STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. versus THE SENIOR VOCATIONAL STAFF MASTERS ASSOCIATION
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 650, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Dismissed (Dismissed)
Segment: Body
A 
B 
c 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 650 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
v. 
THE SENIOR VOCATIONAL STAFF MASTERS ASSOCIATION 
&ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 632 of2008) 
AUGUST 18,2017 
[DIPAK MISRA, R. K. AGRAWAL AND 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.j 
Service Law: 
Parity of Posts - Post of Vocational Masters - Initially 
educational qualification was either degree in Engineering or B.A. 
with ITJ Diploma - Their pay-scale was higher than that of the 
Lecturers - In the year 1978 Vocational Masters and Lecturers were 
0 
placed in the same scale - By Notification dated 31.3.1995 graduate 
Vocational Masters and post-graduate Vocational Masters were re-
designated, qs Vocational Lecturers - However; responsibilities and 
financial implications were not affected - Notification dated 
31.3.1995 was challenged in High Court - During pendency of the 
petition, Service Rules were amended - Thereby pay scales of 
E Lecturets were made higher than those of the Vocational Masters -
The Vocational Masters approached the State Government claiming 
pay-scales at par with the Lecturers - The State Government by 
Notifications dated 7.11.2002 and 16.5.2003 granted the benefit 
of higher pay-scale only to those, who were iti service prior to 
F 
8. 7.1995 - State Government by Notification dated 16. 7.2003, 
canceled the Notifications dated 7.11.2002 and 16.5.2003 clarifying 
that only those Voc,ational Masters who were appointed prior to 
8. 7.1995 and those who acquired the qualification of post-graduate 
and or degree
in engineering by 8. 7.1995 would be eligible for 
higher pay-scale - Vocational Masters challenged the Notification 
G dated 16. 7. 2003 - Single Judge of High Cow·t quashed the 
Notification dated 16. 7.2003 and directed the State Government to 
give benefit of Notification dated 31.3.1995 - Division Bench of 
High Court dismissed the LPAs - On appeal, held: Since the very 
inception, the educational qualification for appointment as 
H 
Vocational Masters had been a degree or diploma as both the 
650
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. SENIOR VOCATIONAL STAFF 
651 
MASTERS ASSOCIATION. 
qualifications were placed at par ..:. All were appointed by a common A 
process of selection and all we~e performing the same work .:... It 
was only"subsequently that the State Govern.ment designate_d some 
'of the Vocational Masters as Vocational Lecturers and brought about. 
an artificial distinction between the two - Even after re-designation, 
there was no change in the re~ponsibilities and financial matters of .a· 
the Vocational Lecturers - There is no distinction between Vocational 
Lecturers and Vocational Masters -:-Any attempt to curtail the salary 
and allowances of Vocational Masters.·would amount io 
arbitrariness, if no reasonable fustification is offered for the same 
- Therefore, High Court was justified in 'balding that VocationaF• 
Masters were entitled to higher pay-scale ~ Notification dated C 
16. 7.2003 is also liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of 
natural justice as it was passed without hearing the concerned 
employees - Constitution of India -Art. 14 - Punjab State Education 
Class III (School Cadre) Service Rules, 1978. · 
Constitution of India: 
Arts. 14 to 18 - Nature and Scope of -.Held: Doctrine of 
equality is a dynamic and evolving concept having many dimensions 
D 
- Art. 14forbids class legislation, but does not forbid reasonable 
class;fication - Classification should be based on intelligible 
differentia and the diflerentia must have a reasonable
nexus to o~ject E 
sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory provisioi1 iri question 
- The principle of equality is also fundamental in formulation of 
any policy by the State ~s is evident from Articles 38, 39, 39A, 43 
and 46 of the Constitution - If the State is giving some economic 
benefits to one class while denying the same to other, then the onus 
ofjustifying the same lies on the State, specially when both the 
classes were treated as same in the past by the State . 
. Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It is a cardinal principle of law that Government 
F 
has to abide by rule oflaw and uphold the values and principles of G 
the Constitution of India. The doctrine of eqµality is a' dynamic 
and evolving concept having many dimensions. Articles 14-1.8 of 
the Constitution, besides assuring equality before the law and 
equal protection of the laws, also disallow discrimination which 
lacks tile -Object of achieving equality, in matters of employment. 
H
652 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 
It is well settled that though Article 14 forbids class legislation 
but it does not forbid reasonable classification. When any rule of 
statutory provision providing classification is assailed on the 
ground that it is contrary to Article 14, its validity can be sustained 
if it satisfies two tests, namely, that the classification was to be 
based on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons 
or things grouped together from the others left out of the group, 
and the differentia in question must have a reasonable nexus to 
object sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory provision in 
question. In other words, there must be some rational nexus 
between the basis of classification and the object intended to be 
C achieved by the Statute or the Rule. [Para 14] [666-D-G) 
1.2 The principle of equality, is also fundamental in 
formulation of any policy by the State and the glimpse of the same 
can be found in Articles 38, 39, 39A, 43 and 46 embodied in Part 
IV of the Constitution. These Articles of the Constitution 
D mandate that the State is under a constitutional obligation to 
assure a social order providing justice- social, economic and 
political, by inter alia, minimizing monetary inequalities, and by 
securing the right to adequate means of livelihood and by 
providing for adequate wages so as to ensure, an appropriate 
E 
F 
standard of life, and by promoting economic interests of the 
weaker
sections. Meaning thereby, if the State is giving some 
economic benefits to one class while denying the same to other, 
then the onus of justifying the same lies on the State specially in 
the circumstances when both the cll)sses or group of persons 
were treated as same in the past by the State. There cannot be 
any discrimination between similarly situated persons, whether 
by way of a Government Notification or any amendment in the 
Rules. [Paras 16 and 17) [667-F, H; 668-A-BJ 
1.3 In the present case, since the very inception, the 
educational 11ualification for appointment as Vocational Masters 
G had been a degree or a diploma with three years' experience as 
both the qualifications were placed at par. All persons were 
appointed by a common process of selection and they teach the 
same classes, performing the same work. No distinction can be 
brought about between the persons so appointed. It is only 
subsequently that the appellants designated some of the 
H
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. SENIOR VOCATIONAL STAFF 
653 
MASTERS ASSOCIATION 
Vocational Masters as Vocational Lecturers and brought about A 
an artificial distinction between the two. Even on account of re-
designation of the degree-holders and post-graduates as 
Vocational Lecturers, there was no change in the responsibilities 
and the financial matters as between the degree-holders and 
diploma-holders before the alleged Notification, which 'ract is duly 
B 
admitted by the State. There is no distinction between the 
Vocational Lecturers and Vocational Masters and they form one 
unified cadre and class. (Para 161 (667-C-El 
1.4 As far as nature of work is concerned, it is stated that 
the Vocational Masters are discharging their duty in the Senior .. C 
Secondary Schools in the Engineering/non-Engineering trades 
and have the technical qualifications, while the Vocational 
Lecturers are also discharging the same duties in the same 
schools. Both Vocational Masters and Lecturers are teaching 
the same classes and hence the nature of work, responsibilities 
and duties being identical and the pay scales were also kept D 
identical since 1978 onwards. (Para 16) (667-F-G) 
1.5 Since Vocational Masters had been drawing same salary 
as Vocational Lecturers were drawing before the application of 
4'" Pay Commission, any attempt to curtail their salary and 
allowances would amount to arbitrariness which cannot be E 
~ustained in the eyes of law if no reasonable justification is
offered 
for the same. [Para 17) [668-C] 
· 
1.6 A differential scale on the basis of educational 
qualifications and the nature of duties is permissible; However, 
it is equally clear that if two categories of employees are treated 
F 
as equal initially, they should continue to be so treated unless a 
different treatment is justified by some cogent reasons. In a case 
where the nature of duties is drastically altered, a differential 
scale of pay may be justified. Similarly, if a higher qualification is 
prescribed for a particular post, a higher scale of pay may be 
granted. However, if the basic qualifications and the job G 
requirements continued to be identical as they were initially laid 
down, then the Court shall be reluctant to accept the action of 
the authority in according a differential treatment unless· some 
good reasons are disclosed. (Para 18) (668-D-F] 
H
654 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
1. 7 The High Court was fully jt,1.stified in declaring that the 
vocational masters are entitled to pay scale of Rs.6,400-10,640/-
on the ground that the nature of duties being discharged by the 
vocational masters are the same as vocational lecturers and that 
there was no rationale behind making a classification between 
B the two, especially when both the categories were ,treated as one 
and the same in all the previous pay revisions since 1978 onwards. 
Vide notification dated 31.03.1995, only the nomenclature of 
Vocational Masters was changed without changing their nature 
of duties and pay scales. [Para 19] [668-G-H) 
c 
V. Markendeya and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh 
and Others (1989) 3 SCC 191 : [19891 2 SCR 422 ; 
State of U.P. and Others v. J.P. Chaurasia and Others 
(1989) 1 SCC 121 : [1988) 3 Suppt;"SCR 288 ; Shyam 
Babu Verma and Others v. Union of India and Others 
(1994) 2 SCC 521 : [19941 1 SCR 700 ; Government 
D 
of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy and Others (2004) 1 SCC 
347 : [20031 5 Suppl. SCR 656 ; Indian Drugs & 
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & 
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 408 : [20061 9 
Suppl. SCR 73 ; State Bank of India and Others v. K.P. 
E 
Subbaiah and Others (2003) 11 SCC 646 : [20031 1 
Suppl. SCR 545 - distinguished. 
2. Further, the impugned order dated 16.07.2003 deserves 
to be quashed on the short ground that it has been passed without 
complying the rules of natural
justice. The same could not have 
F 
been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the 
concerned employees. The respondents had been made to suffer 
huge financial loss without being heard. Fair play in action warrants 
that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering 
civil consequences should be passed without putting the 
G concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. [Paras 
19 and 21) [669-A, H; 670-AJ 
H 
Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1994 
SC 2480 : [19941 2 Suppl. SCR 419 - relied on.
. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. SENIOR VOCATIONAL STAFF 
655 
MASTERS ASSOCIATION 
Case Law Reference 
A 
(1989) 2 SCR 422 
distinguished 
Paras 
[1988) 3 Suppl. SCR 2S8 
distinguished 
Pa.ra 5 
[19941 1 SCR 700 
distinguished 
Para 8· 
[2003] 5 Suppl.· SCR 656 
distinguished 
Paras 
B 
!20061 9 Suppl. SCR 73 
distinguished 
Par1,19 . 
. , 
Para 9 · 
(20031 1 Suppl. SCR 545 
distinguished 
[1994] 2 Suppl. SCR 419 
relied on 
Para 20 
c 
""' 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 632 of 
2008. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 23.05.2006 of the High 
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in L.P.A. Nos.66 and 67 of D 
2006 (0 & M). 
Karan Bharihoke, Ms. Anusha Nagarajan, Ajay Pal, Advs. for 
the Appellants. 
· 
Nidhesh Gupta, Neeraj Kr. Jain, Sr. Advs, Tanm Gupta, Puneet 
Varshney, Ms. Vriti Gujaral, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Ms.Parul Sharma, 
E 
Aditya Kr. Choudhary, Akhil A!'1and, Ms. Vaishali Dixit, Ashok K. 
· Mahajan, Advs for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Coi1rt was delivered by 
R.K. AGRAWAL, J. 1. Theaboveappealhas,beenfiledagainst 
F 
the impugned common judgment and order dated 23.05.2006 passed by 
the High c.ourt of Punjab & Hacyana at Chandigarh in L.P.A. No. 66 of 
2006 in CWPNo. 10928 of2003 and L.P.A. No. 67 of2006 in CWPNo. 
7527 of1995 whereby the Division Bench while dismissing the appeals 
filed by the appellants herein upheld the order dated 27 .04.2005 passed 
by learned single Judge of the High Court in CWP Nos. 10928 of2003 
G 
and
7527of1995. 
2. Brief facts: 
(a) The Senior Vocational Staff Masters Assoc.iation-the 
respondent Association represents the Vocational Master~ in the .. Sta.te 
H
656 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 
A of Punjab appointed during the years 1975, 1982, 1983 and thereafter. 
B 
c 
The respondents were appointed on their respective posts by the State 
of Punjab in the year 1975 on ad-hoc basis. In the year 1978, the 
Punjab Public Service Commission advertised 132 posts of Vocational 
Masters to be filled up by way of regular appointment. These posts 
were to be filled up under the Punjab School Education (PSE) Class Ill 
(School Cadre) Rules. The minimum educational qualification for the 
posts of Vocational Masters was degree or post graduation except very 
few courses where the educational qualification was Diploma under the 
advertisement. 
(b) In the year 1992-93, the State Government decided to revise 
the minimum qualification for being appointed as vocational masters and 
Diploma was provided as the minimum educational qualification in place 
of Degree for some courses. Due to revision, there were two classes of . 
Vocational Masters in the State, viz., Diploma holder vocational masters 
and degree holder vocational masters or post-graduate vocational masters. 
D The State Government, taking note of the fact that the unequals are 
being treated as equals due to the revision in qualification, vide Notification 
dated 31.03 .1995, re-designated degree holder vocational masters and 
post-graduate vocational masters as vocational lecturers with the rider 
that their present responsibilities and financial matters will have no
E 
F 
change. It. is also pertinent to mention here that Diploma holder vocational 
masters were also provided an opportunity to re-designate as vocational 
lecturers as and when they acquire the degree or post-graduate 
qualification. 
( c) The said notification dated 31.03 .1995 was challenged before 
the High Court in CWP No. 7527of1995 by the remaining Vocational 
Masters for a direction to the appellants to grant the designation of 
Vocational Lecturers to all the Vocational Masters in the State of Punjab. 
During the pendency of the said writ petition, the State Government 
made rnles to amend the Punjab State Education Class lll (School Cadre) 
Service Rules, 1978 prescribing separate qualification for vocational 
G masters and vocational lecturers. 
(d) On the onset of 4•1t Punjab Pay Commission, the Commission 
had not treated Vocational Masters separate from Masters of General 
Studies and the Vocational Lecturers from the Lecturers of General 
Studies and merged the Vocational Masters with that of the School 
H Masters and Vocational Lectmers with School Lecturers by amendment,
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. SENIOR VOCATIONAL STAFF 
657 
MASTERS ASSOCIATION [R.K. AGRAWAL, J.) 
viz., Punjab Civil Services (revised pay)( first amendment) Rules, 1998 
A . 
wherein School Lecturers were granted the pay scale of Rs. 6,400-
10,640/- and School Masters were given the pay scale of Rs. 5,800-
. 9,200/-. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier the Vocational Masters 
and Vocational Lecturers were given the same pay scales. 
( e) The respondents herein, being aggrieved by the disparity in 
B 
pay scales granted by the 4'" Pay Commission, approached the State 
Government claiming that they should be granted pay scales at par with 
the Lecturers. Vi de Notification dated 07 .11.2002, the Government of 
Punjab, Department of Education clarified that "the Vocational Masters 
appointed on or after 08.07 .1995 neither can be designated as Vocational 
·. Lecturers based upon the educational qualification nor the revised scale 
C 
of Rs. 6,400-10,640/- in place of Rs. 5,800-9,200/-. be granted to them 
with effect from 01.01.1996. In other words, the benefit of higher scale 
will be admissible to those who were in service prior to 08.07.1995''. 
Vide a subsequent notification dated 16.05.2003, the State Government 
reiterated the stand taken in the Notification dated 07 .11.2002 and also 
D 
sought for strict compliance ofthe sanie. 
(f) The Government of Punjab, Department of Education, vide 
Notification dated 16.07 .2003, cancelled the Notifications dated .
07.11.2002 and 16.05.2003 clarifying the position that only those 
Vocational Masters who were appointed prior to 08.07.1995 and those 
E 
who acquired the qualification of post-graduate or degree in engineering 
by 08.07.1995 would be eligible for scale of pay of Rs. 6,400-10,640/-
with effect from 01.01.1996 and also issued a direction to recover the 
excess amount being paid to any ineligible vocational master on the basis 
of the earlier Notifications. 
F 
(g) Being aggrieved by the Notification dated 16.07.2003, the 
respondents herein preferred CWP No. 10928 of 2003 before the High 
Court. Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide a common judgment 
and order dated 27.04.2005 in CWP Nos. 10928 of 2003 and 7527 of 
1995, quashed the Notification dated 16.07.2003 and directed the State 
Government to give the benefit of Notification dated 31.03. l 995 to all 
G 
the Vocational Masters recrnited prior to 08.07 .1995. 
(h) Aggrieved by the order dated 27 .04.2005, the State 
Government preferred LP.A. No. 66 of 2006 in CWP No. 1.0928 of 
2003 and L.P.A. No. 67 of 2006 in CWP No. 7527 of 1995 before the 
H
658 
SU~REME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 9 S.C.R. 
A High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, vide common 
judgment and order dated 23.05.2006, dismissed the appeals filed by the 
appellants herein. 
B 
c 
(i)Aggrieved by the order dated 23,05.2006, the appellants have 
prefen·ed this appeal by way of special leave. 
3. Heard the arguments advanced by l\1r. Karan Bharihoke, 
learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Neeraj Kun1a1· Jain and Mr. 
Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel for the· respective respondents 
and perused the records. 
Point(s) for consideration:-
4. The only point for consideration before this Couti is whether in 
the present facts and circumstances of the case, the Notification dated 
16.07 .2003 is valid in the eyes of law or not? 
Rival submissions: 
D 
5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended before this Court 
that the respondents do not fulfill the basic qualification of Lecturer. It 
was further contended that the High Court has not considered the fact 
that the respondents could not have challenged the Notification dated 
31.03.1995 as the said Notification has been superseded by the Statutory 
E Rule dated 08.07.1995. He further contended that the High Court has 
recorded an erroneous finding of fact that the Notification dated 
16.07 .2003 is violative of principles of natural justice and there is 110 
question ofrecoveling the excess amount paid as salaries and allowances 
to the respondents. Learned counsel further contended that
it is a well 
settled proposition oflaw that the pay scales ofa class of employees are 
F determin.ed by .the State Government keeping in view the qualifications, 
responsibilities, nature of work and resources of the State and the High 
Court ought not have granted the pay scale of Rs. 6,400-10,640/- to the 
respondents herein-Vocational Staff Masters. Learned counsel further 
contended that in order to rectify the error committed earlier, the 
0 Notification dated 16.07.2003 was issued by the State Government 
withdrawing the pay scale of Rs. 6,400-10,640/- to the vocational masters 
w.e.f. 01.01.1996 which was inadvertently given vide Notification dated 
07 .11.2002, and there is no foul play on the part of the State to hamper 
any legitimate right of the respondents as it is the prerogative of the 
State. Learned counsel finally contended that the orders passed by the 
H High Court are erroneous and are in flagrant violation of the statutory
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. SENIOR VOCATIONAL STAFF 
659 ' 
MASTERS ASSOCIATION [R.K. AGRAWAL, J.] 
rules and be set aside by this Court. In support of his submissions, 
A 
learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions. of this Court 
which are as under:-
(i) In V. Markendeya and Others vs. State ofAndhra Pradesh 
and Others (1989) 3 SCC 191, it was held as under:-
"10. In Randhir Singh case and later in Dhirendra Chamoli B 
case, Surinder Singh case, Bhagwan Dass case, Jaipa/ case 
and P. Savi ta case, this Court implemented the principle of" equal 
pay for equal work". The court granted relief on the principle of 
equal pay on the basis of same or similar work performed by two 
classes of employees under the same employer even though the c. 
two classes of employees did not constitute the same service. 
But in all the aforesaid cases relie.fwas granted only after it was 
found that discrimination was practised in giving different scales 
of pay in violation of the equality. clause enshrined in Articles 14 
and 16 of the Constitution. The principle of equal pay for equal 
work was enforced on the premise that discrimination was · D 
practised between the two sets of employees performing the same 
duties and functions, withoi1t there being any rational classification. 
The principle of "equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract 
one, it is open to the State to prescribe different scales of pay for 
different cadres having regard to nature, duties,
re.sponsibilities .£ 
and educational qualifications. Different grades ace laid down in 
service with varying qualifications for entry into particulat grade. 
Higher qualification and experience based on length of service 
are valid considerations for prescribing different pay scales for 
different cadres. The application of doctrine arises where 
employees are equal in every respect, in educational qualifications, 
F 
duties, functions al1d measure of responsibilities and yet they are 
denied equality in pay. If the classification for prescribing different 
scales of pay is founded ort reasonable nexus the principle will not 
apply. But if the classification is founded on unreal and 
·unreasonable basis it would violate Articles 14 and, 16 of the 
G 
Constitution and the principle of equal pay for equal work, must 
have its way. In the decisions reference to which have been made 
by the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court granted relief, 
after recording findings that the aggrieved employees were 
discriminated in violation of the equality clause under Articles 14 
H
660 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 
and 16 of the Constitution, without there being any rationale for 
the classification. 
11. ln a number of decisions of this Court the claim for equal pay 
for equal work has been negatived on the ground that the different 
pay scales prescribed for persons doing similar or same work is 
permissible on the basis of classification founded on the measure 
of responsibilities, educational qualifications, experience and other 
allied matters. In Federation of All India Customs and Central 
Excise Stenographers (Recognised) v. Union of India, Justice 
Sabyasachi Mukhai:ii said: 
" ... there may be qualitative differences as regards reliability 
and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the 
responsibilities make a difference. One cannot deny that often 
the difference is a matter of degree and that there is an element 
of value judgment by those who are charged with the 
administration in fixing the scales of pay and other conditions 
of service. So long as such value judgment is made bona fide, 
reasonably on an intelligible criterion which has a rational nexus 
with the object of differentiation, such differentiation will not 
amount to discrimination. It is important to emphasise that equal 
pay for equal work is a concomitant of Article 14 of the 
Constitution. But it follows naturally that equal pay for unequal 
work will be a negation of that right." 
The learned Judge further observed: 
"The same
amount of physical work may entail different quality 
of work, some more sensitive, some requiring more tact, some 
less -
it varies from nature and culture of employment. The 
problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a 
mathematical formula. Ifit has a rational nexus with the object 
sought for, as reiterated before a certain amount of value 
judgment of the administrative authorities who are charged with 
fixing the pay scale has to be left with them and it cannot be 
interfered with by the court unless it is demonstrated that either 
it is irrational or based on no basis or arrived mala fide either in 
law or in fact." 
12. In State of UP v. J.P Chaurasia, this Court negatived the 
claim of Bench Secretaries for equal pay for equal work on the
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. SENIOR VOCATIONAL STAFF 
661 
MASTERS ASSOCIATION [R.K. AGRAWAL, J.] 
basis ofreasonable classification based on merit, experience and 
A 
seniority though both sets of employees were pe1fonning the similar 
duties and having similar responsibilities. In Mewa Ram Kanojia 
v. AIIMS this Court refused to grant relief to the petitioner for 
parity in pay on the application of the principle of"equal pay for 
equal work" on the ground of reasonable classification on the B 
basis of educational qualifications. 
13. In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that 
where two classes of employees perfom1 identical or similar duties 
and carrying out the same functions with the same measure of 
responsibility having same academic qualifications, they would be 
C 
entitled to equal pay. If the State denies them equality in pay, its 
action would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, 
and the court will strike down the discrimination and grant relief 
to the aggrieved employees. But before such relief is granted the 
court must consider and analyse the rationale behind the State 
action in prescribing two different scales of pay. If on an analysis D 
of the relevant rules, orders, nature of duties, functions, measure 
of responsibility, and educational qualifications required for the 
relevant posts, the court finds that the classification made by the 
State in giving different treatment to the two classes of employees 
is founded
on rational basis having nexus with the objects sought 
to be achieved, the classification must be upheld. Principle of equal 
pay for equal work is applicable among equals, it cannot be applied 
to unequals. Relief to an aggrieved person seeking to enforce the 
principles of equal pay for equal work can be granted only after it 
E 
is demonstrated before the court that invidious discrimination is 
practised by the State in prescribing two different scales for the 
F 
two classes of employees without there being any reasonable 
classification for the same. If the aggrieved employees fai( to 
demonstrate discrimination, the principle of equal pay for equal 
work cannot be enforced by court in abstract. The question what 
scale should be provided to a particular class of service must be 
left to the executive and only when discrimination is practised G 
amongst the equals, the court shouldintervene to undo the wrong, 
and to ensure equality among the similarly placed employees. The 
court however cannot prescribe equal scales of pay for differer!t 
class of employees." 
H
662 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 
(ii) In State of U.P. ttnd Others vs. J.P. Chaurasia and Others 
(1989) 1sec121, it was held as under:-
"20. The second question formulated earlier needs careful 
examination. The question is not particular to the present case. It 
is pertinent to all such cases. It is a matter affecting the civil 
services in general. The question is whether there could be two 
scales of pay in the same cadre of persons performing the same 
or similar work or duties. All Bench Secretaries in the High Court 
of Allahabad areundisputedly having same duties. But they have 
been bifurcated into two grades with different pay scales. The 
Bench Secretaries Grade I are in a higher pay scale than Bench 
Secretaries Grade II. The entitlement to higher pay scale depends 
upon selection based on merit-cum-seniority. Can it b~ said that it 
would be violative of the right to equality guaranteed under the 
Constitution? 
31. In the present case, all Bench Secretaries may do the 
same work, but their quality of work may differ. Under the rules 
framed by the Chief Justice of the High Court, Bench Secretaries 
Grade I are selected by a Selection Committee. The selection is 
based on merit with due regards to seniority. They are selected 
among the lot of Bench Secretaries Grade IL When Bench 
Secretaries Grade II acquire experience and also display more 
merit, they are appointed as Bench Secretaries Grade 1. The rules 
thus make a proper
classification for the purpose of entitlement to 
higher pay scale. The High Court has completely overlooked the 
criterion provided under the Rules. The merit governs the grant 
of higher pay scale and that merit will be evaluated by a competent 
authority. The classification made under the Rules, therefore, 
cannot be said to be violative of the right to have equal pay for 
equal work." 
6. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondents-
Vocational Staff Masters Association submitted that since beginning the 
G educational qualification for appointment as Vocational Masters had been 
a degree or a diploma with three years' experience as both the 
qualifications were placed at par. The process of selection as well as 
the nature of the job was same. There was no such diff~rence or 
distinction brought about between the persons so appointed. Learned 
H senior counsel further submitted that the State Government sought to
STATE, OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. SENIOR VOCATIONAL STAFF 
663 
MASTERS ASSOCIATION. (R.K. AGRAWAL, J.] 
bring about an arbitrary distinction amongst people who had been A 
appointed to teach the same classes of 10+ 1 and 1O+2 !Ind such arbitrary 
action is contrary to law and has rightly been directed to be rectified by 
th.e High Court. Learned senior counsel further submitted that there 
cannot be any discrimination between similarly situated persons whether 
by way of a government notification or by any amendment in the Rules. 
B 
The plea that there was an inadvertent·mistake is contrary to the reconj 
and it is a deliberate distinction in law sought to be brought about by the· 
appellants. Learned senior counsel finally contended that the High Court 
was right in upholding the order passed by the learned single Judge and ,; 
the present appeal is liable to be dismissed . 
. 7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the vocational lecturers 
C 
(Respondent Nos. 5 and 7) submitted that the State Government, while 
exercising powers under Section 309 cif the Constitution, framed Punjab 
Civil Services (Revised Pay)· (First Amendment) Rules, 1998. As per 
the said Rules, different scales of pay have been prescribed for Vocational 
Lecturers and Vocational Masters. The government, after examining D 
various factors including different qualifications required for both the 
posts, has prescribed higher pay scale for Vocational Lecturers than the 
Vocational Masters. The said
differentiation is made bona fide, reasonably 
on an intelligible criterion, which has a rational nexus with the object of 
differentiation. Notably, the said Rules were not assailed by the· 
Vocational Masters before the High Court. Thus, ~here are statutory 
E 
mies which hold the field and different pay scales for both the posts 
have been prescribed on the basis of the said Rules. However, the High · 
Courtwithout even noticing the said rules, by way of order, erroneously 
strnck down the action of the government in not granting the pay scales 
· of Vocational Lecturers to Vocational Masters. 
. 
F 
8. Learned senior counsel further submitted that it has been held 
in a catena of cases of this Court that the doctrine of 'equal pay for. 
equal work' has no mechanical application in every case and Article 14 
permits reasonable qualification based on qualities or characteristics of 
persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who are left G 
out. For claiming the.benefit of the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal 
work', the concerned employee has to establish that the qualification, 
eligibility, m_ode of selection/recruitment, nature and quality of work and 
duties and effort, reliability, confidentiality, dexterity, functional need and 
responsibilities and status of both the posts are identical. In support of 
H
664 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 9 S.C.R. 
A this claim, learned senior counsel pointed out the judgments of this Court 
in Shyam Bab11 Verma and Others vs. Union of India and Others 
( 1994) 2 SCC 521 and Government of W.B. vs. Tart111 K. Roy and 
Others (2004) 1 SCC 347. 
9. Learned senior counsel further stressed upon the point that the 
B matters concerning pay fixation etc. exclusively falls within the domain 
of Expert Committees constituted by the government and court should 
refrain from interfering with the decisions regarding fixation of pay arrived 
at by such Committees. So long as the decision of those who are charged 
with the administration in fixing the scales of pay and other service 
C conditions etc. is made bona fide, reasonably on an intelligible criterion, 
which has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation, such 
differentiation will not amount to discrimination. The determination as 
to whether two posts are equal or not is the job of Expe11 Committee 
and the Court should not interfere with the same. In support of this 
submission, learned senior counsel point out the followingjudgment of 
D this Court, viz., Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Workmen, 
Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007) I SCC 408 and State 
Bank of India and Others vs. K.P. Subbaiah and Others (2003) 11 
SCC646. 
E 
F 
G 
l 0. Learned senior counsel finally submitted that in the absence 
of wholesome identity between the Vocational Masters and the
Vocational 
Lecturers, the High Court erred in quashing the order dated 16.07.2003 
passed by the State Government whereby it has decided not to extend 
the benefit of higher pay scales to those Vocational Masters who did not 
acquire the qualification of post graduate or degree in engineering by 
08.07.1995. The said decision of the Government was in consonance 
with the statutory rules and had been made bona fide, reasonably on an 
intelligible criterion which has a rational nexus with the object of 
differentiation. Hence, the High Court erred in quashing the same and 
that too without even noticing much less adverting to the statutory rules 
which govern the field. 
Discussion: 
11. The respondents herein are claiming the pay scale of Rs. 6,400-
10,640/- with effect from 01.01.1996 which would be at par with the 
scale granted to the lecturers. It is their claim that when they were 
initially appointed as Vocational Masters on ad-hoc basi? and were placed 
H in the pay scale of Rs. 300-600/- a degree in Engineering was the
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. SENIOR VOCATIONAL STAFF 
665 
MASTERS ASSOCIATION [R.K. AGRAWAL, J.] 
necessary qualification for teaching students in the Engineering trade 
A 
and for non-engineering trade, a candidate was required to have the 
qualification of B.A. with IT! Diploma. These qualifications were at 
par with Lecturers under the PES Class III Rules. It is also on record 
that at the relevant time, the posts of Lecturers were in the lower scale 
of Rs. 250-550/-. The scale which had been given to Vocational Masters 
B 
was equivalent to the scale which had been enjoyed by the Head Masters. 
In the year 1978, the Pay Commission recommended the pay scale of 
Rs. 700-1300/-both for lecturers as well as for vocational masters. Thus, 
the vocational masters and lecturers were placed in the same scale. 
The parity in pay continued even in the subsequent pay revision and both 
the categories were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1,800-3,200/-. Jn this 
C 
view of the matter, the nature of duties of the Lecturers and Vocational 
Masters has not undergone any change. 
12. However, when the pay scales were revised in the year 1998 
with effect from 01.01.1996, a disparity was created between the pay 
scales of Lectw·ers and Vocational Masters. Whilst the Lecturers were 
D 
granted the pay scale of Rs. 6,400-10,640/-, the respondents herein-
Vocational Masters were fixed in the converted pay scale of Rs. 5,800-
9,200/-. It is also on record that the Vocational Masters, who were
appointed earlier to 08.07.1995 claimed that they cannot be granted a 
pay scale lesser than the Lecturers. Vide Notification dated 07 .11.2002, 
the State Government issued a clarification that the Vocational Masters 
appointed on or after 08.07 .1995 neither can be designated as Vocational 
Lecturers based upon the educational qualification nor can be granted 
the revised scale of Rs. 6,400-10,640/- to them with effect from 
01.01.1996 stating that the higher scale will be admissible to those who 
were in service prior to 08.07.1995. In view of the Notification dated 
07 .11.2002, the higher scale was given to the Vocational Masters. On 
21.05.2003, the State Government granted a quota of 15% to the 
Vocational Masters for being considered for promotion to PES Class II. 
E 
F 
In the meantime, on 16.07.2003, the State Government, by way of 
subsequent Notification, superseding earlier Notifications dated 
07.11.2002 and 16.05.2003, directed that the designations and pay scale 
G 
of Rs. 6,400-10,640/- with effect from 01.01.1996 will be admissible to 
only those Vocational Masters who have been appointed prior to 
08.07 .1995 and had the qualification of post-graduate or degree in 
engineering by 08.07.1995. On the basis of the said Notification, the 
State Government passed orders to recover the excess amount paid to 
H
666 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 9 S.C.R. 
A Vocational Masters after following the due procedure under the Rules. 
However, the claim of the respondents herein to re-designate all the 
Vocational Masters as Vocational Lecturers was still pending. 
13. As the name suggests, vocational courses are those courses 
in which teaching is not.on regular basis. Vocational courses play a very 
B important role in the grooming of students in. different fields. It trains 
young people for various jobs and helps them acquire specialized skills. 
Vocational education can also be termed as job-oriented education. It 
helps a person in becoming skilled in a particular filed at a comparatively 
lower age. In the present case, the State Government, in the year 1975, 
C felt the need of Vocational courses and accordingly made the suitable 
provi~ions for the regulation of these courses. As per the government 
orders, initially, except very few subjects, the minimum educational 
qualification for the appointment to the post of "Vocational Masters" 
was Degree or Post Graduation. 
14. It is a cardinal principle of law that government has to abide 
D by rnle oflaw and uphold the values and principles of the Constitution. 
E 
F 
Respondents herein alleged that creating an aitificial distinction between 
the persons in the same cadre would amount to violation of Article 14 
i.e. equality before law and hence, such an act cannot be sustained. 
The doctrine of equality is a dynamic and evolving
concept having many 
dimensions. Articles 14-18 of the Constitution, besides assuring equality 
before the law and equal protection of the laws, also disallow 
discrimination which lacks the object of achieving equality, in matters of 
employment. It is well settled that though Article 14 forbids class 
legislation but it does not forbid reasonable classification. When any rnle 
of statutory provision providing classification is assailed on the ground 
that it is contrary to Article 14, its validity can be sustained if it satisfies 
two tests, namely, that the classification was to be based on an intelligible 
differentia which distinguishes persons or things grouped together from 
the others left out of the group, and the differentia in question must have 
a reasonable nexus to object sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory 
G provision in question. In other words, there must be some rational nexus 
between the basis of classification and the object intended to be achieved 
by the Statute or the Rule. 
15. It is evident that at the time of initial appointment, both the 
degree holders and the Diploma holders were appointed by a common 
H process of selection where for the engfoeering trade a degree was
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. SENIOR VOCATIONAL STAFF 
667 
. 
. 
' 
. 
MASTERS ASSOCIATION [R.K. AGRAWAL, J.] 
' 
. 
· required and for the non-engineering trade a diploma was considered as A · 
the appropriate qualification. A common advertisement was issued and 
a common process of selection led to the. appointllJ_ent of all persons 
who were designated as Vocational Masters. They were appointed on . · 
a pay scale higher than the general lecturers. They continued to .draw a 
higher scale till the year 1978 when the pay scale o( the general lecturers 
was br6tight at par with the pay scale of the Vocational Masters. It is 
B 
onlyin the year 1995 that a~ effort was made by the State Government 
to create a distinction between the degree holders as voc.ational lecturers . 
- and diploma holders as vocational masters. 
16. Further, since the very inception, the. educational qualification 
for appointment as Vocational Masters had been.a degree or a diploma·.· C 
with three years' experience as both the qualifications were placed at 
par. All persons were appointed by a common process of selection and 
they teach the same classes, perfoqning the same work. No distinction 
can be brought· about between the persons so. appointed. It is only 
. subsequently that the appella.nts designated some of the Vocational D 
Masters as Vocational Lecturers and brought about an artificial distinction 
between the two. Even on account of r!'!-designation of the degree 
holders arid post
graduates as vocational lecturers, there was no change 
in the responsibilities and the financial matters as be~en the degree 
holders and diploma holders before the alleged Notification which factis" · 
duly admitted by the State .. There is no distinction between the vocational E 
lecturers and vocational masters and. they form one unified cadre and 
class. There cannot be any discrimination between similarly situated 
persons, whether by way of a government notification or any amendment 
in the Rules. As far as nature of work is concerned, it is stated that the · 
vocational masters are discharging their duty in the Senior Secondary 
F 
Schools in the Engineering/non-Engineering trades and have the technical 
qualifications while the vocational lecturers are also discharging the same 
duties in the same schools. Both vocational masters and lecturers are 
teaching the same classes, i.e., 1O+1 and 10+4 and hence the nature of 
work, responsibilities and duties being identical and the pay scales were · 
. also kept identical since 1978 onwards. 
G 
17. The principle of equality, is also fundamental in formulation of 
any policy by the State and the glimpse of the same can be found in 
Articles 38, 39, 39A, 43 ana 46 embodied in 
Part IY of the 
Constitution of India. These Articles of the Constitution of India mandate 
H
668 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 9 S.C.R. 
·· A that the State is under a constitutional obligation to assure a social order 
providing justice- social, economic and political, by inter alia, minimizing 
monetary inequalities, and by securing the right to adequate means of 
livelihood and by providing for adequate wages so as to ensure, an 
appropriate standard oflife, and by promoting economic interests of the 
B 
c 
weaker sections. Meaning thereby, ifthe State is giving some economic 
benefits to one class while denying the same to other then the onus of 
justifying the same lies on the State specially in the circumstances when 
both the classes or group of persons were treated as same in the past by 
the State. Since Vocational Masters had been drawing same salaty as 
Vocational Lecturers were drawing before the application of 41h pay 
commission, any attempt to curtail their salary and allowances would 
amount to arbitrariness which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law if 
·no reasonable justification is offered for the same. 
18. Weare conscious of the fact that a differential scale on the 
basis of educational qualifications and the nature of duties is permissible. 
D However, it is equally clear to us that if two categories of employees are 
treated as equal initially, they .should continue to be so treated. unless a 
different treatment is justified by some coge11neasons. In a case where 
the nature of duties is drastically altered, a differential scale of pay
may 
be justified. Similar! y, ifa higher qualification is prescribed for a particular 
E 
F 
post, a higher scale of pay may be granted. However, if the basic 
qualifications and the job requirements continued to be identical as they 
were initially laid dowrt, then the Court shall be reluctant to accept the 
action of the authority in according a differential treatment unless some 
good reasons are disclosed. Thus, the decisions relied upon by learned 
senior coilnsel are clearly distinguishable and are not applicable to the 
facts of the present case. 
Conclusion: 
19. ln view of the forgoing discussion, we are of the considered 
opinion that the High Court was fully justified in declaring that the 
vocational masters are entitled to pay scale of Rs. 6,400-10,640/- on the 
G ground that the nature of duties being discharged by the vocational 
masters are the same as vocational lecturers and that there was no 
iatiOnale behind making a classification between the two especially when 
bot~ the categories were treated as one and the same in all the previous 
pay revisions since 1978 onwards. Vide notification dated 31.03.1 <fc15, 
H only the no.menclature of'vocational masters was changed without
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. SENIOR VOCATIONAL STAFF 
669 
MASTERS ASSOCIATION [R.K. AGRAWAL; J.] 
changing their nature. of duties a_nd pay scales. Further, the impugned A 
order d.ated 16.07 .2003 deserves to be quashed on the. short ground that 
it has been passed without complying the rules of natural justice. The 
same could not have been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing 
to the concerned employees. 
-
· 
· 2(}. It is by now well settled that no orders causing civil . B 
consequences can be passed, without observing rules of natural justice 
as it was held in Bhagwan Shukla vs. Union of India & Ors.AIR 
1994 SC 2480wherein it was held as under: 
. · 
"3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. That the 
petitioner's basic pay had been fixed since 1970 at Rs, 190 p.m. is c 
not.disputed. There is also no dispute that the basic pay of the 
appellant was reduced to Rs. 181 p.m. froin Rs. 190 pari. in 1991 
retrospectively w.e.f. 1812.1970.The appellant has obviously been 
. visit~d with civil consequences but he had been granted no 
opportunitY to show cause against the reductiqn of his basic pay. 
He was not, even put on notice before his pay was reduced by . · D 
tije department and the_ order came to be made behind his back 
without following any procedure known to law. There, has, thus, 
been a flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice andthe 
appellant has been made to suffer hu.ge financial loss \vithout being --
heard. Fair play in
action warrant~ that rio such order which has . E 
the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be 
passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a 
hearing in the matter .Since, that was not done, the order 
(memorandum) dated 2_5. 7 .1991. which was impugned before the 
Tribunal could not certainly be sustained and the Central 
Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of F 
the appellant. The order of the-Tribunal deserves to be set as_ide. 
We, accor.dingly, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the 
, --Central Administrative Tribunal d~ted 17.9,1993 as well as the 
order (memorandum) impugned before the Tribunal dated· 
25.7.1991 reducing the basic pay ofthb appellant From Rs. 190 to 
G 
Rs. 181 w.e.f.18.12,1970.'' 
· 
-
-
21. The order dated 16.07.2003 came to be made behind the back 
of vocational mast~rs without following any procedure known t<rlaw. 
Thus; there has beeri a flagrant violation of the principles of natural .. 
justice and the respondents had been made to stiffer huge financial loss H 
\.
670 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 9 S.C.R. 
A without being heard. Fair play in action warrants that no such order 
which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should 
be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing 
in the matter. 
22. In our considered view, the High court while dealing with the 
B matter on merits, has rightly quashed the letter dated 16.07.2003 and 
directed the State government to give benefits of the Notification dated 
31.03 .1995 to all the Vocational Masters. 
23. In view .of above discussion, we are not inclined to interfere 
in the decision passed by' the High Court. Accordingly, the appeal is 
c dismissed with no order as to costs. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Appeal dismissed.