Case: Unikat Sankunni Menon Vs. The State Of Rajasthan

against them in the matter of pay-scales, as compared with Income-tax Officers recruited directly to the Class I service. The Court, rejecting this argument, held:"The only other contention raised is that there is discrimination between Class I and Class II Officers inasmuch as, though they do the same kind of work, their pay scales are different. This it is said, violates Article 14 of the Constitution. If this contention had any validity, there could be no incremental scales of pay fixed dependent on the duration of an officers service. The abstract doctrine of equal pay for equal work has nothing to do with Article 14.The contention that Article 14 of the Constitution has been violated, therefore, fails." The claim of the appellant in the present case that, on appointment as Deputy Secretary he must be held entitled to receive special pay on the ground of being placed on parity, with the members of the R.A.S., has therefore, to be rejected. 7. The second ground, which shows that the claim made on behalf of the appellant has no basis, is that, under the various Service Rules themselves, a member of the R.S.S., on appointment as Deputy Secretary, is given pay in a grade specially and separately fixed for the posts of Deputy Secretaries, while a member of the R.A.S., is not placed in that grade at all. Thus, under the latest Rules, a member of the R.S.S. on appointment as Deputy Secretary, draws salary in the grade of Rs. 900-50-1500. On the other hand, a member of the R.A.S., appointed as Deputy Secretary, is not granted pay in this scale. In this case, he continues to draw his salary in the scale applicable to him in the R.A.S., and is allowed a special pay of Rs. 150. This special pay allowed to a member of the R.A.S., is therefore, not in addition to the pay in the grade specially prescribed for the posts of Deputy Secretaries. That grade is much higher than the grade applicable to the member of the R. A. S. which continues to apply to him on his appointment as Deputy Secretary, and it is only in addition to that lower timescale that a member of the R.A.S. is allowed the special pay of Rs. 150.It is thus clear that the method of fixation of salary for members of the two Services, on appointment as Deputy Secretaries, is quite different. A member of the R.S.S. is allowed a special higher grade, while a member of the R.A.S. continues on his old scale and only gets an extra salary of Rs.150 per month. In such a case, no question can arise of holding that a member of the R.S.S. must also be granted a special pay in addition to being placed in the higher grade of pay prescribed for the post of Deputy Secretaries when that post is held by the member of the R.S.S. 8. In this connection, learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to Rule 7(31) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, 1951, framed under Article 309 of the Constitution, defining special pay. The definition given in the Rule is that "Special Pay" means an addition of the nature of pay, to the emoluments of a post or of a government servant, granted in consideration of -(a) the specially arduous nature of the duties; (b) a specific addition to the work or responsibility; or (c) the unhealthiness of the locality in which the work is performed. 9. It was urged by learned counsel that, if the post of Deputy Secretary was considered as involving specially arduous nature of duties for members of the R.A.S., there is no reason to hold that that post is not equally arduous for members of the R.S.S. and, consequently, there would be no justification for denying special pay to members of the R.S.S. holding such a post, when special pay is granted to members of the R.A.S. It appears to us that this submission is made on a misconception of the scope of this Rule. The Rule, in defining special pay, envisages an addition of the nature of pay to the emoluments of either a post or of a government servant and, consequently it is clear that a special pay is to be granted, if a person is appointed to a post which is specially arduous in nature as compared with the earlier post held by him. Similarly, it may be granted to a government servant who is appointed to a post involving specially arduous duties as compared with the posts to be held by him ordinarily, while continuing in the Service in which he holds his permanent appointment. Special pay does not arise out of any inherent quality of being arduous in nature in the post itself.Thus, when special pay is granted to a member of the R.A.S. on appointment as Deputy Secretary, the reason may be that the post is considered more arduous in nature than the post which would be held by him, if he had continued on a regular post borne on the cadre of his Service. In the case of a member of the R.S.S., the post of a Deputy Secretary is already designated as a selection post for him and in view of this difference between the post to which he is appointed, as compared with the post of an Assistant Secretary earlier held by him, he is granted a special and higher grade, so that there is no question of his being granted a special pay on the basis that the post of Deputy Secretary is more arduous in nature than the post of Assistant Secretary. The Rules, as framed, are thus, based on well-recognised principles for granting salary to members of different services even when they are appointed to the same post. 10. In these circumstances, no question arises of any discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution, or of any denial of equality of opportunity under Article 16 of the Constitution.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 0

Reasoning from the judgment:
0[ds]It is true that, on such appointment under these Rules, he was not entitled to any special pay but the principle for fixation of pay given in the remark column ensured that the pay admissible to the Officer would certainly be higher than the pay which would have been admissible if the earlier Rules had continued in forceThe Rules thus applicable to the member of the R.S.S on appointment to the post of Deputy Secretary, against which the appellant made his grievance in the High Court, cannot be held to be vitiated in any manner, if considered by themselves in the light of rights which the members of the R.S.S. possessed from time to time6. There are two reasons why this grievance put forward on behalf of the appellant has to be rejected. The first is that the appellant comes to the post of a Deputy Secretary from the R.S.S., which is a service distinct and separate from the R.A.S.The methods of recruitment, qualifications, etc., of the two Services are not identical. In their ordinary time-scale, the two Services do not carry the same grades. Even the posts, for which recruitment in the two Services is made, are to a major extent, different. The members of the R.S.S., are meant to be employed in the Secretariat only, while members of the R.A.S. are mostly meant for posts which are outside the Secretariat though some posts in the Secretariat can be filled by members of the R.A.S. In such a case, where appointment is made to the posts of Deputy Secretaries of government servants belonging to two different and separate Services, there can arise no question of a claim that all of them, when working as Deputy Secretaries, must receive identical salaries, or must necessarily both be given special pay. It is entirely wrong to think that every one, appointed to the same post, is entitled to claim that he must be paid identical emoluments as any other person appointed to the same post, disregarding the method of recruitment, or the source from which the Officer is drawn for appointment to that post. No such equality is required either by Article 14 or Article 16 of the ConstitutionIn our opinion, the answer must be in the negative. The concept of equality can have no existence except with reference to matters which are common as between individuals, between whom equality is predicated. Equality of opportunity in matters of employment can be predicated only as between persons, who are either seeking the same employment, or have obtained the same employmentThe claim of the appellant in the present case that, on appointment as Deputy Secretary he must be held entitled to receive special pay on the ground of being placed on parity, with the members of the R.A.S., has therefore, to be rejected7. The second ground, which shows that the claim made on behalf of the appellant has no basis, is that, under the various Service Rules themselves, a member of the R.S.S., on appointment as Deputy Secretary, is given pay in a grade specially and separately fixed for the posts of Deputy Secretaries, while a member of the R.A.S., is not placed in that grade at all. Thus, under the latest Rules, a member of the R.S.S. on appointment as Deputy Secretary, draws salary in the grade of Rs. 900-50-1500. On the other hand, a member of the R.A.S., appointed as Deputy Secretary, is not granted pay in this scale. In this case, he continues to draw his salary in the scale applicable to him in the R.A.S., and is allowed a special pay of Rs. 150. This special pay allowed to a member of the R.A.S., is therefore, not in addition to the pay in the grade specially prescribed for the posts of Deputy Secretaries. That grade is much higher than the grade applicable to the member of the R. A. S. which continues to apply to him on his appointment as Deputy Secretary, and it is only in addition to that lower timescale that a member of the R.A.S. is allowed the special pay of Rs. 150.It is thus clear that the method of fixation of salary for members of the two Services, on appointment as Deputy Secretaries, is quite different. A member of the R.S.S. is allowed a special higher grade, while a member of the R.A.S. continues on his old scale and only gets an extra salary of Rs.150 per month. In such a case, no question can arise of holding that a member of the R.S.S. must also be granted a special pay in addition to being placed in the higher grade of pay prescribed for the post of Deputy Secretaries when that post is held by the member of the R.S.SIt appears to us that this submission is made on a misconception of the scope of this Rule. The Rule, in defining special pay, envisages an addition of the nature of pay to the emoluments of either a post or of a government servant and, consequently it is clear that a special pay is to be granted, if a person is appointed to a post which is specially arduous in nature as compared with the earlier post held by him. Similarly, it may be granted to a government servant who is appointed to a post involving specially arduous duties as compared with the posts to be held by him ordinarily, while continuing in the Service in which he holds his permanent appointment. Special pay does not arise out of any inherent quality of being arduous in nature in the post itself.Thus, when special pay is granted to a member of the R.A.S. on appointment as Deputy Secretary, the reason may be that the post is considered more arduous in nature than the post which would be held by him, if he had continued on a regular post borne on the cadre of his Service. In the case of a member of the R.S.S., the post of a Deputy Secretary is already designated as a selection post for him and in view of this difference between the post to which he is appointed, as compared with the post of an Assistant Secretary earlier held by him, he is granted a special and higher grade, so that there is no question of his being granted a special pay on the basis that the post of Deputy Secretary is more arduous in nature than the post of Assistant Secretary. The Rules, as framed, are thus, based on well-recognised principles for granting salary to members of different services even when they are appointed to the same post.In these circumstances, no question arises of any discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution, or of any denial of equality of opportunity under Article 16 of the Constitution