t Petition Civil Nos
1239 of 1979 974 of 1978  1756 of 86
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India PRama Reddy RK Jain and RP Gupta for the Petitioners in WP No 1239 of 1979 and WP No 1756 of 1986
MK Ramamurthy J Ramamurthy and B Parthasarathy for the Petitioner in WP No 974 of 1978
G Ramaswamy Additional Solicitor General AK Ganguli Miss A Subhashini and K Swamy for the Respondents in WP No1239 of 1979
Miss A Subhashini for the Respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DUTT J
In these writ petitions three categories of Staff Artists of Doordarshan under the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting namely Cameraman Grade II Sound Recordist and Lighting AssistantLightman have claimed that they should be declared as Government servants and should be given the same pay scales as given to their respective counterparts in the Film Division under the same Ministry
The Staff Artists were originally appointed on renewable contracts for 3 4 years  duration but that practice has since undergone a change and they are now appointed up to the age of 55 6O years on a time scale
They are however employed on contract basis till the age of 55 60 years that is the contract runs till the age of retirement as in regular Government service
In 1973 the Third Central Pay Commission considered the pay scales of the employees in the Film Division including those of the Staff Artists
The Commission however excluded the cases of Staff Artists from its consideration on the ground that they were not Government servants but contract employees
It may be stated at this stage that the emoluments that are paid to the Staff Artists are termed as fees  and the scales of pay are termed as Fee Scales  the reason being that they are contract employees and not Government servants
PG NO 607 By an order dated March 9 1977 the Government revised the Fee Scales of the Staff Artists in Doordarshan on the analogy of the recommendations of the Third Central Pay Commission made in respect of regular Government servants
The revised Fee Scales came into force with effect from January 1 1973
It appears that up to the post of Cameraman Grade II in Doordarshan the same scales of pay of equivalent posts in the Film Division as per the recommendation of the Third Pay Commission were given but from the stage of Cameraman Grade II or Sound Recordist up to the post of Lighting AssistantLightman the same pay scales of equivalent posts in the Film Division were not given
The pay scale of Cameraman under the Film Division is Rs650 96O while the pay scale of the equivalent post of Cameraman Grade II in Doordarshan was fixed at Rs550 900
Similarly the pay scale of Sound Recordist in Doordarshan was fixed at Rs425 750 instead of Rs550 900 as fixed in the case of the Sound Recordist in the Film Division
The pay scale of Lighting AssistantLightman was fixed at Rs330 480 while the pay scale of equivalent post in the Film Division namely Assistant Cameraman was fixed at Rs425 750
It is the case of the petitioners that the nature of work performed by them is similar to that performed by their counterparts in the Film Division
The qualifications required for appointment to these categories of Staff Artists are the same as required in the cases of their counterparts in the Film Division
In the circumstances it is submitted by the petitioners that the said Government order dated March 9 1977 is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 161 of the Constitution
Accordingly in these writ petition it has been prayed that the petitioners should be declared as Government servants and paid the same scales of pay as paid to their counterparts in the Film Division with effect from the respective dates of their appointments
The respondents have opposed the writ petitions by filling counter affidavits
It has been averred in the counter affidavits that the Staff Artists of Doordarshan are not Government servants but they are engaged on contract basis
It is submitted that as they are not of the same class as of the employees in the Film Division they are not entitled to the same scales of pay
With regard to the Sound Recordists petitioners in Writ Petition C No 974 of 1978 it is the case of the respondents that there is no such post in the Film Division as Sound Recordist
It is averred that in the Film Division there are three posts namely the Chief Sound Recordist the Recordist and the Assistant Recordist
It is accordingly contended that in Doordarshan the organisational structure is entirely different and consists of only one category of post that is the Sound Recordist
PG NO 608 The first question as to whether the Staff Artists of Doordarshan are Government servants or not need not detain us long
It was already been noticed that although initially their appointments were made on contract basis subsequently the Staff Artists were being appointed up to the age of 55 60 years on a time scale like a regular Government servant
Indeed they possess all the criteria of a Government servant
The question once came up before us in Union of India vs MA Chowdhary AlR  which was disposed of by the following order Shri AK Ganguli learned counsel for the Union of India submits that article 311 of the Constitution is applicable to the Staff Artists of the All India Radio
We are of the view that the statement made on behalf of the Government represents the true legal position because the Staff Artists are holding civil posts under the Government
In view of the above statement this appeal filed against the judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Special Appeal No 258 of 1974 which has also taken the view that article 311 is applicable to those Staff Artists has to be dismissed
This appeal is accordingly dismissed
No costs
 It will appear from the order extracted above that we took the view that the Staff Artists of All India Radio were holding civil posts under the Government
There is no distinction between the Staff Artists of All India Radio and those in the Doordarshan
Accordingly we hold that having regard to the service conditions of the Staff Artists of Doordarshan and in view of the said decision the Staff Artists of Doordarshan including the petitioners are Government servants
The contention of the respondents that the category of Staff Artists designated as Sound Recordist  has no counterpart in the Film Division is without any substance
It may be that in the Film Division the designation is Recordist  and not Sound Recordist  but in our opinion it is quite immaterial
It is not the case of the respondents that the nature of duty of the Recordist in the Film Division is something else than that of the Sound Recordist in Doordarshan
Indeed it is the case of the petitioners in Writ Petition C No 974 of 1978 who are all Sound Recordists of Doordarshan that they peform the same duties as performed by their counterparts in the Film Division that is the Recordists  or Sound Recordists  as PG NO 609 the case may be
At this stage it is significant to notice that the last sentence of paragraph 6 of the Reply Affidavit of the respondents to the Rejoinder of the petitioners in Writ Petition C No 974 of 1978 affirmed by Shri Sailendra Shankar the Director General of Doordarshan reads as follows I reiterate that the petitioners cannot be compared with the Sound Recordist of the Film Division who are regular civil servants
 The above statement is an admission of the fact that there is the post of Sound Recordist  in the Film Division
It may be that really the designation in the Film Division is Recordist  but the use of the designation as Sound Recordist  in the statement extracted above suggests that the Recordists  in the Film Division and the Sound Recordists  in Doordarshan are counterparts of each other
The contention of the respondents is accordingly rejected
We have gone through the averments in the writ petitions and those made in the counter affidavits filed by the Director General of Doordarshan and we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioners perform the same duties as those performed by their counterparts in the Film Division
When two posts under two different wings of the same Ministry are not only identical but also involve the performance of the same nature of duties it will be unreasonable and unjust to discriminate between the two in the matter of pay
One of the directive principles of State Policy as embodied in clause d of Article 39 of the Constitution is equal pay for equal work for both men and women
The provision of Article 39d has been relied upon by the petitioners
The Directive Principles contained in Part IV of the Constitution though not enforceable by any court are intended to be implemented by the State of its own accord so as to promote the welfare of the people
Indeed Article 37 provides inter alia that it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making laws
Even leaving out of our consideration Article 39d the principle of equal pay for equal work if not given effect to in the case of one set of Government servants holding same or similar posts possessing same qualifications and doing the same kind of work as another set of Government servants it would be discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
Such discrimination has been made in respect of the petitioners who are the Staff Artists of Doordarshan by not giving them the same scales of pay as provided to their counterparts in PG NO 610 the Film Division under the same Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
The petitioners are
therefore entitled to the same scales of pay as their counterparts in the Film Division
But the question is as to from which date they will be entitled to the scales of pay as prescribed for their counterparts in the Film Division
The petitioners have claimed that such scales of pay should be admitted to them with effect from their respective dates of appointments
After having given a careful thought to this aspect we are of the view that ends of justice will be met sufficiently if such scales of pay are given to the petitioners with effect from the first day of the month of the year in which each writ petition was filed in this Court except that in the case of Writ Petition C No l756 of 1986 such scales of pay shall be given to the petitioners with effect from December 1 1983
In the circumstances all these writ petitions are allowed
The Sound Recordists who are the petitioners in Writ Petition C No 974 of 1978 shall be given the pay scale of the RecordistSound Recordist in the Film Division ie Rs550 900 with effect from January 1 1978
The Cameramen Grade II who are the petitioners in Writ Petition C No 1239 of 1979 shall be given the pay scale of the Cameraman of the Film Division ie Rs650 960 with effect from August 1 1979
The Lighting AssistantsLightmen who are the petitioners in Writ Petition C No 1756 of 1986 shall be given the scale of Pay of Assistant Cameraman in the Film Division ie Rs425 700 with effect from December 1 1983
The petitioners in all these writ petitions will also be entitled to the substituted scales of pay and consequential benefits
The respondents are directed to disburse to the petitioners the arrear amounts being the difference in the pay scales within four months from today
There will however be no order as to costs
PSS Petitions allowed


Summary:
Pursuant to separate disciplinary proceedings the penalty of reduction in rank  was imposed on the appellants Nyadar Singh and MJ Ninama reducing each of them to a post lower than the one to which they were directly recruited
The Central Administrative Tribunals rejected the appellants  challenge to the orders imposing the penalty
Before this Court the appellants  contention was that as a result of the imposition of the penalty they were reduced in rank to posts lower than the one to which they were initially recruited which on a proper construction of Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services Classification Control and Appeal Rules 1965 was not permissible
The Additional Solicitor General on the other hand contended that this limitation which might be appropriate in the case of a reversion  was inappropriate in a case of reduction in rank  imposed as a penalty
The argument was that reduction in rank  had a wider import than reversion  and there was no reason why the power to impose this penalty which was permissible on the plain language of the Rule be whittled down by any other consideration
PG NO 547 PG NO 548 Disposing of the appeals it was HELD 1 The meaning to be given to a particular statutory language depends on the evaluation of a number of interpretative criteria
Shorn of the context the words by themselves are slippery customers 
The general presumption is that these criteria do not detract or stand apart from but are to be harmonised with the well accepted legal principles
Considerations relevant to interpretation are not whether a differently conceived or worded statute would have yielded results more consonant with fairness and reasonableness
Consequences do not alter the statutory language but might only help to fix its meaning
555H 556A B G H 2 The expression rank  in reduction in rank  has for purposes of Article 3112 an obvious reference to the stratification of the posts or grades or categories in the official hierarchy
It does not refer to the mere seniority of the Government Servant in the same class or grade or category
552B C 3 The penalty of reduction in rank  of a Government servant initially recruited to a higher time scale grade service or post to a lower time scale grade service or post virtually amounted to his removal from the higher post and the substitution of his recruitment to lower post affecting the policy of recruitment itself
ln conceivable cases the Government servant might not have the qualification requisite for the post which might require and involve different though not necessarily higher skills and attainment
551B C 557G Worthington vs Robin 1896 75 Law Times Reports 446 referred to 4 Rule 11 must be read in consonance with general principles and so construed the expression reduction  in it would not admit of a wider meaning
557H 558A Babaji Charan Rout vs State of Orissa 1982 1 SLJ 496 Shivalingaswamy vs State of Karnataka 1985 ILR Kar
1453 approved
Gopal Rao vs CIT  Mahendra Kumar vs Union of India 1984 1 All India Ser
Law Journal 34  SN Dey vs Union of India 1983 2 SLJ All 114 CS Balakumar vs The lnspecting Asstt
Commissioner of Income Tax 1987 1 All India SLJ 18 over ruled
PG NO 548 P V Srinivasa Sastry vs Comptroller  Auditor General of India and Hussain Sasan Saheb Kaldgi vs State of Maharashtra  referred to