Satish
Kumar Vs. The Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar & Anr [1996] INSC 149
(29 January 1996)
Ramaswamy,
K.Ramaswamy, K.G.B. Pattanaik (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (7) 277 1996 SCALE (2)13
ACT:
HEAD NOTE:
O R D
E R
Though
the learned counsel has tried his best to persuade us to disagree with the
impugned order of the Court, we think that the High Court is right in its
conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to the equal pay as Pumpset
Operator. The learned counsel sought to rely upon section 18 of the Punjab Town
Improvement Trust Act, 1923 (for short the Act). Section 18 envisages power of
the Trust to fix number of employees, their salaries etc.
Section
17 envisages constitution of the trust and subject to the constitution section
18 says that the Trust may from time to time employ such other servants on such
terms and conditions as it may deem, necessary and proper for carrying out its
functions under the Act. Sub-section(2) gives controlling power of appointment,
promotion, granting leave, suspension of the servants, reducing them into their
hierarchy of position removing them from service, dismissing them from service
for misconduct for reasons other than misconduct Chairman also has power under
the Act.
It is
stated that in exercising this power, the Chairman being the controlling
authority had releaxed the service conditions of the petitioner and also
appointed him as Pumpset Operator though he was not possessed of the minimum
qualification prescribed under the Act. It is not in dispute that for the said
post Matriculation with I.T.I. are qualifications which the petitioner
admittedly has not possessed of. General power of supervision and control does
not include the power to appoint any person of his choice without basic
qualification. Therefore, the exercise of the power by the Chairman would
obviously be illegal. Under those circumstances, the doctrine of equal pay for
equal work envisaged in Article 39 (a) of the Constitution has no application.
It would apply only when a person is dicharging the same duties but not being
paid the same pay for the same work. In this case since the petitioner is not
possessed of minimum basic qualification to the post to which he was appointed,
unequals cannot be made equals for paying equal pay for equal work. Therefore,
he is not entitled to equal pay.
The
Petition is accordingly dismissed.
Back
Pages: 1 2
