ition No 4676 of 1978 Under article 32 of the Constitution of India MS Ganesh for the Petitioner
NC Talukdar RN Poddar and Miss A Subhashini for the Respondent
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA REDDY J
Equal pay for equal work  is not a mere demagogic slogan
It is a constitutional goal capable of attainment through constitutional remedies by the enforcement of constitutional rights
So the petitioner claims so the petitioner asserts
Article 39 d of the Constitution proclaims as a Directive Principle the Constitutional goal of equal pay for equal work for both men and women 
Articles 14 and 19 guarantee respectively the fundamental rights to equality before the law and equality of opportunity in the matter of public employment and article 32 provides the remedy for the enforcement of the fundamental rights
So the petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under article 32 and has asked us to direct the respondents to give him his due the same as they have given others like him
True he is the merest microbe in the mighty organism of the State a little clog in a giant wheel
But the glory of our Constitution is that it enables him to a directly approach the highest Court in the land for redress
It is a matter of no little pride and satisfaction to us that he has done so
Hitherto the equality clauses of the Constitution as other articles of the Constitution guaranteeing fundamental and other rights were most often invoked by the privileged classes for their protection and advancement and for a fair and satisfactory  distribution of the buttered leaves amongst themselves
Now thanks to the rising social and political consciousness and the expectations roused as a consequence and the forward looking posture of this Court the underprivileged also are clamouring for their rights and are seeking intervention of the Court with touching faith and confidence in the Court
The judges of the Court have a duty to redeem their constitutional oath and do justice no less to the pavement dweller than to the guest of the five star hotel
301 The petitioner is a Driver Constable in the Delhi Police Force under the Delhi Administration and he demands that his scale of pay should atleast be the same as the scale of pay of other drivers in the service of the Delhi Administration
The scale of pay of a Driver Constable in the Delhi Police Force is Rs 210 270 in the case of non matriculates and Rs 225 308 in the case of matriculates
The scale of pay of a Driver in the Railway Protection Force is Rs 260 400
The scale of pay of drivers in the non Secretariat offices in Delhi is Rs 260 6 326E B 8 350
The scale of pay of drivers in the Secretariat offices in Delhi is Rs 260 6 290 EB 6 326 8 366 EB 8 8 8 390 10 400
The scale of pay of drivers in the office of the Language Commission is Rs 260 350
The pay scale of drivers of heavy vehicles in the Fire Brigade and the Department of Light House is Rs 330 480
The case of the petitioner is that he discharges the same duties as the rest of the drivers in the other offices in fact he claims that he discharges more onerous duties than the others
He complains that there is no reason whatsoever to discriminate against the petitioner and other driver Constables merely because he and his ilk happen to be described as constables as indeed they are bound to be so described belonging as they do to the Police Force
It appears that the Third Pay Commission considered the claims of all drivers as a common category under the head the pay scales appropriate for drivers of motor vehicles operating on roads
After considering the qualifications etc
possessed by drivers the Commission proposed pay scales for various categories of drivers like drivers of light motor vehicles drivers of heavy motor vehicles drivers employed in organisations with large fleet of vehicles drivers of staff cars etc
The pay scales were professed to be fixed with reference to the qualifications for driving the nature and the arduousness of the duties and responsibilities the non availability of adequate promotional avenues and such other usual considerations
The Pay Commission however while considering the question of the scales of pay of drivers separated the case of constable drivers on the ground that their case would be considered along with the cases of other police personnel
The grievance of the petitioner is that while considering the question of the scales of pay of the police personnel the Pay Commission failed to consider the drivers as a separate category and ignored the special considerations which prevailed in the case of drivers in other departments and which should have therefore prevailed in the case of driver constables also
302 The drivers constables were not only required to possess heavy transport driving licence they were further required to undergo a test of proficiency in driving before they were appointed as driver constables in the police force
Their duties were no less arduous and their responsibilities no less heavy than the duties and responsibilities of drivers in other departments
Their hours of work were long and inconvenient and there was constant exposure to security risks
The petitioner and other driver constables made a representation to the authorities that their case was omitted to be considered separately by the Pay Commission and that their scales of pay should be the same as the drivers of heavy vehicles in other departments
As their claims for better scales of pay did not meet with any success the present application has been filed for the issue of a Writ under Art 32 of the Constitution
Among the submissions made on behalf of the respondents it was suggested that the petitioner was no more and no less than a constable of the Delhi Police Force and that there was no such category of Drivers in the Delhi Police Force
The hollowness of this submission is exposed by a reference to the facts relating to the individual petitioner
The petitioner who was an ex gunner driver in the artiliary corps of the Indian Army and who was experienced in the driving operation and maintenance of jeeps trucks and heavy armoured vehicles was allowed to retire from the Army on compassionate grounds
He held an Army driving licence as also a Civil Heavy Transport Driving Licence
After he was discharged from the Army his nominal roll was forwarded by the Director General Resettlement Ministry of Defence to the Commandant Delhi Armed Police Delhi
The question of his employment as a driver in the Delhi Police Force was considered and he was informed that a test of proficiency in driving would be held
He was required to produce his Civil Heavy transport driving licence at the time of the test
It is of interest to note that the subject of the communication sent by the Delhi Police establishment to the petitioner was Employment of ex servicemen in Delhi Police as NT Driver Const
He appeared at the test
By a communication dated March 29 1968 he was informed by the Commandant Delhi Armed Police Delhi that his name had been approved for enlistment as driver in the Delhi Police
Thereafter a certificate in the prescribed form was issued to him vesting him with the powers functions and privileges of a police Officer
It is clear and it cannot be seriously disputed that the petitioner was appointed as a driver in the Delhi 303 Police Force
He was designated as constable because for the purposes of the discipline of the Force and appointment as driver in the Delhi Police Force he had to be made a member of the Delhi Police Force and had to be assigned a rank in the Force
The investiture of the petitioner with the powers functions and privileges of a police Officer was a consequence of his becoming a member of the Force
The main defence taken by the respondents is in the words of the deponent of the counter affidavit as follows  It is submitted that there can be no comparison between the different departments of the Government of India for the purpose of fixation of pay scale
A pay scale has been fixed upon consideration of various factors
The pay scales of the drivers of the Delhi Police has been fixed after duly considering all the circumstances
The drivers in the other departments are not similarly situated as the petitioner and there is no question of any hostile discrimination
It is however denied that the drivers have been treated as a separate class
It is also denied that the designation of the petitioner is N T Driver Constable  The counter affidavit does not explain how the case of the drivers in the police force is different from that of the drivers in other departments and what special factors weighed in fixing a lower scale of pay for them
Apparently in the view of the respondents the circumstance that persons belong to different departments of the Government is itself a sufficient circumstance to justify different scales of pay irrespective of their identity of their powers duties and responsibilities
We cannot accept this view
If this view is to be stretched to its logical conclusion the scales of pay of officers of the same rank in the Government of India may vary from department to department notwithstanding that their powers duties and responsibilities are identical
We concede that equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the Executive Government and expert bodies like the Pay Commission and not for Courts but we must hasten to say that where all things are equal that is where all relevant considerations are the same persons holding identical posts may not be treated differentially in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments
Of course if officers of the same rank perform dissimilar functions and the powers 304 duties and responsibilities of the posts held by them vary such officers may not be heard to complain of dissimilar pay merely because the posts are of the same rank and the nomenclature is the same
Our attention was drawn to Binoy Kumar Mukerjee vs Union of India Makhan Singh vs Union of India  Ors
where reference was made to the observations of this Court in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi vs Union of India describing the principle of equal pay for equal work as an abstract doctrine which had nothing to do with article 14
We shall presently point out how the principle equal pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine but one of substance
Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi vs Union of India is not itself of any real assistance to us since what was decided there was that there could be different scales of pay for different grades of a service
It is well known that there can be and there are different grades in a service with varying qualifications 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
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
article 39d 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 everyone and as between the sexes
Directive principles as 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 appointment to any office under 305 the State
These equality clauses of the Constitution must mean some thing to everyone
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
Whether the special procedure prescribed by a statute for trying alleged robber barons and smuggler kings or for dealing with tax evaders is discriminatory whether a particular Governmental policy in the matter of grant of licences or permits confers unfettered discretion on the Executive whether the takeover of the empires of industrial tycoons is arbitrary and unconstitutional and other questions of like nature leave the millions of people of this country untouched
Questions concerning wages and the like mundane they may be are yet matters of vital concern to them and it is there if at all that the equality clauses of the Constitution have any significance to them
The preamble to the Constitution declares the solemn resolution of the people of India to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Democratic Republic
Again the word Socialist  must mean something
Even if it does not mean To each according to his need  it must atleast mean equal pay for equal work 
The principle of equal pay for equal work  is expressly recognized by all socialist systems of law eg Section 59 of the Hungarian Labour
Code para 2 of Section 111 of the Czechoslovak Code Section 67 of the Bulgarian Code Section 40 of the Code of the German Democratic Republic para 2 of Section 33 of the Rumanian Code
Indeed this principle has been incorporated in several western labour codes too
Under provisions in Section 31 g No 2d of Book I of the French Code du Travail and according to Argentinian law this principle must be applied to female workers in all collective bargaining agreements
In accordance with Section 3 of the Grundgesetz of the German Federal Republic and clause 7 Section 123 of the Mexican Constitution the principle is given universal significance vide International Labour Law by Istvan Szaszy p 265
The preamble of the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation recognises the principle of equal remuneration for work of equal value  as constituting one of the means of achieving the improvement of conditions involving such injustice hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled
Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and article 39d we are of the view that the principle Equal pay for Equal work  is deducible from those Article and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based 306 on no classification or irrational classification though these drawing the different scales of pay do idential work under the same employer
There cannot be the slightest doubt that the drivers in the Delhi Police Force perform the same functions and duties as other drivers in service of the Delhi Administration and the Central Government
If anything by reason of their investiture with the powers functions and privileges of a police officer  their duties and responsibilities are more arduous
In answer to the allegation in the petition that the driver constables of the Delhi Police Force perform no less arduous duties than drivers in other departments it was admitted by the respondents in their counter that the duties of the driver constables of the Delhi Police Force were onerous
What then is the reason for giving them a lower scale of pay than others  There is none
The only answer of the respondents is that the drivers of the Delhi Police Force and the other drivers belong to different departments and that the principle of equal pay for equal work is not a principle which the Courts may recognise and act upon
We have shown that the answer is unsound
The clarification is irrational
We therefore allow the Writ Petition and direct the respondents to fix the scale of pay of the petitioner and the drivers constables of the Delhi Police Force atleast on a par with that of the drivers of the Railway Protection Force
The scale of pay shall be effective from 1st January 1973 the date from which the recommendations of the Pay Commission were given effect
SR Petition allowed


Summary:
The petitioner is a driver constable in the Delhi Police Force under the Delhi Administration
The scale of pay in the Delhi Police Force is for non matriculate drivers Rs 210 270 and for matriculate drivers 225 308
The scale of pay of a driver in the Railway Protection Force is Rs 260 400
The scale of pay of driver in the non secretariat offices in Delhi is Rs 260 6 326 EB 8 350 while that of Secretariat offices in Delhi is Rs 260 6 290 EB 6 326 8 366 EB 8 8 8 390 10 400
The scale of pay of drivers in the office of the Language Commission is Rs 260 300 while the drivers of heavy vehicles in the Fire Brigade and the Department of Light House is Rs 330 480
The petitioner and other driver constables made a representation to the authorities that their case was omitted to be considered separately by the Third Pay Commission and that their pay scales should be the same as the drivers of heavy vehicles in other departments
As their claims for better scales of pay did not meet with success the present application has been filed by the petitioner for the issue of a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution
Allowing the petition the Court  HELD 11
The petitioner was appointed as a driver in the Delhi Police Force
After his discharge from the army question of his employment as a driver in Delhi Police Force was considered he was asked to appear for a test of proficiency in driving directed to produce a Civil Heavy Transport Driving Licence selected thereafter as a driver in Delhi Police Force under the category Employment of Ex serviceman in Delhi Police as NT Driver Constable
 He was designated as Constable because for the purposes of the discipline of the Force and appointment as driver in the Delhi Police Force he had to be made a member of the Delhi Police Force and had to be assigned a rank in the Force
The investiture of the petitioner with the powers functions and privileges of a police Officer was a consequence of his becoming a member of the Force
302 H 303 A C 12
The petitioner and other drivers in the Delhi Police Force perform the same functions and duties as other drivers in the service of the Delhi Administration and the Central Government
If anything by reason of their investiture with the power functions and privileges of a police Officer their duties and responsibilities are more arduous
The clarification that the drivers of the 299 Delhi Police Force and the other drivers belong to different departments and that the equal pay for equal work is not a principle which the courts may recognise and act upon is irrational
306 A B C D 21
No doubt equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the Executive Government and expert bodies and not for the courts but where all things are equal that is where all relevant considerations are the same persons holding identical posts may not be treated differentially in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments
Of course if officers of the same rank perform dissimilar functions and the powers duties and responsibilities of the posts held by them vary such officers may not be heard to complain of dissimilar pay merely because the posts are of the same rank and the nomenclature is the same
303 G H 304 A 31
The principle equal pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine but one of substance
There can be and there are different grades in a service with varying qualifications for entry into a particular grade the higher grade often being a promotional avenue for officers of the lower grade
The higher 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
304 C E 32
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
Article 39 d of the Constitution proclaims equal pay for equal work for both men aud 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 between the sexes
Directive Principles 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 appointment to any office under the State
These equality clauses of the Constitution must mean something to everyone
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
Questions concerning wages and the like mundane they may be are yet matters of vital concern to them and it is there if at all that the equality clauses of the Constitution have any significance to them
The preamble to the Constitution declares the solemn resolution of the people of India to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Democratic Republic
Again the word Socialist  must mean something
Even if it does not mean to each according to his need  it must at least mean equal pay for equal work 
304 E H 305 A D 33
From a construction of Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Article 39d it is clear that the principle equal pay for equal work is deducible from those Articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal 300 scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer
305 G H 306 A Kishori Lal Mohan Lal Bakshi vs Union of India AIR  distinguished