RALKAPTLUANGA G. v. STATE OF MIZORAM — 1997 DIGILAW 193 (GAU)

JUDGMENT : H.K.K. Singh, J.—The petitioner Nos. 1-9 are holding the post of Assistant Soil Conservation Officers (hereinafter ASCO) and petitioner Nos. 10-12 are also holding the post of Assistant Soil Conservation Engineer (hereinafter ASCE) under the Soil and Water Conservation Department, Government of Mizoram and both these posts of ASCO and ASCE carry the same scale of pay of Rs. 2375-3500/-. The grievance of the petitioners here is that they have been unlawfully discriminated by denying them equal pay as enjoyed by their equals. 2. All the petitioners joined their services either as ASCO or as ASCE during the period from 1988 to 1994 their respective dates of appointment are shown in the notification dated January 24, 1986 (Annexure-I) and I (A). Prior to revision of Pay Rules, 1986 the scale of pay of the ASCO and ASCE was Rs. 650-1200/-and by the said Revision of Pay Rules, 1986 the pay of the said post has been revised to Rs. 2000- 3500/- After Revision of Pay Rules, 1986 which came into effect from January 1, 1986 the Government of Mizoram constituted a Pay Anomalies Committee to examine certain anomalies in the pay scales of certain posts and as per the report of the Pay Anomalies Committee some of the posts carrying the scale of pay of Rs. 2000-3500/- were revised or upgraded to the scale of pay Rs. 2200-4000/- Again, after implementation of the report of the aforesaid Pay Anomalies Committee the Government of Mizoram constituted another committee known as Pay Review Committee and the said commit tee recommended for revision or up gradation of pay scales of some other posts. Even after implementation of the recommendation of the Pay Review Committee another committee known as Cabinet Sub Committee was again constituted to look into the claims of the Government employees and the said committee i.e. Cabinet Sub Committee recommended application of the standard conversion of the pay scale for the post of ASCO and ASCE and according to which the petitioners are now enjoying the scale of pay of Rs. 2375-3500/-. The petitioners have been making representations to each and every committee for upgrading their scales of pay to that of their equals. As their demand has not been considered by the respondent Government, the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, the learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. 2375-3500/-. The petitioners have been making representations to each and every committee for upgrading their scales of pay to that of their equals. As their demand has not been considered by the respondent Government, the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, the learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. K.N. Madhusudhanan the learned Assistant Advocate General for the respondents. 4. Mr. Madhusudhanan has submitted that the fixation of pay and considerations of anomalies if any among the scales of pay of the employees are the functions of the expert bodies like Pay Commission/Committees etc. and these bodies fixed and refixed the scales of pay of different categories of employees considering all the relevant factors and from different angles and thus, the Court may not sit in judgment over action or the ground which had been the basis of the report/recommendations of such expert bodies. 5. Mr. Lalramzauva has submitted that the pay scale of the other employees who were enjoying the same scale of pay with ASCE/ASCO right from the Revision of Pay Rules, 1964 (Assam), Revision of Pay Rules, 1973 and Revision of Pay Rules, 1986 are now enjoying the scale of pay Rs. 2200-4000/- on the basis of the recommendation of Pay Anomalies Committee/Pay Review Committee/Cabinet Sub Committee but the pay scale of the ASCO and ASCE has been revised to Rs. 2375-3500/- only and this amounted to unlawful discrimination offending equality clause under Article 14 of the Constitution and also the principle of equal pay for equal work which is a mandate under Article 39(d) of the Constitution. 6. Mr. Lalramzauva has submitted that educational qualification required for direct recruitment to the post of ASCO is (i) M.Sc. (Agri), Forestry/Physics etc. with a condition of undergoing regular Soil Conservation training within 2 years of probation and B.Sc. (Agri) with at least 2 years service as Ranger with regular Soil Conservation training course. Again, in case of ASCE minimum educational qualification is B.E. (Civil) with compulsory training in Soil Conservation (Gazetted) or B.Sc. (Agri), Engineering. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner even higher qualifications are necessary for the post of ASCE/ASCO than that of the post of Assistant Engineer/S.D.O. 7. The further submission of Mr. Lalaramzauva is that the post of Cartographic Assistant and Survey Assistant are now enjoying the scale of Rs. (Agri), Engineering. Thus, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner even higher qualifications are necessary for the post of ASCE/ASCO than that of the post of Assistant Engineer/S.D.O. 7. The further submission of Mr. Lalaramzauva is that the post of Cartographic Assistant and Survey Assistant are now enjoying the scale of Rs. 2000-3500/- on the basis of the standard conversion as prescribed by the Cabinet Sub-Committee. These posts are feeder post of ASE thus, now the feeder post and the promotion post are enjoying the same scale of pay. 8. The second line of attack of Mr. Lalramzauva is that on the basis of report of the Cabinet Sub Committee at Annexure-II A (Schedule A Part-Ill) the scale of S.D.O./Asst. Engineer has been revised to Rs. 2200-4000/- and the learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that on the same reasoning for upgradation of the scale of Assistant Engineer, the scale of ASCE/ASCO may be upgraded as without any exception, the same reasoning may apply to the post of ASCE/ASCO. As much emphasis has been given to the aforesaid report the same is extracted below:- "The S.D.O./Asst. Engineer is in the scale of pay of Rs. 2000- 3500/- which is a standard conversion of Rs. 650-1200/- According to the Recruitment Rules for the post, 66 2/3% of the vacancy is to be filled up by direct recruitment of candidates with B.E. and the remaining 33 1/3% is to be filled up by promotion of Junior Engineer with not less than 8 years of service in the grade. In Mizoram, there is no Engineering College. Therefore, the State has to sponsor candidates to study in various Engineering Colleges of the country. At present, the practice is that candidate who passed P.U.C. with Science who secured the highest marks are nominated for Engineering line and others who secured lower marks are nominated for other disciplines such as Medical, B.V. Sc., Agri etc. The pay scale of Junior Engineer is Rs. 1640-2900/- The next higher post above SDO/AE is Executive Engineer which is now in the scale of Rs. 3000-4500/. The Association also claimed that they were always having the same scale with Assistant Surgeon I for which the qualification required is M.B.B.S. or its equivalent, but the Assistant Surgeon I is now in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. The Association contented that SDO/Asstt. Engineer cannot be compared with B.Sc. 3000-4500/. The Association also claimed that they were always having the same scale with Assistant Surgeon I for which the qualification required is M.B.B.S. or its equivalent, but the Assistant Surgeon I is now in the scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-. The Association contented that SDO/Asstt. Engineer cannot be compared with B.Sc. (Agri) or B.V.Sc. in view, of the system for selection of nomination for courses in Engineering College and in view of the fact that they were holding the same status with Assistant Surgeon I in the past. Their demand is a pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/- for Graduate Engineer as Assistant Engineer/Sub-Divisional Officer without raising pay scale of non graduate Junior Engineer promoted to the post of Assistant/Engineer Sub Divisional Officer. This will, mean that there will be two different pay scales for the same posts in which no disparity in powers, duties and responsibility have been averred. We therefore recommended same scale of pay of Rs. 2200-4000/- and this scale will be applicable for the same posts in all other Departments." 9. The doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' is recognised by the Supreme Court as a facet of the quality 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 LLJ 344 (SC). The said doctrine has been dealt with by the Apex Court in several subsequent decisions. In the case of Jaipal and Ors. v. State of Haryana 1994 LLJ 972 (SC) it has been held that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work applies if two classes of persons do same work under the same employer, with similar responsibility, under similar working conditions. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pramode Bhartiya reported in 1993 LLJ 490 the Apex Court dealt mainly with the manner in which the claim of equal work has to be judged and referring to the definition of "same work or work of similar nature" in Section 2(h) of Equal Remuneration Act, 1976, the Apex Court held: "The stress is upon the similarity of skill, effort and responsibility when performed under similar conditions. Further, as pointed out by Mukherjee, J (as he then was) in Federation of All India Customs and Excise Stenographers 1994 LLJ 979 (SC) the equality of work may vary from post to post. Further, as pointed out by Mukherjee, J (as he then was) in Federation of All India Customs and Excise Stenographers 1994 LLJ 979 (SC) the equality 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..." 10. Considering several earlier decisions, the Apex Court in the case of Sita Devi and Ors. v. State of Haryana reported in 1996 LLJ 817 held that where the petitioners complain of unlawful discrimination offending Article 14, it is for them to satisfy Court that the discrimination made is irrational and baseless and that it really amounts to unlawful discrimination prohibited by Article 14. And the aforesaid principle has also been reiterated in the case of State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. M. R. Alagappan and Ors. reported in 1997 LLJ 711 The Apex Court in this case held, at para 11. ".... However the principle remains well established in the light of the aforesaid series of decisions of this Court that before the abstract doctrine of Equal Pay for Equal Work is pressed in service it must be shown that the concerned incumbents have parity of qualifications, duties and functions and then only they can be treated at par for the purpose of pay scale and the Court can interfere after reaching a clear finding of fact that both the sets of employees stand completely at par on the basis of equality of work both qualitatively and quantitatively and, therefore, denial of equal pay scale to them would offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India." 11. Law is now settled that the principle of equal pay for equal work has to be examined with reference to Article 14 and the petitioner is to satisfy the Court that the discrimination is unlawful. 12. In our present case at hand, the petitioners are serving in the Soil and Water Conservation Department. The petitioners try to compare and equate the work and duties of ASCE/ASCO with those of other officers like Assistant Engineers, Agricultural Officers etc. working in various departments but the petitioners have not even whispered with regard to nature of the work performed by them vis a vis the work of the other officers in different Offices/Departments. The petitioners try to compare and equate the work and duties of ASCE/ASCO with those of other officers like Assistant Engineers, Agricultural Officers etc. working in various departments but the petitioners have not even whispered with regard to nature of the work performed by them vis a vis the work of the other officers in different Offices/Departments. The work or the function of an officer in Soil and Water Conservation Department may not be equal to that of the function, work and duties of other officers of other departments. The Government on the basis of the recommendation of the expert bodies like Pay Commissions, etc. have fixed the scale of pay of different categories of employees serving in different departments. The expert committees considered all the relevant factors from different angles before coming to the conclusions as regards fixation of pay of different posts/grades/services. The mere fact that earlier, the scale of pay enjoyed by the petitioners was also enjoyed by the other employees of other departments so they are to be treated equally now also, is not sustainable for the purpose of determining unlawful discrimination prohibited by Article 14 of the Constitution. 13. The complaint of the petitioner here that Cartographic Assistants (which is the feeder post of ASCE) and the post of the petitioners are enjoying the same scale of pay as both have the same maximum in their respective scale cannot be taken that unequals are treated equally. The scale of Cartographic Assistants is Rs. 2000-3500/- and the scale of the petitioners are Rs. 2375-3500/-, thus the scale of the petitioners (ASCO/ASCE) has higher starting. 14. As regards the higher requisite qualification for the post of ASCO/ASCE, it may not be the only deciding factor for fixation of pay as the determining factor as stated above is the work done, not the qualification required. 15. Lastly, as regards the reasoning mentioned in the report of the Cabinet Sub Committee recited earlier, the Committee considered for upgradation of the scale of pay of Assistant Engineer/S.D.O. and they also considered for upgradation of pay of the petitioners and considering the work the higher scale was recommended for the post of Assistant Engineer/S.D.O. Reasoning given for upgradation of pay scale of a particular post cannot be applied in the case of a different post if the work or the respective posts are not kept in consideration. Considering their respective works, different scales have been recommended by the Committee and were given by the Government. 16. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the case. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.