Case: Rajesh Pravinchandra Rajyaguru and Ors Vs. Gujarat Water Supply &amp; Sewerage Board and Ors

meet out the expenses of the State. It is always a conscious decision of the Government as to how much taxes have to be levied so as to not cause excessive burden on the citizens. But the Boards and Corporations have to depend on either their own resources or seek grant from the Central/ State Government, as the case may be, for their expenditures. Therefore, the grant of benefits of higher pay scale to the Central/State Government employees stand on different footing than grant of pay scale by an instrumentality of the State. Therefore, the daily rated employees of the Board cannot as a matter of right claim the parity of pay scales with the Government employees. 13.7 In the present case a conscious decision has been taken by the Board not to adopt the Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992. Even the State Government has refused to extend the benefits under the Government Resolutions of 1991 and 1992. The Board has taken a conscious decision considering the additional financial burden on the Board if the benefits under the Government Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 are allowed. 14. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that unless and until the Board has specifically adopted the Government Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 like adopting the parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988, the daily rated employees/employees of the Respondent – Board shall not be entitled to any benefit flowing from the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992. Therefore, the learned Single Judge erred in directing the Board to grant the benefits flowing from the Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 which is rightly set aside by the Division Bench of the High Court. 15. So far as the submission on behalf of the original writ petitioners which was accepted by the learned Single Judge that as number of other daily rated employees of the Board were granted the benefits flowing from the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992, not paying similar benefits to the remaining daily rated employees would be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such right from the very beginning it was the case on behalf of the Respondent – Board that the benefits under the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 were inadvertently and mistakenly given by some of the zonal offices, which subsequently came to be withdrawn and even the recovery is also sought. As observed and held hereinabove the original writ petitioners – daily rated employees of the Board are not entitled to the benefits flowing from the Government Resolutions of 1991 and 1992. Therefore, they cannot invoke Article 14 of the Constitution to claim benefit on the ground of parity if they otherwise are not entitled to such benefit. As per the settled proposition of law Article 14 of the Constitution embodies concept of positive equality alone and not negative equality. It cannot be relied upon to perpetuate illegality and irregularity. 15.1 As held by this Court in the case of Rajkumar Sharma (Supra) in a case of appointments or pay-scales, Article 14 of the Constitution does not envisage negative equality and if State has committed the mistake, it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same mistake. 15.2 In the case of Debasish Mukherjee (Supra) while dealing with the concept of equality it is observed in paragraph 26 as under: 26. It is now well settled that guarantee of equality before law is a positive concept and cannot be enforced in a negative manner. If an illegality or an irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or group of individuals, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of Courts and Tribunals to require the state to commit the same irregularity or illegality in their favour on the reasoning that they have been denied the benefits which have been illegally or arbitrarily extended to others. [See : Gursharan Singh vs. New Delhi Municipal Administration - 1996 (2) SCC 459, Union of India vs. Kirloskar Pneumatics Ltd. - 1996 (4) SCC 433, Union of India vs. International Trading Co. - 2003 (5) SCC 437, and State of Bihar vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh - 2000 (9) SCC 94 .] 16. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and as observed hereinabove the daily rated employees of the Board cannot claim as a matter of right the benefits flowing from the Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 and as such they are not entitled to the benefits flowing from the said Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 automatically and considering the fact that even subsequently the mistake committed by other zonal offices have been corrected and the benefits mistakenly and/or inadvertently have been withdrawn and even the recovery sought, the learned Single Judge committed grave error in holding that the action of the Respondent – Board in not granting benefit flowing from the Government Resolution of 1991 and 1992 is discriminately and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The same is rightly corrected by the Division Bench of the High Court and the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly set aside the order passed by the Single judge. 17. Now so far as the reliance placed upon by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners in the decision of this Court in PWD Employees Union (Supra) is concerned, the same shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand and/or the same shall not be of any assistance to the daily rated employees of the Respondent – Board. In the case before this Court the dispute was with respect to two different departments of the State Government. As observed hereinabove, the employees of the Government departments and the employees of the Board as such stand on different footings. As observed hereinabove the employees of the Board cannot claim the parity with that of the Government employees.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]13. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the list of dates and events reproduced hereinabove it can be seen that the writ petitioners are working as daily rated employees with the Respondent – Board. The State of Gujarat passed a resolution dated 17.10.1988 wherein the Government decided to grant certain benefits to skilled daily wager workmen. The Respondent – Board which is an autonomous body constituted under the Act adopted the Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and granted the benefits flowing from the GR dated 17.10.1988 which is the parent Resolution. It is not in dispute that the respective original writ petitioners – daily rated employees are granted the benefits flowing from the parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988.13.2 However, it is required to be noted that as such the Board never adopted the subsequent Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992. It is required to be noted that the parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988 was specifically approved by the Board vide communication dated 08.06.1989. On the contrary the administrative instructions vide communication dated 29.08.1991 were issued to all the Chief Engineers of zonal offices that benefits pursuant to Government Resolution of 1991 are not to be granted to the daily rated employees of the Board. It is to be noted that right from adopting the parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988, the Respondent - Board granted benefits under the parent Resolution to all the original writ petitioners – daily rated employees upon their completion of 5 years and of 10 years. Therefore, as such the Board which is an autonomous and statutory body created under the Act never adopted the Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 and unless the said Resolutions are adopted by the Respondent – Board, the daily rated employees working with the Respondent – Board shall not be entitled to the benefits flowing from the subsequent resolutions. There shall not be automatic adoption and/or applicability of the subsequent resolutions. Under the circumstances as rightly held by the Division Bench, the daily rated employees of the Respondent – Board cannot claim the benefits from the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 as a matter of right. As rightly observed and held they do no have any right to get the benefits flowing from the aforesaid Resolutions of 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 till specifically adopted by the Respondent – Board like adoption of the parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988.13.3 Even being the daily rated employees working with the Respondent – Board they cannot claim the parity with the employees of the State Government. The Respondent – Board is an autonomous and statutory body created under the Act. It is ultimately for the Respondent – Board to take a conscious decision which can be termed as a policy decision on the pay scales to be adopted and/or certain benefits which would have financial implications. Everything depends upon its economic viability or the financial capacity. As per the settled proposition of law the economic viability or the financial capacity of the employer is an important factor while fixing the wage structure, otherwise the unit itself may not be able to function and may have to close down inevitably and have disastrous consequences for the employees themselves. As per the settled proposition of law the employees cannot legitimately claim that their pay-scales should necessarily be revised and/or they must be granted certain additional benefits/benefits.13.4 As per the settled proposition of law equation of posts and salary is a complex matter which should be left to the expert body and undertakings and the court cannot interfere lightly. Granting of pay parity by the court may result in a cascading effect having adverse consequences. There are limitations or qualifications to the applicability of the doctrine of equal pay for equal work.13.5 Being daily rated employees of the Respondent – Board, they cannot claim as of right similar treatment as Government employees. The Respondent – Board is an independent entity and it might have its own financial capacity and therefore its employees cannot claim parity with the employees of the State Government.13.6 The State Government and the autonomous Board/bodies cannot be put at par. The Board has to depend upon their own financial resources. In the recent decision in the case of Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited and Another (Supra) it is observed in paragraph 32 as under:32. The Central or State Government is empowered to levy taxes to meet out the expenses of the State. It is always a conscious decision of the Government as to how much taxes have to be levied so as to not cause excessive burden on the citizens. But the Boards and Corporations have to depend on either their own resources or seek grant from the Central/ State Government, as the case may be, for their expenditures. Therefore, the grant of benefits of higher pay scale to the Central/State Government employees stand on different footing than grant of pay scale by an instrumentality of the State.Therefore, the daily rated employees of the Board cannot as a matter of right claim the parity of pay scales with the Government employees.13.7 In the present case a conscious decision has been taken by the Board not to adopt the Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992. Even the State Government has refused to extend the benefits under the Government Resolutions of 1991 and 1992. The Board has taken a conscious decision considering the additional financial burden on the Board if the benefits under the Government Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 are allowed.14. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that unless and until the Board has specifically adopted the Government Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 like adopting the parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988, the daily rated employees/employees of the Respondent – Board shall not be entitled to any benefit flowing from the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992. Therefore, the learned Single Judge erred in directing the Board to grant the benefits flowing from the Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 which is rightly set aside by the Division Bench of the High Court.15. So far as the submission on behalf of the original writ petitioners which was accepted by the learned Single Judge that as number of other daily rated employees of the Board were granted the benefits flowing from the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992, not paying similar benefits to the remaining daily rated employees would be discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such right from the very beginning it was the case on behalf of the Respondent – Board that the benefits under the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 were inadvertently and mistakenly given by some of the zonal offices, which subsequently came to be withdrawn and even the recovery is also sought. As observed and held hereinabove the original writ petitioners – daily rated employees of the Board are not entitled to the benefits flowing from the Government Resolutions of 1991 and 1992. Therefore, they cannot invoke Article 14 of the Constitution to claim benefit on the ground of parity if they otherwise are not entitled to such benefit. As per the settled proposition of law Article 14 of the Constitution embodies concept of positive equality alone and not negative equality. It cannot be relied upon to perpetuate illegality and irregularity.15.2 In the case of Debasish Mukherjee (Supra) while dealing with the concept of equality it is observed in paragraph 26 as under:26. It is now well settled that guarantee of equality before law is a positive concept and cannot be enforced in a negative manner. If an illegality or an irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or group of individuals, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of Courts and Tribunals to require the state to commit the same irregularity or illegality in their favour on the reasoning that they have been denied the benefits which have been illegally or arbitrarily extended to others. [See : Gursharan Singh vs. New Delhi Municipal Administration - 1996 (2) SCC 459,  Union of India vs. Kirloskar Pneumatics Ltd. - 1996 (4) SCC 433,  Union of India vs. International Trading Co. - 2003 (5) SCC 437,  and State of Bihar vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh - 2000 (9) SCC 94 .]16. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and as observed hereinabove the daily rated employees of the Board cannot claim as a matter of right the benefits flowing from the Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 and as such they are not entitled to the benefits flowing from the said Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 automatically and considering the fact that even subsequently the mistake committed by other zonal offices have been corrected and the benefits mistakenly and/or inadvertently have been withdrawn and even the recovery sought, the learned Single Judge committed grave error in holding that the action of the Respondent – Board in not granting benefit flowing from the Government Resolution of 1991 and 1992 is discriminately and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The same is rightly corrected by the Division Bench of the High Court and the Division Bench of the High Court has rightly set aside the order passed by the Single judge.17. Now so far as the reliance placed upon by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners in the decision of this Court in PWD Employees Union (Supra) is concerned, the same shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand and/or the same shall not be of any assistance to the daily rated employees of the Respondent – Board. In the case before this Court the dispute was with respect to two different departments of the State Government.As observed hereinabove, the employees of the Government departments and the employees of the Board as such stand on different footings. As observed hereinabove the employees of the Board cannot claim the parity with that of the Government employees.