Sita Devi
& Ors, Etc. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors [1996] INSC 1015 (23 August 1996)
Jeevan
Reddy, B.P. (J) Jeevan Reddy, B.P. (J) Manohar Sujata V. (J) B.P. Jeevan Reddy,
J.
CITATION:
JT 1996 (7) 438 1996 SCALE (6)151
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
WRIT
PETITION (C) NO.584 OF 1989 In this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India, three reliefs are asked for by as many as 748
petitioners. The reliefs sought for are:
"(a)
Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction
that the petitioners be treated to be in the service of the respondents from
the date of their initial appointment irrespective be there being artificial
break in their services during the period.
(b)
Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to put the
petitioners on regular pay scales to that of primary school teachers in the
Education Department of Haryana plus other consequential benefits from the date
of their initial appointment and further direct the respondents to pay the petitioners
the difference in arrears of salary accrued to them from the date of their
initial appointment.
(c)
Issue by appropriate writ, order or direction that the department of Audit
Education and Non-formal Education is a permanent department of the State and
the petitioners are regular teachers in the department appointed against
sanctioned posts of Instructors."
On the
date of the filing of the writ petition (March 1989) the petitioners were
working as "under matriculate instructors in the Adult Literacy Programme"
devised by the Government of Haryana. They were being paid a lump sum amount of
Rs.200/- per month as salary. They had put in 5 to 6 years service and have
been performing their duties to the satisfaction of all concerned. Their
submission is that when matriculate instructors approached this Court for
similar reliefs, they were granted certain reliefs though not all the reliefs
asked for by them. The reference is to the judgment of this Court in Jaipal and
others v. State of Haryana and other [A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1504 = 1968 (3)
S.C.C.354] wherein this Court directed that the "matriculate instructors
are entitled to the same pay scale as that of the squad teachers, having regard
to the length of their service with effect from their date of initial
appointment by ignoring the break in service on account of six months fresh
appointments. It was further directed by this Court that the said petitioners
will be entitled to the said pay scales in accordance with law notwithstanding
the break in service that might have taken place. The said directions were made
effective with effect from September 1, 1985.
However,
the claim for regularization of their services put forward by the said
petitioners was rejected, since the very project was likely to last only till
1990. The present petitioners' case is that though they are non- matriculates
they too have been performing the very same duties as were being performed by
matriculate teachers (petitioners in Jaipal). The petitioners invoke the
principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. According to them, except the
difference in the matter of educational qualifications there is no other
distinction between the post held and the duties and functions performed by the
petitioners in Jaipal and the petitioners herein. They have set out in the writ
petition the several duties performed by them. Reliance is also placed upon
certain other decisions of this Court viz., Randhir Singh v. Union of India
[1982 (3) S.C.R. 298; Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P. [1986 (1) S.C.C. 637] and Surinder Singh v.
Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD [1986 (1) S.C.C.639].
The
doctrine of 'equal work for equal pay' is recognised by this Court as a facet
of the equality clause contained in Article 14 of the Constitution. The first
of the several decisions on the subject is Randhir Singh v. Union of India
[1982 (1) S.C.C. 618]. The said doctrine has been dealt with by this Court in
several later decisions including State of Madhya Pradesh and Another v. Pramod
Bhartiya and Others [1993 (1) S.C.C. 539] decided by a three -member Bench of
which one of us (B.P.Jeevan Reddy, J.) was a member. This decision dealt mainly
with the manner in which the claim of equal work has to be judged. It was held,
after referring to the definition of "same work or work of a similar
nature" in Section 2(h) of Equal Remuneration Act 1976, that:
"the
stress is upon the similarity of skill, effort and responsibility when
performed under similar conditions. Further, as pointed but by Mukharji, J. (as
he then was) in Federation of All India Customs and Excise Stenographers [1988
(3) S.C.C. 91 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 673:(1988) 7 ATC 591] 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 assumption but one of proof. It must be
remembered that since the plea of equal pay for equal work has to be examined
with reference to Article 14, the burden is upon the petitioners to establish
their right to equal pay, or the plea of discrimination, as the case may
be." It was observed in the said decision, on the basis of the earlier
decisions of this Court, that where the petitioners complain of unlawful
discrimination offending Article 14, it is for them to satisfy the Court that
the distinction made is irrational and baseless and that it really amounts to
unlawful discrimination prohibited by Article 14. Applying the principle of the
said decision to this case, can it be said that the petitioner herein who are
non-matriculate instructors are similarly placed to that of the matriculate
instructors or that the distinction made between both the categories is
irrational or baseless. In other words, the question is whether the Government
of Haryana is guilty of unlawful discrimination in refusing to extend to
non-matriculate instructors the pay-scale which has been extended to
matriculate instructors pursuant to the judgment of this Court in Jaipal. We do
not think on.
Classification
on the basis of educational qualifications has always been upheld by this Court
as reasonable and permissible under Article 14. In The State of Mysore and
another v. P. Narasinga Rao [A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 349], the Government of Karnataka
had prescribed two different scales for tracers - one for matriculate tracers
with higher scale and another for non-matriculate tracers with lower pay scale.
The non-matriculate tracers complained of discrimination. The said plea was negatived
holding that prescribing two different scales for matriculates and non-
matriculates is not violative of Article 14 and 16. It was held that
distinction made on the basis of technical qualifications or for that matter
even on the basis of general educational qualifications relevant to the
suitability of the candidate for public service is permissible under the said
articles. Indeed, in that case both the matriculate and non-matriculate tracers
formed one single category with one single pay scale earlier. It was only at a
later stage that a distinction was made between matriculates and
non-matriculates, which led to the said proceedings. This Court proceeded on
the assumption that both matriculates and non-matriculate tracers "were
doing the same kind of work"; yet the classification made was upheld as
permissible under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Distinction on the
basis of educational qualifications has been upheld as valid by this Court in a
large number of cases since. By way of illustration, in State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa [A.I.R. 1974
S.C. 1] the classification of Assistant Engineers as diploma holders and degree
holders and providing more promotional avenues to degree holders was upheld as
reasonable. The later decision in P. Murugesan & Others v. State of Tamil
Nadu [1993 (2) S.C.C. 340) is also to the same effect. In this decision, all
the decisions on the subject of classification on the basis of educational
qualifications have been fully discussed.
We
are, therefore, of the opinion that the grievance made by the petitioners is
unacceptable. We may also mention that apart from relying upon the decision of
this Court in Jaipal and claiming that the benefit given to matriculate
teachers should also be given to them, no attempt has been made in the writ
petition to allege and establish that their qualifications; duties and functions
are similar to those of squad teachers.
For
the above reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No
costs.
W.P.
(C) NOS.1008/88, 815/88 545/92 No separate arguments are addressed in these
writ petitions. They too are accordingly dismissed for the very same reasons.
No costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
