vil Appeal Nos
3073 16 of 1988 Etc
From the Judgment and Order dated 861987 and 96
1987 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in WP Nos 137087 150908534 18 86
91187 318687 343587 374887 435687 500687 and 5379 of 1987
PA Choudhary Shanti Bhushan Badrinath TVSN Chari Mrs Sunita Rao and A Subba Rao for the Appellants
AS Nambiar TS Krishnamoorty C Sitaramayya RN Keshwani B Kanta Rao Ms K Sarda Devi GN Rao and 13
Parthasarthi for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH J
The question for decision in these appeals is whether payment of less salary to a senior than his junior in the same cadre having the same pay scale is violative of the Principle of equal pay for equal work enshrined in Article 39d read with Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India
Though the respondents belong to different departments and service but since the question of law is same we are disposing these appeals by a common order
Necessary facts relating to each batch of 1004 appeals for appreciating the controversy are as under Civil Appeal Nos 317 3087 299887 294 29888 307 to 31588 305 88  3 1688
The first batch in this bunch of appeals is concerning the employees of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh
The main judgment under appeal relates to the cadre of Assistant Section Officers working in the High Court
Copyists and Assistants are the two feeder cadres to the post of Assist ant Section Officer
Prior to 1974 copyists were in the pay scale of Rs70130 and were entitled to additional payment at Re75p
per every 100 words they copy in excess of 42000 words
As a result of pay revision they were given the pay scale of Rs250 430 wef 111974 without entitle ment of remuneration in addition to pay
The copyists repre sented that in the revised pay scale the additional emolu ments which were being earned by them had not been taken into account
On the recommendation of the High Court the State Government agreed to fix the pay of the copyists in the revised pay scale by adding into their basic pay the average remuneration of Rs8334 and the Dearness Allowance admissible thereon
The amount of Rs8334 was taken as average remuneration which each of the copyist was earning prior to 11
1974 in addition to the pay
The pre revised pay scale of Assistants was Rs90 192 which was revised to Rs250 430 from 1st of January 1974
Although the revised pay scale of copyists and assistants was identical but because of addition of Rs83 34 in the pay fixation the copyists started drawing more salary than the assistants
Promotion to the cadre of Assistant Section Officers in the pay scale of Rs340 640 is from the two cadres of copyists and assistants
One Janikirama Rao a copyist was promoted to the said post in the year 1984
On the basis of his last pay drawn as copyist his basic pay fixed as Assistant Sec tion Officer was higher than those who were promoted to the said post from the cadre of assistants during the period 1982 84
The pay fixation was done under Fundamental Rule 22ai of Andhra Pradesh Fundamental Rules hereinafter called Fundamental Rules  Though junior Shri Janikirama Rao was thus drawing more salary than his seniors in the same cadre
Those seniors filed Writ Petition 2 13583 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh praying that the grant of higher salary to a junior person is violative of the Princi ple of equal pay for equal work
The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed that the Assistant Section Officers senior to Shri Janikirama Rao be paid the same salary as he was drawing
Writ Appeal filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh against the judgment was dismissed by the Division Bench holding that grant of 1005 higher pay packet to a junior person that the senior under any circumstances is discriminatory
Connected writ peti tions were allowed by the High Court being covered by the judgments in Writ Petition 2 13583 and writ appeal
No counter was filed by State of Andhra Pradesh in these writ petitions and on the basis of the averment in the petitions that juniors were getting higher salary than the seniors the writ petitions were allowed
Civil appeals are directed against the orders of the High Court
Civil Appeal Nos 1071 7387 1149 115086
In this batch of civil appeals Tirumala Tirupathi Devas thanam is the appellant and these appeals are directed against the High Court order
BV Krishnamurthy and 62 others working as Upper Division Clerks in the Devasthanam filed Writ Petition No 12337 of 1984 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh praying that the Devasthanam be directed to pay salary to them at par with one D Gopaliah Upper Division Clerk who was junior to them
Service particulars of Gopaliah and one of the petitioners Krishnamurthy only need mention
Gopaliah joined as Lower Division Clerk in 1967 and was given Selection Grade in 1974
Family Planning Incentive Increment of Rs 11 was added to his pay in 1977
He was promoted as Upper Division Clerk in 1979 but was reverted in 1981 as he could not pass the accounts test
He was given further increase in pay as a result of Government Order which provided higher pay to those Lower Division Clerks who completed 15 years service as such
In June 1983 Gopaliah was drawing Rs811 as his basic pay in the cadre of Lower Division Clerks
He was again promoted as Upper Divi sion Clerk in pay scale 575 950 on 17
1983 and in that cadre his basic pay was fixed at Rs861
On the other hand Krishnamurthy joined as Lower Division Clerk in 1970
He was promoted as Upper Division Clerk on 3rd of November 1981 and Rs615 was fixed as his basic pay in that cadre
On 1st of July 1983 Krishnamurthy was drawing Rs635 as his basic pay
It is under these circumstances that Gopaliah though junior to Krishnamurthy started drawing higher pay as Upper Division Clerk
The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge by one line order following his decision in another writ petition concerning the employees of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board
Neither the facts nor the distinctive features of the present case were noticed
Writ Appeal No 504 of 1985 was dismissed in limine by the Divi sion Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court
In three con nected petitions payparity was sought with the same junior Gopaliah
In the fourth petition one Gangiah was the named junior for claiming pay hike
All these 1006 petitions were allowed following the earlier decision
Hence these appeals
Civil Appeal Nos 29988 and 300 to 30 188
These appeals are directed against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in Petition No 1531 of 1985 and connected petitions
The petitioners before the Tribunal were junior assistants working in different depart ments
They were promoted as senior assistants on various dates between 1976 and 1978
They opted to be absorbed as auditors in the Pay and Accounts Office Hyderabad where they were finally absorbed with effect from 12th of July 1978
One Swaminathan who was recruited as typist was promoted as senior assistant on 11th of January 1978
He also opted to work as auditor in the Pay and Accounts Of fice Hyderabad
He was finally absorbed in the said depart ment with effect from 4th of September 1978
The writ petitioners and Swaminathan came to the Pay and Accounts Office Hyderabad from different departments
Since Swamina than was absorbed as auditor in the pay and accounts depart ment later in time than the petitioners he ranked junior to them
But in view of his length of service and grant of selection grade he had been drawing higher pay in his parent department
On his joining the Pay and Accounts Office his pay was fixed on a higher basic pay as compared to the petitioners as the last pay drawn by him had to be protected under the Fundamental Rules
Thus though he was junior to the petitioners he started drawing higher pay than them
The seniors raised contention before the Tribunal that on the basis of equal pay for equal work they were entitled to the same pay as given to their junior
The Tribunal allowed the petitions holding that for whatever reasons a junior is paid higher pay packet than his senior the principle of equal pay for equal work is violated and the senior is entitled to the same pay
Following its judg ment the Tribunal allowed two connected petitions
Hence these appeals by the State of Andhra Pradesh
Civil Appeal No 3 17 of 1988
This appeal also relates to Pay and Accounts Office
In this case the petitioners before the Tribunal were Lower Division Clerks senior to one P Arunachala Prasad who was initially a typist but was promoted as Lower Division Clerk subsequent to the petitioners
Since he was drawing more pay as typist on his promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerk his pay fixed was higher than the petitioners
The claim 1007 of the petitioners for same pay as paid to Arunachala Prasad was allowed
Civil Appeal Nos
200 to 203 of 1988
These appeals relate to Animal Husbandry Department of the Andhra Pradesh Government
Some live stock assistants filed a petition before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal claiming higher pay which was being drawn by their respective juniors in the same cadre
In the reply filed on behalf of State before the Tribunal it was explained that junior live stock assistants were senior in the lower cadre but could not be promoted earlier due to their failure to undergo the prescribed training and they had earned selec tion grade on the basis of length of service
On promotion their basic pay was fixed under Fundamental Rules which came to be higher than their seniors
Without considering the reasons for the disparity in pay the Tribunal allowed the petitions holding that the senior must be paid the same salary as his junior in the cadre was drawing
Civil Appeal Nos 2453 2454 and 2476 to 2479 of 1988
These appeals concern the office of Registrar Co opera tive Societies Andhra Pradesh
Respondents inspectors filed a petition before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal saying that one Jagmohan was junior to them but was drawing higher salary
The Tribunal allowed the petition in the following words It may be true that in certain circumstances within the framework of the rule Shri Jagmo han came to receive higher pay than his sen iors   what will be done in such a case is to bring the pay of the senior on par with the junior
It is how the principle of equity  in pay is to be met Five connected petitions were also allowed by the Tribunal
Mr Shanti Bhushan appearing for the appellants in the first batch has argued that so long as there is rational basis for giving higher pay to a junior in the same cadre the seniors can have no grievance
According to him copyists and assistants being two feeder cadres to the post of As sistant Section Officer the last pay drawn in the lower cadre has to be the basis under the Fundamental Rule for fixation of pay in the cadre of Assistant Section Officers
Since the copyists were draw 1008 ing higher pay than the assistants they were rightly fixed at a higher pay than the assistants who were promoted earli er
He says pay earned by the copyists before joining as Assistant Section Officer is a legitimate incident of serv ice which entitles them higher pay than their seniors
Mr PA Choudhary appearing for some of the appellants contended that if all the considerations factors and inci dents of service are identical then only the principle of equal pay for equal work  is attracted
But if there is a justification under the Rules or otherwise for giving a higher pay to the junior then the principle in the abstract sense is not attracted
Mr TS Krishnamoorthy Mr AS Nambiar and Mr Kanta Rao appearing for the respondents supported the judgments under appeals and contended that grant of higher pay to a junior in the same cadre doing same work and shouldering same responsibilities is per se discriminatory and viola tive of the principle of equal pay for equal work
Our attention was invited to Rule 27 of the Fundamental Rules which permits the competent authority to grant pre mature increment to a Government servant on a time scale of pay
They further contended that juniors getting higher pay than a senior in the same cadre is an anomaly causing heart burn which can be removed by directing the authorities to fix the seniors at par with the juniors by exercising power under Rule 27 of the Fundamental Rules
The factual basis in all these appeals is identical
The facts clearly show that in every case the pay fixation of the junior was done under the Fundamental Rules and there were justifiable reasons for fixing the junior at a higher pay than his seniors in the cadre
It was not disputed that the said pay fixation was in confirmity with the Fundamental Rules
Neither before us nor before the courts below the validity of Fundamental Rules was challenged by any of the parties
Without considering the scope of these Rules and without adverting to the reasons for fixing the juniors at a higher pay the High Court and the Tribunal have in an omnibus manner come to the conclusion that whenever and for whatever reasons a junior is given higher pay the doctrine of equal pay for equal work  is violated and the seniors are entitled to the same pay
We do not agree with the High CourtTribunal
Doctrine of equal pay for equal work  cannot be put in a straight jacket
Although the doctrine finds its place in the Direc tive Principles but this Court in 1009 various judgments has authoritatively pronounced that fight to equal pay for equal work  is an accompaniment of equali ty clause enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitu tion of India
Nevertheless the abstract doctrine of equal pay for equal work  cannot be read in Article 14
Reasonable classification based on intelligible criteria having nexus with the object sought to be achieved is permissible
Equal pay for equal work does not mean that all the members of a cadre must receive the same pay packet irre spective of their seniority source of recruitment educa tional qualifications and various other incidents of serv ice
When a single running pay scale is provided in a cadre the constitutional mandate of equal pay for equal work is satisfied
Ordinarily grant of higher pay to a junior would ex facie be arbitrary but if there are justifiable grounds in doing so the seniors cannot invoke the equality doctrine
To illustrate when Payfixation is done under valid statuto ry rulesexecutive instructions when persons recruited from different sources are given pay protection when promotee from lower cadre or a transferee from another cadre is given pay protection when a senior is stopped at Efficiency Bar when advance increments are given for experiencepassing a test acquiring higher qualifications or as incentive for efficiency are some of the eventualities when a junior may be drawing higher pay than his seniors without violating the mandate of equal pay for equal work
The differentia on these grounds would be based on intelligible criteria which has rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved
We do not therefore find any good ground to sustain the judg ments of the High CourtTribunal
In Federation of All India Customs  Central Excise Stenographers Recognised and others vs The Union of India and others JT 19 Sabyasachi Mukharji J considered earlier judgments of this Court on the point and observed Equal pay for equal work is a fundamental right
But equal pay must depend upon the nature of the work done it cannot be judged by the mere volume of work there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability 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 is made bona 1010 fide reasonably on an intelligible criteria which has a rationale nexus with the object of differentiation such differentiation will not amount to discrimination
It is important to 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
 In State of UP  Ors
vs Shri JP Chaurasia  Ors JT the question for consideration was as to whether it is permissible to have two pay scales in the same cadre for persons having same duties and having same respon sibilites
Jagannatha Shetty J speaking for this Court observed It is against this background that the prin ciple 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 14 of the Constitution
Article 14 permits reasonable classification rounded 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 characteristics 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 qualifications or experi ence on length of service is sustainable
Apart from that higher pay scale to avoid stagnation 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 enti tlement to these higher pay scales depends upon seniority cum merit or merit cum seniori ty
The differentiation so made in the same cadre will not amount to discrimination
The classif 1011 cation based on experience is a reasonable classification
It has a rationale nexus with the object thereof
To hold otherwise it would be detrimental to the interest of the service itself
 The argument based on Rule 27 was never raised before the High CourtTribunal
There is neither any material on the record nor any justification before us to direct the appellant authorities to act under Rule 27 of the Fundamen tal Rules
The respondents may if so advised approach the appropriate authorities for any such relief
The appeals are accepted
Judgments of the Andhra Pra desh High Court and the Andhra Pradesh Tribunal are set aside and the writ petitionspetitionsapplications of the respondents before the High CourtTribunal are dismissed
There will be no order as to costs
The respondents are white collared salaried persons and it may be too harsh for them to refund the salary already paid to them
Therefore in the interest of justice we direct that the additional salary paid to them as a result of High CourtTribunal judgments upto 31 3 1989 shall not be recovered from them
YL Appeals al lowed


Summary:
An externment order was passed against the respondent under section 56 of the Bombay Police Act on the ground that he was found to be frequently engaged in illegal business of narcotics and was also involved in several cases of riot and criminal intimidation
The respondent filed an appeal under section 60 of the Act and while the appeal was pending moved the High Court with a writ application
The State Government dismissed the appeal by a short order
Before the High Court it was urged that since the State Government omitted to give reasons in support of the order of dismissal of the appeal the same was vitiated in Law
The High Court agreed with the petitioner and allowed the writ application quasing the appellate order as well the initial externment order
Allowing the appeal by the State to the extent of cor recting the error of law only it was HELD 1 The High Court was in error in quashing the order of externment as confirmed by the State Government in appeal on the ground that the State Government omitted to give reasons
2 A full and complete disclosure of particulars as is requisite in an open prosecution will frustrate the very purpose of an externment proceeding
There is a brand of lawless elements in society which it is impossible to bring to book by established methods of judicial trial because in such trials there can be no conviction without legal evi dence
And legal evidence is impossible to obtain because out of fear of reprisal witnesses are unwilling to depose in public
972C E G 971 3 If the authorities were to discuss the evidence in the case it would be easy to fix the identity of the wit nesses who were unwilling to depose in public against the proposed externee
A reasoned order containing a discussion would probably spark off another round of harassment
972G Pandarinath Sridhar Rangnekar vs Deputy Commissioner of Police  followed