Civil Appeal No 56 of 1987
From the Judgment and Order dated 61185 of the Allahabad RM60
PG NO 290 PG NO 291 High Court in WP C No 4211 of 1983
Gopal Subramanium and Mrs section Dikshit for the Appellants
Vijay Hansaria and Sunil K Jain for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGANNATHA SHETTY J
This appeal by special leave is from a judgment of the High Court of Allahabad dated November 6 1985 passed in Civil Misc
Writ Petition No 4211 of 1983
The appeal raises a question of considerable importance
The question is whether it is permissible to have two pay scales in the same cadre for persons having same duties and having same responsibilities
The High Court has answered the question in the negative
It is said that it would be violative of the Constitutional right of equal pay for equal work
The facts are not in dispute
They will be found correctly stated in the judgment under appeal and may briefly be stated thus Prior to 1965 in the High Court of Allahabad Bench Secretaries were on a higher pay scale than that of Section Officers
They were in the pay scale of Rs 160 320 as against the pay scale of Rs 120 300 to Section Officers
In 1965 the State Government appointed a Pay Rationalisation Committee with wide ranging reference
The Committee was asked to consider the duties and responsibilities of different categories of posts
It was required to consider and recommend changes to reduce the number of then existing pay scales
It was also asked to recommend as far as possible equal emoluments for identical duties and responsibilities
The Committee submitted a detailed report in which Bench Secretaries became casualties
The Committee recommended for them a pay scale slightly lower than that of Section Officers
Rs 150 350 was recommended for Bench Secretaries as against Rs200 400 for Section Officers
The State Government accepted the recommendations
Subsequently these pay scales were raised to Rs 200 450 and Rs5 15 715 respectively
Being dissatisfied with the down grading the Bench Secretaries made representation to the Government
They demanded that they should at least be put at par with Section Officers if not on higher scale
The High Court supported their case but half heartedly
The High Court suggested that in view of financial exigencies the Government may grant for the time being pay scale to 10 PG NO 292 Bench Secretaries as admissible to Section Officers
 When this matter was pending consideration the Government appointed the Pay Commission 1971 72 headed by Shri Ali Zahir
On February 1 1973 the Pay Commission submitted its report
The report did not accept the claim of Bench Secretaries for giving them pay scale equal to Section Officers or Private Secretaries
The report was in fact very much against them
The following remarks of the Pay Commission would be pertinent 9 Bench Secretaries Sakna Suchiv A memorandum from the Bench Secretaries given to us states that the post which are at present in the scale of Rs 100 450 are of a great responsibility for which experience and special qualifications are required
They have claimed that their duties are equivalent to Private Secretaries of Hon ble Judges and have demanded the same pay scale which is given to Private Secretaries and the Section Officers
The Registrar of the High Court while forwarding the memorandum has suggested that they should also be given the same pay scale which is given to Superintendents ie Rs515 40 715 or to the Section Officers ie Rs350 750
It is not necessary to emphasise that in comparison to Bench Secretaries the Section Officers of the secretariat has to bear more responsibilities in their Section and have to control over its subordinates
Section Officers have to prepare a lengthy and original notes in complicated and important matters
Therefore the responsibilities of the two posts cannot be said to be equal
Keeping in view the present scale of pay
the pay scale recommended by the Pay Rationalisation Committee the nature of duties and responsibilities and the fact that every Hon ble Judge will have one Private Secretary in the scale of Rs500 1000 we feel that the Bench Secretaries cannot be given the same scale of pay which is being given to Superintendents or the Section Officers
Since the Bench Secretaries are promoted from Upper Division Assistants they should feel satisfied if they are placed in a scale of pay a little above the Upper Division Assistants
Therefore we have recommended for them a pay scale of Rs400 15 475 20 575 25 750
 It will be seen that the Pay Commission refused to equate Bench Secretaries with Section Officers in view of their differential duties
It was found that the nature PG NO 293 of work of Section Officers was quite different and more onerous than that of Bench Secretaries
Section Officers have to bear more responsibilities in their Sections
They have to exercise control over their subordinate
They have to prepare lengthy original notes in complicated matters
The Commission therefore recommended Rs400 750 for Bench Secretaries and Rs500 1000 to Section Officers
The Bench Secretaries again moved the Government reiterating their demand
The Government appears to have received several such representations against the report of Ali Zahir Commission
To consider all such grievances
a Committee called the Anomalies Committee was constituted
As the name itself suggests the Committee was required to examine and remove anomalies in the recommendations of Pay Commission
The Committee appears to have made some patch work
So far as Bench Secretaries are concerned the Committee suggested 1 For this post the recommendations made by the Pay Commission need not have any amendments
2 It should be appropriate for the Bench Secre taries to accept 10 promotional posts in the pay scale of Rs500 1000 as recommended by the Pay Commission
 The Anomalies Committee also thus rejected the claim of Bench Secretaries for placing them at par with Section Officers
It however suggested that ten posts of Bench Secretaries should be upgraded and placed in the pay scale of Rs500 1000 The Government accepted that recommendation and issued an order dated July 21976 The order inter alia states Judicial High Court Section Lucknow dated 2nd July 1976
Sub Implementation of decision and proposals of Sub Committee of the Cabinet constituted to consider the anomalies pointed out in the pay scales recommended by the UP Pay Commission  1971 73 and its way of removal and other connected matters PG NO 294 Sir In continuation of office memorandum No
PC 395 x 89M74 dated 18th March 1976 of the Finance Pay Commission Section on the above subject I have been directed to say that the Governor has been pleased to sanc tion the pay scales mentioned in Column 3 to 10 post holders under you mentioned in column 2 in the table given below wef 1st October 1975 with this condition that as a result of sanction of this scale the number of total posts in the concerned cadre will not increase Sl
Name Pay No of No of No of Pay No
Of Scale Permanent Temporary Posts Scale Post Post Posts in higher scale 1 2 3
Bench Rs400 15 48 3 10 Rs500 25 Secre 475 EB 20 700 EB 40 tary 575 EB 25 900 EB 50 750 1000 2
The basic pay in the pay scale mentioned in aforesaid column 7 of the concerned employee will be fixed according to the guiding principles of para 4 under fundamental rule 22 of the Financial Handbook Part II Volume 2 4 and the appointments in the pay scale of Rs500 1000 will be made according to seniority subject to unfit
In this connection I have also been directed to say that the nomenclature of posts of 10 Bench Secretaries appearing in column 5 of the said table shall be Bench Secretaries Grade I and the nomenclature of rest Bench Secretaries of equal pay scale will be Bench Secretaries Grade II and the posts of Bench Secretaries Grade I and Grade II will be of the same duties and responsibilities
Sd Ramesh Chandra Deo Sharma PG NO 295 Joint Secretary It was then the turn of Bench Secretaries Grade II They complained that there was no valid reason to give higher pay scale only to ten Bench Secretaries and step motherly treatment to the rest of their colleagues
The High Court as usual supported their claim but the Government did not
In order to give effect to the said Government order the Chief Justice framed rules called the Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff Conditions of Service and Conduct Rules 1976 The Rules 
The Rules were framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Article 2292 of the Constitution and brought into force from July 131976
Thereunder Bench Secretaries Grade I and Grade II were classified as Class II and Class III posts respectively
Rule 8E provides procedure for appointment of Bench Secretaries Grade II
It is by selection through competitive examination to be conducted by appointing authority
Permanent Upper Division Assistants and permanent Lower Division Assistants having not less than ten years service are made eligible for selection
Preference shall however be given to candidates possession a Law Degree
Rule 16 provides that the posts of Bench Secretaries Grade I shall be filled up by promotion from amongst permanent Bench Secretaries Grade II
Rule 18 deals with method of selection for all promotional posts
It shall be made by selection committee appointed by the Chief Justice
The criterion of selection shall be merit with due regard to seniority
The entitlement to higher pay scale of Grade I Bench Secretary was therefore not on the basis of seniority alone but on the basis of selection by merit cum seniority
In 1979 the State Government appointed another Pay Commission
That Pay Commission also did not disturb the categorisation of Bench Secretaries into Grade I and Grade IIIt however gave marginal benefits by increasing the number of posts of Grade I from 10 per cent to 30 per cent of the total cadre strength
The reason given by the Pay Commission is as follows Bench Secretary 2638 Fifty two posts of Bench Secretaries are in the pay scale of Rs400 750 and ten posts in the scale of Rs500 1000
For appointment on these posts a limited competitive examination is held from amongst Upper Division Assistants PG NO 296 Lower Division Assistants with ten years of service preferably Law Graduates
We have received a representation stating that the Bench Secretaries play a very important role in smooth running of the proceedings of the Court
The minimum pay scales of the Bench Secretaries is comparatively higher than the pay scale of Upper Division Assistants though they are appointed through a competitive examination
It is limited to only Upper Division Lower Division Assistants of the High Court
Keeping in view the fact that vacancies in Upper DivisionLower Division Assistants are filled up by promotion from Routine Grade Assistants it is clear that this is a second promotion for those who come directly from Lower Division Assistants and a third promotion for those who are promoted first to Upper Division Assistant and then a Bench Secretary
Even then we give importance to the fact that only best from Upper DivisionLower Division Assistants are preferred for the post
The work of the Bench Secretary is of a great importance
We therefore recommend 1 30 of the total posts of Bench Secretaries in the pay scale of Rs770 1000and 2 Two posts in the scale of Rs1420 1900 as is admissible to Assistant Secretaries of the Secretariat Finally the Bench Secretaries Grade I moved the High Court on judicial side with an application under Article 226 of the Constitution
They challenged the validity of bifurcation of one cadre into Grade I and Grade II
The sheet anchor of their case was that in the same category of posts with similar duties and responsibilities there cannot be two grades with different pay scales
It would be violative of principles of equal pay for equal work
It was also contended that Bench Secretaries was a well recognised class that existed over the years and indeed superior to Section Officers
Rejection of their demand for equating at least with Section Officers would be ignoring that historical fact
The High Court accepted all these contentions and granted the relief prayed for
As to the Pay Commission recommendations the High observed Rejection of petitioner s demand for equating them PG NO 297 at least with Section Officers by comparing them with absence of administrative control exercised by Section Officer in the Secretariat was ignoring history of Bench Secretaries being a different class both before and after independence and the nature of duties performed by them 
 As to the decision of the Anomalies Committee the High Court remarked Curiously enough when Anomaly Committee redressed the wrong by granting pay scale equivalent to Section Officers it created an artificial division by drawing a line between first ten and others
A Bench Secretary or for that matter any officer who puts in longer years of service gets more salary than his juniors but if a senior performing the same duty as his juniors is put in different higher scale then it results in invidious classification in the same group
And that violates the concept of equality which visualises that whatever condition are guaranteed and secured by law to one shall be guaranteed to owners who are of the same group or class
It only denies enactment of a rule or law which attempts to deal differently with persons situated similarly
The Government order by which the classification was done itself provided that duty and responsibility of Bench Secretary of Grade II be the same as of Grade I shall be seniority
No other basic or qualification or test or be it was laid down
The effect of the order was that those who were senior entered into an altogether different Grade
That is senior Bench Secretary although doing the same work as his junior became entitled to higher grade
And that clearly violated the principle of equal pay for equal work
 In support of these conclusions the High Court relied upon two decisions of this Court i Randhir Singh vs Union of India  and ii P Savita vs Union of India 1985 Suppl 1 SCR 101
With regard to rule framed by the Chief Justice for the purpose of promotion to Bench Secretary Grade I thee High Court said Rules were made not because the Court agreed with the classification of Bench Secretaries in Group I and Group II PG NO 298 but because of the Government order dated July 2 1976
The vice is not in the method of selection but in creation of two different groups without any intelligible differentia
If Bench Secretaries of Group I would have been required to do any work different than Bench Secretaries Grade II it could be described as promotional avenue
Promotion from one post to another is associated with advancing to a higher office climbing one more ladder in service career
But the different grade for persons of same even on seniority cum merit with same work and responsibility cannot amount to promotion
 With these conclusions the High Court quashed a part of the notification dated July 4 1976 which created Bench Secretaries Grade I
The High Court did not quash the Rules relating to promotion to that cadre
The High Court directed that all Bench Secretaries irrespective of their grades should be given the pay scale admissible to Bench Secretaries Grade I with effect from October 1 1975
The State of UP being aggrieved by the decision has appealed to this Court
On the submissions made by counsel on both sides two questions arise for our consideration i Whether Bench Secretaries in the High Court of Allahabad are entitled to pay scale admissible to Section Officers and ii Whether the creation of two Grades with different pay scales in the cadre of Bench Secretaries who are doing the same or similar work is violative of the right to have equal pay for equal work The first question regarding entitlement to the pay scale admissible to Section Officers should not detain us longer
The answer to the question depends upon several factors
It does not just depend upon either the nature of work or volume of work done by Bench Secre taries
Primarily it requires among others
evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts
More often functions of two posts may appear to be the same or similar but there may be difference in degrees in the performance
The quantity of work may be the same but quality may be different that cannot be determined by PG NO 299 relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parties
The equation of posts or equation of pay must be left to the Executive Government
It must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission
They would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts
If there is any such determination by a Commission or Committee the court should normally accept it
The court should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration
In the present case it is true that at one time Bench Secretaries were paid more emoluments than Section Officers
But it is not known on what basis they were paid in the higher pay scale and treated as a superior class to Section Officers
The Successive Pay Commissions and even Pay Rationalisation Committee however found no support to their superior claim
The Commissions and Committee have evaluated the respective duties and responsibilities of the two posts
It was found that the Section Officers perform onerous duties and bear greater responsibilities than Bench Secretaries
We cannot go against that opinion and indeed we must accept that opinion
The Bench Secretaries therefore cannot claim as of right the pay scale admissible to Section Officers
The second question formulated earlier needs careful examination
The question is not particular to the present case
It is pertinent to all such cases
It is a matter affecting the civil services in general
The question is whether there could be two scales of pay in the same cadre of persons performing the same or similar work or duties
All Bench Secretaries in the High Court of Allahabad are undisputedly having same duties
But they have been bifurcated into two grades with different pay scale
The Bench Secretaries Grade 1 are in a higher pay scale than Bench Secretaries Grade II
The entitlement to higher pay scale depends upon selection based on merit cum seniority
Can it be said that it would be violative of the right to equality guaranteed under the Connstitution It was argued for the respondents that it offends the constitutional principle of equal pay for equal work
Several decisions of this Court were relied upon in support of the proposition Equal pay for equal work for both men and women has been accepted as a constitutional goal capable of being achieved through constitutional remedies
In Randhir Singh vs Union of India  Others I982 3 SCR 298 Chinnappa Reddy J said at 304 PG NO 300 It is true that the principle of equal pay for equal work  is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right
But it certainly is a constitutional goal
Art39d of the Constitution proclaims equal pay for equal work for both men and women  as a Directive Principle of State Policy
Equal pay for equal work for both men and women  means equal pay for equal work for every one and as beween the sexes
Directive Principlesas has been pointed out in some of the judgments of this Court have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation
article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the State not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws and article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointments to any office under the State
These equality clauses of the Constitution must mean something to every one
To the vast majority of the people the equality clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get
To them the equality clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal pay The learned Judge however observed that a differential treatment in appropriate cases can be justified when there are two grades based on reasonable grounds It is well known that there can be and there are different grades in a service with varying qualification for entry into a particular grade the higher grade often being a promotional avenue for officers of the lower grade
The higher qualifications for the higher grade which may be either academic qualifications or experience based on length of service reasonably sustain the classification of the officers into two grades with different scales of pay
The principle of equal pay for equal work would be an abstract doctrine not attracting article 14 if sought to be applied to them
 In Randhir Singh the petitioner was a driver constable in the Delhi Police Force under the Delhi Administration
It was found that the petitioner and the other drivers in the Delhi Police Force per formed the same functions and duties as other drivers in the service of the Delhi Administration and the Central Government
Indeed by reason of their investiture with the powers functions and privileges of PG NO 301 a police officer  their duties and responsibilities were found to be more arduous
It was also admitted by the Delhi Administration in that case that the duties of driver constable of the Delhi Police Force were onerous
Therefore learned Judge said that there was no reason for giving them lower scale of pay than other drivers
It was directed that the driver constables of Delhi Police Force should be given the scale of pay at least on par with that of drivers of the Railway Protection Force
The principle enunciated in Randhir Singh was followed in Ramachandra vs Union of India  and P Savita vs Union of India  1985 Supp
I SCR 10l
In the former the arbitrary differential treatment in the pay scale accorded to some professors was struck down
The petitioners therein were holding the posts of Professors in the Indian Veterinary Research Institute under the Indian Council of Medical Research
The pay scale of professors underwent revision
The new recruits got the benefit of revision of scales but not the petitioner
He was allowed to continue in the old scale
He challenged that discrimination in this Court as being violative of the right to have equal pay for equal work
This Court accepted the contention and observed page 163 The case in hand is a glaring example of discriminat tory treatment accorded to old experienced and highly qualified hands with an evil eye and unequal hand and the guarantee of equality in all its pervasive character must enable this Court to remove discrimination and to restore fair play in action
No attempt was made to sustain the scales of pay for the post of Professor on the doctrine of classification because the classification of existing incum bents as being distinct and separate from newly recruited hand with flimsy change in essential qualification would be wholly irrational and arbitrary
The case of the petitioners for being put in the revised scale of Rs 1100 1600 from the date on which newly created posts of Professors in sister disciplines in IVRI and other institutes were created and filled up in revised scale is unanswerable and must be cunceded  In P Savita vs Union of lndia the artificial division of senior draftsmen in the Ministry of Defence Production with unequal scales of pay for the same work was struck down
In Dhirendra Chamoli and Anr
vs State of UP  this Court found fault with the Central Government for not giving the casual workers engaged in Nehru Yuvak the same salary and conditions of service as enjoyed by class IV employees regularly appointed against sanctioned posts
It was observed at 628 PG NO 302 It must be remembered that in this country where there is so much unemploymentthe choice for the majority of people is to starve or to take employment on whatever exploitative terms are offered by the employer
The fact that these employees accepted employment with full knowledge that they will be paid only daily wages and they will not get the same salary and conditions of service as other class IV employees cannot provide an escape to the Central Government to avoid the mandate of equality enshrined in article 14 of the Constitution
This article declares that there shall be equality before law and equal protection of the law and implicit in it is the further principle that there must be equal pay for work of equal value
These employees who are in the service of the different Nehru Yuvak Kendras in the country and who are admittedly performing the same duties as Class IV employees must therefore get the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV employees
It makes no difference whether they are appointed in sanctioned posts or not
So long as they are performing the same duties they must receive the same salary and conditions of service as class IV employees
 In Surinder Singh vs Engineer in Chief CPWD  the case of poor daily wage workers employed for serveral years by the Central Public Works Department CPWD came up for consideration before this Court
They demanded parity in their wages and allowances with those of regular and permanent employees of the Department on the basis of performing similar work
This Court while granting relief to the workmen observed at 642  The Central Government the State Government and likewise all public sector undertakings are expected to function like model and enlightened employers and arguments such as those which were advanced before us that the principle of equal pay for equal work is an abstract doctrine which cannot be enforced in a court of law should ill come from the mouths of the State and State Undertakings
 PG NO 303 The right to have equal pay for equal work was also accepted by this Court in R D Gupta and Others vs Lt Governor of Delhi  Bhagwan Dass and Others vs State of Haryana 1987 4 SCC 634 National Museum Non Gazetted Employees Association and Anr
vs UOI WP No 1230 of 1987 disposed of dt 1021988 Jaipal and Ors
vs State of Haryana WP No 455 and connected petitions of 1987 of DD 261988 and YK Mehta vs UOI WP No 1239 of 1979 and connected petitions DD 2681988
Article 39d of the Constitution proclaims equal pay for equal work 
This article and other like provisions in the Directive Principles are conscience of our Constitution
 They are rooted in social justice
They were intended to bring about a socio economic transformation in our society
As observed by Hegde and Mukherjee JJ
in Keshavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala 1973 4 SCC 225 at para 712 The Constitution seeks to fulfil the basic needs of the common man and to change the structure of society
 In the words of Shelat and Grover JJ at para 596 The dominent objective in view was to ameliorate and improve the lot of the common man and to bring about a socio economic justice In matters of employment the Government of a socialist State must protect the weaker sections
It must be ensured that there is no exploitation of poor and ignorant
It is the duty of the State to see that the under privileged or weaker sections get their dues
Even if they have voluntarily accepted the employment on unequal terms the State should not deny their basic rights of equal treatment
It is against this background that the principle of equal pay for equal work has to be construed in the first place
Second this principle has no mechanical application in every case of similar work
It has to be read into article l4 of the Constitution
article l4 permits reasonable classification founded on different basis
It is now well established that the classification can be based on some qualities or characteristics of persons grouped together and not in others who are left out
Those qualities or charcteristics must of course have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved
In service matters merit or experience could be the proper basis for classification to promote efficiency in administration
He or she learns also by experience as much as by other means
It cannot be denied that the quality of work performed by persons of longer experience is superior than the work of newcomers
Even in Randhir Singh s case this principle has been recognised
O Chinnappa Reddy J observed that the classification of officers into two grades with different scales of pay based either on academic qualification or experience on length of service is sustainable
Apart from that higher pay scale to avoid stag PG NO 304 nation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues is very common in career service
There is selection grade for District Judges
There is senior time scale in Indian Administrative Service
There is super time scale in other like services
The entitlement to these higher pay scales depends upon seniority cum merit or merit cum seniority
The differentiation so made in the same cadre will not amount to discrimination
The classification based on experience is a reasonable classification
It has a rational nexus with the object thereof
To hold otherwise it would be detrimental to the interest of the service itself
In All lndia Customs and Central Excise Stenographers Recognised and Others vs Union of India and Others 1988 2 Judgments Today SC p 5 19 Sabyasachi Mukherjee J said There may be qualitative difference as regards relia bility and responsibility
Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference
One cannot deny that often the difference is a matter of degree and that there is an element of value judgment by those who are charged with the administration in fixing the scales of pay and other conditions of service
So long as such value judgment emphasise that equal pay for equal work is a concomitant of Article 14 of the Constitution
But it follows naturally that equal pay for unequal work will be a negation of that right And said The same amount of physical work may entail different quality of work some more sensitive
some requiring more tact some less it varies from nature and culture of employment
The problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula
If it has a rational nexus with the object to be sought for as reiterated before a certain amount of value judgment of the administrative authorities who are charged with fixing the pay scales has to be left with them and it cannot be interfered with by the Court unless it is demonstrated that either it is irrational or based on no basis or arrived mala fide either in law or in fact
 PG NO 305 In the present case all Bench Secretaries may do the same work but their quality of work may differ
Under the rules framed by the Chief Justice of the High Court Bench Secretaries Grade I are selected by a Selection Committee
The selection is based on merit with due regard to seniority
They are selected among the lot of Bench Secretaries Grade II
When Bench Secretaries Grade II acquire experience and also display more merit they are appointed as Bench Secretaries Grade I
The rules thus make a proper classification for the purpose of entitlement to higher pay scale
The High Court has completely overlooked the criterion provided under the Rules The merit governs the grant of higher pay scale and that merit will be evaluated by a competent authority
The classification made under the Rules therefore cannot be said to be violative of the right to have equal pay for equal work
After the argument was concluded in this appeal counsel on both sides brought to our attention that the State Government has granted uniform pay scale of Rs1600 2950 to both the grades of Bench Secretaries with effect from January 1 1986
We may make it clear that this decision of ours shall not affect the Bench Secretaries to get that pay scale accordingly with effect from January 1 1986
In the result we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court
SL Appeal allowed


Summary:
Prior to 1955 the Bench Secretaries in the Allahabad High Court were on a higher pay scale than that of the Section Officers
In 1965 the State Government appointed a Pay Rationalisation Committee to consider the duties and responsibilities of different categories of posts and recommend changes
The Committee recommended for the Bench Secretaries a pay scale lower than that of the Section Officers
The Bench Secretaries made a representation to the Government that they be put at par with the Section Officers if not on a higher scale
The Government appointed Pay Commission l971 72
The Pay Commission did not accept the claim of the Bench Secretaries
The Bench Secretaries again moved the Government reiterating their demand whereupon an Anomalies Committee was constituted
The Committee rejected the claim of the Bench Secretaries for placing them at par with the Section Officers but suggested that ten posts of Bench Secretaries be upgraded
The Government accepted the recommendation and issued orders upgrading ten posts of Bench Secretaries to be called Bench Secretaries grade I giving the nomenclature of Bench Secretaries grade Il to the rest of Secretaries
The Bench Secretaries grade II moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the bifurcation of their cadre into grade I  grade 11
The High Court quashed the notification which created Bench Secretaries grade 1
The State of l P aggrieved by the decision of the High Court appealed to this Court
PG NO 288 PG NO 289 Two questions arose for consideration i whether the Bench Secretaries were entitled to pay scales admissible to Section officers and 11 whether the creation of two grades with different pay scales in the cadre of Bench Secretaries doing the same or similar work was violative of the equal pay for equal work
Allowing the appeal the Court HELDI It requires of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts
Functions of two posts may appear to be the same or similar but there may be a difference in the performance
Quantity of work may be the same but quality may be different
The equation of posts of equation of pay must be determined by expert bodies like pay commissions
If there is any determination by a Commission or Committee the Court should normally accept it and not tinker with it unless it is shown to be made with extraneous consideration
298G H299A B The Bench Secretaries were paid more emoluments than the section Officers but it was not known on what basis and how they were treated superior to Section Officers
The Successive Pay Commission and the Pay Rationalisation Committee found no support to their superior claim
The Court could not go against that opinion
The Bench Secretaries could as of right the pay scale admissible to the Section Officers
299C D 2 The second question formulated affected the civil services in general
All the Bench Secretaries concerned were indisputably having the same duties
They had been bifurcated into two grades with different pay scales grade I with higher pay scale and grade II which was said to offend the constitutional principle of equal pay for equal work
299E G Article 39d of the Constitution which proclaims equal pay for equal work and other like provisions in the Directive Principles are rooted in Social Justice intended to bring about a socio economic trans formation in society
In matters of employment it must be ensured that there is no exploitation of the poor and ignorant
It is the duty of the State to see that the under privileged or weaker section get their dues
Against this background the principle of equal pay for equal work has to be construed
This principle has no mechanical application in every ca8e of similar work
It has to be read into Article 14 of the Constitution which permits reasonable classification founded on different basis
303C E PG NO 290 The classification can be based on some qualities or characteristics of persons grouped together and not in others left out
Those qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object to be achieved
In service matters merit or experience could be the proper basis for classification to promote efficiency
It cannot be denied that the quality of work performed by persons of longer experience is Superior to the work of new comers
Higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional evenues is common in career service
Entitlement to higher pay scales depends upon seniority cum merit or merit cum seniority
The differentiation so made in the same cadre will not amount to discrimination
Classification based on experience is a reasonable classification having a rational nexus with the object thereof
To hold otherwise would be detrimental to the interest of the Service itself
303F H 304A B The Bench Secretaries might do the same work but their quality of work might differ
The Rule framed by the Chief Justice of the High Court make a proper classification for the purpose of entitlement to higher pay scale
The High Court overlooked the criterion provided under the Rules
Merit governs the grant of higher pay scale
Classification made under the Rules could not be said to be violative of the right to have equal pay for equal work
305A C Randhir Singh vs Union of India  Ors
  Ram Chandra vs Union of lndia   P Savita vs Union of India 1985 Suppl
1 SCR 101 Dhirendra Chamoli  Anr
vs State of UP  Surinder Singh vs Engineer in Chief CPWD  RD Gupta  Ors
vs Lt Governor of Delhi   Bhagwan Das  Ors
vs State of Haryana 1987 4 SCC 634 National Museum Non Gazetted Employees Association  Anr
vs Union of India WP No 1230 of 1987 disposed of by the Supreme Court on 1021988 Jaipal  Ors
vs State of Haryana WP No 455 and connected petitions of 1987 disposed of by the Supreme Court on 261988 YK Mehta vs Union of India W P No 1239 of 1979 and connected petitions disposed of bay supreme Court on 2681988 Keshavananda Bharati vs State of Kerala 1973 4 SCC 225 at para 712 All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers Recognised and Others vs Union of India  Ors 1988 2 Judgments Today SC p 519 referred to