundamental right, but it
    certainly is a constitutional right - Article 39(d) of the
    Constitution proclaims 'equal pay for equal work for both men
    and women''as a Directive Principe of State Policy - To the
G   vast majority of the people, equality clauses of the
    Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with
    the work they do and the pay they get - To them the equality
    clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal

H                                  132
     UNION OF !NOIA v. RAJESH KUMAR GOND                   133


pay - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 16 and 39(d).     A

    Randhir Singh vs. Union of India and Ors. (1982) 1 SCC
618: 1982 (3) SCR 298 - relied on.

                     Case Law Reference:
                                                                   B
    1982 (3) SCR 298           relied on             Para 6, 8

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No.
17419 of 2009.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 09.07.2008 of the            C
High Court at Calcutta in Writ Petition CT No. 632 of 2007.

                               WITH

C.A. No. 1119 of 2013 & SLP (C) No. 37255 of 2012.
                                                                   D
     P.P. Malhotra, ASG, Ashok Kumar Panda, Yasir Rauf,
Lingaraj Sarangi, Arvind Kumar Sharma. R. Balasubramanian,
Gunwant Dara, Aditya Singla (for B.V. Balaram Das). Anil
Katiyar, Subodh Kr. Pathak, Shashi Ranjat (for Dharmendra
Kumar Sinha). Pragati Neekhra, Parth Tiwari for the appearing      E
Parties.

    The following order of the Court was delivered by

                            ORDER
                                                                   F
S.L.P.(C) No. 17419/2009

     1. Delay condoned.

     2. Heard Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor
General in support of this special leave petition and Mr. Subodh   G
Kr. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

    3. This special leave petition seeks to challenge the
judgment and order dated 9.7.2008 passed by the High Court
                                                                   H
     134       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2013] 8 S.C.R.


·A   of Calcutta in Writ Petition No.632 of 2007 which confirmed the
     judgment dated 9.11.2006 passed by the Central Administrative
     Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O.A. No.939 of 2004.

           4. The respondent is a Junior Hindi Translator working in
     the office of Director General of Commercial Intelligence &
 8
     Statistics under the Commerce Ministry and he sought parity
     of pay with the Junior Translators who were working in the
     Central Secretariat Official Language Service (CSOLS). The
     Home Ministry had issued Office Memorandum dated 9.2.2003,
 C   upgrading the pay-scales of Junior Hindi Translators from
     Rs.5000-1050-8000 to Rs.5500-175-9000, which were made
     applicable from 11.2.2003. The respondent sought the same
     pay-scale but it was denied to him. It is, therefore, that he filed
     an application in the Central Administrative Tribunal on the
     basis of 'equal pay for equal work'. The application filed by the
 D   respondent was opposed by the petitioners by filing a counter,
     wherein amongst other things, in paragraph 9 they stated that
     the Fifth Central Pay Commission had recommended that the
     pay-scales of Junior Hindi Translators for the Central Secretariat
     (CSOLS) may be applied to all subordinate offices subject to
 E   their functional requirement. However, no materi§il 'whatsoever
     was placed before the Tribunal to show as to how the functional
      requirement of the concerned job in the Commerce Ministry was
     different from that in the Central Secretariat. Both the posts
      required the work of translation to be done and, tl:ierefore, the
 F   Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no reason to
     deny parity in pay. The Tribunal relied upon the judgment of a
      Bench of three Judges of this Court in Randhir Sk1gh Vs. Union
      of India and Ors., (1982) 1 SCC 618, which is a judgment
      granting equal pay to the drivers in Delhi Police Force as
 G    available to those in the Central Government and Delhi
     Administration. The petitioners herein challenged the order of
      the Tribunal by approaching the Calcutta High Court which
      dismissed the writ petition and therefore, this special leave
      petition.
 H
     UNION OF INDIA v. RAJESH KUMAR GOND                       135


     5. Mr. Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor General            A
appearing for the Union of India submitted that the two posts
cannot be equated but having noted that when no material was
placed before the Tribunal about the functional distinction, in our
view, the order of the Tribunal could not be faulted. The High
Court was, therefore, right in dismissing the writ petition.          B

    6. Before we conclude, we may profitably refer to the
observations of Chinnappa Reddy, J., in paragraph 8 of the
judgment in Randhir Singh (supra) which reads as follows:

    "8. It is true that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'   C
    is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a
    fundamental right. But it certainly is a constitutional right.
    Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims 'equal pay for
    equal work for both men and women' as a Directive
    Principe of State Policy. 'Equal pay for equal work for both      D
    men and women' means equal pay for equal work for every
    one and as between the sexes. Directive Principles, as
    has been pointed out in some of the judgments of this Court
    have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of
    interpretation. Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the        E
    State not to deny any person equality before the law or the
    equal protection of the laws and Article 16 declares that
    there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in
    matters relating to employment or appointment to any
    office under the State. These equality clauses of the             F
    Constitution must mean something to everyone. To the
    vast majority of the people the equality clauses of the
    Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcered
    with the work they do and the pay they get. To them the
    equality clauses will have some substance if equal work           G
    means equal pay........... "

     7. This special leave petition is, therefore, dismissed.


                                                                      H
    136      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2013] 8 S.C.R.


A   S.L.P.(C) No.37255/2012:

       1. The respondents herein were working as Senior
  Translators/Assistant Directors in the offices under the Ministry
  of Defence. They also sought parity with the translators in the
  Central Secretariat which has been granted by the Central
8
  Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh by its judgment dated
  18.5.2009. That judgment is left undisturbed by the Punjab and
  Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No.23126 of 2010 by its order
  dated 23.3.2011.

C       2. Mr. Balasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the
  appellant submitted that their source of recruitment was
  different. However, having noted that no functional difference
  was shown in their work, we cannot find any fault with the
  judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court for the reasons
D stated in the earlier special leave petition. The special leave
  petition is, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to
  costs.

    CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1119 OF 2013:

E      The respondent in this appeal was working as a Junior
  Hindi Translator in the office of the Commissioner of Central
  Excise-I, Kolkata. He claimed parity of pay with the Junior
  Translators who were working in the Central Secretariat. In his
  case also, what we find is that there is no functional distinction
F as far as the work of these translators is concerned. Therefore,
  we do not take a different view. The civil appeal is dismissed.
  There will be no order as to costs. Interim orders will stand
  vacated.

    B.B.B.                                     Appeal dismissed.