of Andhra Pradesh & Anr Vs. M. Pandurang & Ors  INSC 706 (20 November 1995)
K. Ramaswamy, K. Hansaria B.L. (J)
1996 SCC (7) 11 JT 1995 (9) 140 1995 SCALE (6)714
O R D
No,, namely, M. Pandurang, and respondent No.14, namely, V. Parvathalu, are
reported to be dead. In spite of the fact that time was given to the State for impleading
the L.Rs., the needful has not been done.
the appeal as against those two respondents stands abated. It is accordingly
regards the other respondents, the facts are fairly clear that they were
working as Junior Analysts in the Institute of Preventive
Health Labs and Food (Health) Administration which was under Medical and Health
Department. They claimed that since their juniors were drawing more pay than
them in the cadre of junior Analysts, they invoked the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal for payment of equal pay under Article 39(A) of the Constitution. The
Tribunal in the impugned order dated November 15, 1995 has allowed the writ petition and
directed implementation of the order passed in similar circumstances.
aggrieved by that order, this appeal has been filed.
stated in the petition that since one of the juniors was granted Selection
Grade, he was drawing higher scale of pay. Another junior, in view of his
longer length of service in the feeder cadre, is drawing higher scale of pay.
Therefore, the respondents are not entitled to the parity of the scale of pay
with those persons. Shri Nageswara Rao, the learned counsel for the
respondents, contended that the Government in several G.Os. have implemented
the directions issued by this Court and also by the High Court. Having
implemented those directions, the same relief cannot be denied to the
find no force in the contention. G.Os. were issued by the Government
implementing the interim directions issued by this Court or by the High Court.
However, it would be subject to the result in the main pending matters either
in the High Court or in this Court. It is common knowledge that when Article 371D(5)
was declared ultra vires, number of writ petitions were filed in the High Court
and it entertained them and issued interim directions. In implementation of
those interim directions, the Government issued orders but they were made
subject to the result in the writ petitions. Ultimately, it is now settled law
that the Tribunal has jurisdiction. No doubt, in a recent judgment, a Full Bench
of the High Court has held that the Tribunal is not on par with High Court and
the exclusion of the High Court's jurisdiction was unconstitutional and it has
also jurisdiction to decide the service matter. The controversy is now referred
to a larger Bench of 7 Judges and the same is pending in this Court. In view of
the flux in the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, several matters were entertained
by the High Court. However, they will be subject to the final decision of this
Court by the larger Bench. In view of the interim directions granted by the
Courts, the Government has implemented them. But those orders will be subject
to the result in the pending matters.
controversy raised in this case is covered by the decision of this Court in
State of A.P.& Ors. vs. G. Sreenuasa Rao & Ors. [(1989) 2 SCC 290].
Therein, this Court held that if some juniors, by the circumstance of the
length of service, were drawing higher scale of pay, parity cannot be claimed
by the seniors on that basis. Therefore, Article 39(A) has no application to
such a situation. The same ratio applies to the facts in this case. As stated
earlier, one of the juniors had been granted selection grade scale of pay, by
necessary consequence, he would draw higher scale of pay, though he happened to
be junior to others. Another candidate was drawing higher scale of pay due to
length of service in the feeder cadre. It would be grant of special pay under
Rule 22(a)(i) of the Fundamental Rules for the purpose of that candidate in the
higher promotional post. That would not be a ground to grant parity of scale of
pay to the seniors working in the cadre.
these circumstances, the directions given by the Tribunal are illegal. The
appeal is accordingly allowed. The orders of the Tribunal are set aside. No