IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 13317 of 1989 Date of Decision: March 6, 2009 Harbhajan Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: Mr. Dheeraj Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab, for the respondents. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 13317 and 8746 of 1989 as common question of law is involved. The petitioners, who are Agriculture Masters, have approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of direction to the respondent State to pay them the pay scale equivalent to the Vocational Masters (Agriculture). Their claim is founded on the assertion that the qualifications of both the posts are identical and both of them have been performing similar nature of duties. The petitioners have also claimed that their names are in the same seniority list and in the similar cadre within the same department. The petitioners have been given the pay scale of Rs. C.W.P. 13317 of 1989 660-1200 with effect from 1.1.1978 whereas the Vocational Masters have been granted the pay scale of Rs.700-1300. In para 8 of the petition (in CWP No. 8746 of 1989) it has been highlighted that on 7.2.1989 (P-2) revised new grades of Vocational Masters have been released. They have been granted the pay scale of Rs. 1800-3200 with senior scale after 8 years and Rs. 2000-3500 and selection grade after 18 years service at Rs. 2100-3700. The petitioners have complained that they have been included in the cadre of Master/Mistress and they have been granted the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2925 and a senior scale after 8 years at Rs. 1800-3200 and selection grade after 18 years of service at Rs. 2000-3500. It has also come on record that the Agriculture Masters, who are part of the cadre of Master/Mistress are entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Headmasters whereas Vocational Masters have not been made eligible for promotion or they have entirely different channel of promotion. 2. In the written statement, the assertions made by the petitioners have been controverted. It has been highlighted that the Vocational Masters were separated by the Punjab Government in 1975 by creating the post of Vocational Masters in different schools in the pay scale of Rs. 300-600. The assertion of the petitioners that the posts were created in the scale of Rs. 250-550 has been controverted. The pay scale granted to the Vocational Masters was further revised to Rs. 700-1300 with effect from 1.1.1978. 3. The respondents have also pointed out that the qualifications of both the posts are different and their nature of duties is altogether different. The posts of Vocational Masters have been 2 C.W.P. 13317 of 1989 created in Higher Secondary/Senior Secondary schools to teach 10+1 and 10+2 classes, whereas Agriculture Masters teach the lower classes upto Matriculation. The averment with regard to common seniority-list has also been controverted being incorrect. It has further been asserted that the channel of promotion for both the cadres is entirely different. The trained Agriculture Masters like the petitioners are entitled to be promoted as Headmasters on the basis of their seniority-cum-merit whereas the Vocational Masters prepare the students for self-employment and have no promotional channel. On the other hand, Agriculture Masters prepare the students academically. Their promotional channel and seniority is clubbed with the cadre of Master/Mistress. The example of Shri Om Parkash Gahlot relied upon by the petitioners has also been explained by stating that he was selected and posted as Vocational Master (Agriculture) and not Agriculture Master. Therefore, he has been rightly given the pay scale of Rs. 700-1300. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper book with their assistance. It is evident from the facts that the qualifications of Vocational Masters and Agriculture Masters are entirely different. A Vocational Master is required to have qualification of B.Ed. in addition to a Degree of B.Sc. in Agriculture whereas an Agriculture Master requires only a Degree in B.Sc. Agriculture. Their cadres and seniority lists are also separate. Even the nature of their duties is different, inasmuch as, Vocational Masters teach 10+1 and 10+2 classes whereas the Agriculture Masters teach students upto Matriculation standard. 5. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid factual position that 3 C.W.P. 13317 of 1989 proposition of law with regard to ‘equal pay for equal work’ has to be applied. It is well settled that the Courts are not clothed with the expertise to determine whether the volume and quality of work of two posts is equivalent. It is, therefore, left to the domain of the expert bodies like the Pay Commission and its acceptance by the State Governments to examine the question concerning the pay scale of a cadre and weigh the same in comparison with the pay scale of another cadre is not the function of the Courts unless it is found to be arbitrary. In the case of State of U.P. v. J. P. Chaurasia, (1989) 1 SCC 121, the question was considered and the aforesaid proposition of law has been laid down. Hon’ble the Supreme Court further considered the aforesaid judgment in the case of Manmatha Nath Ghosh v. Baidyanath Mukherjee, (2005) 13 SCC 630, and held that the Courts cannot in the guise of judicial review, usurp the powers conferred on any other authority and fix a pay scale different from the one prescribed in exercise of the said power. The equivalence of the work by two categories of employees is a matter for the employer to consider. In the present case, not only the qualifications differ, the promotion channels also differ. Likewise, the nature of duties is also different. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be concluded that different pay scales granted to the petitioners than that of Vocational Masters suffer from the vice of arbitrariness. There is, thus, no merit in these petitions. 6. As a sequel to the above discussion, these petitions fails and the same are dismissed. 4 C.W.P. 13317 of 1989 (M.M. KUMAR) March 6, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 5