1996 (10) TMI 528 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.
2. Comparison between the posts of Science Supervisor in Chandigarh and District Science Supervisor in Punjab.
3. Validity of the respondent's claim for a higher pay scale based on the adoption of Punjab pay scales by Chandigarh Administration.
4. Evaluation of the respondent's substantive appointment and cadre status.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work':
The Tribunal invoked the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' and held that the respondent, working as Science Supervisor in Chandigarh, is entitled to the same pay scale as District Science Supervisors in Punjab. The Supreme Court, however, found considerable force in the argument that this principle can only be applied when there is discrimination in pay scales for equivalent posts under the same employer. The Court emphasized that the right to equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked for comparing posts under different employers.

2. Comparison between the posts of Science Supervisor in Chandigarh and District Science Supervisor in Punjab:
The Tribunal observed that Science Supervisors in both regions were appointed under a joint scheme by UNICEF and NCERT and noted that the post in Chandigarh was not termed 'District Science Supervisor' due to the absence of separate districts. The Supreme Court, however, highlighted that the post of District Science Supervisor in Punjab is a Class II post with specific qualifications (M.Sc. Second Class), whereas the post in Chandigarh is a Class III post with different duties and qualifications. The Court found that the respondent did not provide sufficient evidence to prove equivalence in qualifications and duties between the two posts.

3. Validity of the respondent's claim for a higher pay scale based on the adoption of Punjab pay scales by Chandigarh Administration:
The respondent argued that since Chandigarh adopted Punjab pay scales, he should receive the same pay as District Science Supervisors in Punjab. The Supreme Court dismissed this contention, stating that Rule 2 of the Union Territory of Chandigarh Employees Rules, 1966, does not support the respondent's claim. The Court clarified that the respondent was not drawing pay at the rates admissible to corresponding categories of Punjab employees prior to the 1980 notification, hence, could not claim parity based on Rule 2.

4. Evaluation of the respondent's substantive appointment and cadre status:
The Tribunal held that the respondent was substantively appointed as Science Supervisor. However, the Supreme Court found that the respondent was transferred to the post of Science Supervisor while holding the post of Science Master and continued to draw the pay of a Science Master. The Court noted that the respondent was confirmed as a Science Master and appeared in the seniority list for Science Masters, indicating he remained in the Science Master cadre. The Court concluded that the respondent's appointment as Science Supervisor was not a substantive appointment to a higher post but a transfer within the same cadre.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's judgment, and dismissed the respondent's application. The Court held that the respondent, while working as Science Supervisor, substantively held the post of Science Master and could not claim a higher salary than that of a Science Master. No order as to costs was made.