Supreme Court of India

V. Markendeya & Ors vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 6 April, 1989

Equivalent citations: 1989 AIR 1308, 1989 SCR (2) 422

Author:
K.N. Singh

Bench:
K.N. Singh
,
Kuldip Singh

PETITIONER:
V. MARKENDEYA & ORS.

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

DATE OF JUDGMENT06/04/1989

BENCH:
SINGH, K.N. (J)
BENCH:
SINGH, K.N. (J)
KULDIP SINGH (J)

CITATION:
1989 AIR 1308 1989 SCR (2) 422
1989 SCC (3) 191 JT 1989 (2) 108
1989 SCALE (1)860
CITATOR INFO :
APL 1990 SC 334 (39)
R 1990 SC1106 (43)
R 1992 SC1754 (5)

ACT:
Civil Services: Andhra Pradesh Engineering Service
Rules, 1967: Graduate and non-graduate supervisors-- Two
different scales of pay-Whether legal and,
permissible--Whether violative of principle of 'equal pay
for equal work'.
Constitution of India, 1950:
Articles 14
, 16
, 32
, 39
and
226-Classification of employees into two categories--Perform
indentical or similar duties and carry out same
functions--Entitled to equal pay-Higher qualification and
experience based on length of service--Valid consideration
for prescribing different pay scales for different cadres-
Court cannot prescribe equal scales of pay for different
class of employees.

HEADNOTE:
The appellants are members of the Andhra Pradesh Engi-
neering Subordinate Service as Supervisors. The cadre of
supervisors includes degree holders in Engineering and
diploma or licence holders. The appellants are diploma
holder supervisors. Their two-fold grievance was: (1) dis-
crimination in the matter of promotion in as much as the
quota of promotion is four to one from amongst the graduate
supervisors and non-graduate supervisors, respectively; and
(2) disparity in the matter of grant of different pay scales
to graduate supervisors and non-graduate supervisors.
For the redressal of their first grievance, the non-
graduate supervisors had earlier, in Mohd. Sujat Ali v.
Union of India, [1975] 1 SCR 449, challenged the validity of
the Andhra Pradesh Engineering Service Rules, 1967 which
gave preferential treatment to graduate supervisors for
promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. They had con-
tended that this amounted to denial of equal opportunity to
non-graduate supervisors thus violating the equality clause
enshrined under
Articles 14
and
of the Constitution. This
Court rejected the challenge, holding that the graduate
supervisors had always been treated as a distinct and sepa-
rate class from non-graduate supervisors and that they were
never fused into one class.
The constant appeal relates to their second grievance
and arises out of the writ petition filed by the non-gradu-
ate supervisors in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh chal-
lenging discrimination in the matter of grant of different
pay scales to graduate and non-graduate supervisors. Their
contention was that they were entitled to the same scale of
pay as prescribed for the graduate supervisors on the prin-
ciple of equal pay for equal work, as they constituted the
same service and performed the same duties and functions as
those performed by graduate supervisors. The State Govern-
ment contested the case on the pleading that graduate super-
visors and diploma supervisors always remained separate and
they were never fused into one service. It was further
contended that even though the two class of employees dis-
charged the same functions and carried out similar duties,
the State was justified in prescribing different pay scales
for historical reasons, and also on the basis of difference
in the educational qualifications.
The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. On
appeal by the State, the Division Bench set aside the judg-
ment of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ
petition on the finding that the State practised no discrim-
ination and the appellants were not entitled to relief on
the principle of equal pay for equal work.
Before this Court it was contended on behalf of the
appellants that (1) the graduate and non-graduate supervi-
sors constituted the same class as they belonged to the same
service and both the class of officers were fused into one,
as the two posts were inter-changeable; (2)even if the two
class of officers constituted two different categories,
since they had been carrying out of the same work and per-
forming the same duties carrying the same responsibility,
without any distinction, the doctrine of equal pay for equal
work was fully applicable, and it was not necessary that the
two class of officers must belong to one integrated service;
and (iii) even if the appellant's grievance regarding viola-
tion of
Articles 14
and
of the Constitution was not
sustainable, the appellants were entitled to the same scale
of pay as granted to the graduate supervisors on the princi-
ple of 'equal pay for equal work' enshrined under
Article
39(d)
of the Constitution.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: (1) There is a basic difference between the two
class of supervisors as graduate supervisors hold degree in
Engineering while non-graduate supervisors are only Diploma
and Licence holders, and they have all along been treated
differently on the basis of difference in
educational qualifications. Classification of Supervisor
into two classes on the basis of historical reasons is valid
and it does not offend
Articles 14
or 16 of the Constitu-
tion. [431B]
Mohammad Sujat Ali v. Union of India, referred to.
(2) Since classification on the basis of educational
qualification is a valid consideration for discriminating in
matters pertaining to promotion to higher post, there is no
reason as to why the same principle is not applicable for
prescribing scales of pay. [432C]
(3) Classification in service rounded on the basis of
educational and academic qualification is now well recog-
nised. It is open to the administration to give preference
to a class of employees on the basis of educational qualifi-
cations, having regard to the nature of duties attached to
the post, for the purpose of achieving efficiency in public
services. [432B]
Union of India v. Dr. (Mrs.) S.B. Kohli, [1973] 3 SCC
592 and State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa,
[1974] 1 SCC 19, referred to.
(4) The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not
an abstract one. It is open to the State to prescribe dif-
ferent scales of pay for different cadres having regard to
nature of duties, responsibilities and educational qualifi-
cations. Different grades are laid down in service with
varying qualification for entry into a particular grade.
Higher qualification and experience based on length of
service are valid considerations for prescribing different
pay scales for different cadres. [433G-H; 434A]
State of Mysore v. P. Narasing Rao, [1968] 1 S.C.R. 407,
referred to.
(5) Where two class of employees perform identical or
similar duties and carry out the same functions with the
same measure of responsibility, having same academic quali-
fications, they would be entitled to equal pay. If the State
denies them equality in pay, its action would be violative
of
Articles 14
and
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 different scales of pay. If on
an analysis of the relevant rules,
orders, nature of duties, functions, measure of responsibil-
ity, and educational qualifications required for the rele-
vant posts, the court finds that the classification made by
the State in giving different treatment to the two class of
employees is rounded on rational basis having nexus with the
objects sought to be achieved, the classification must be
upheld. Principles of equal pay for equal work is applicable
among equals; it cannot be applied to unequals. [435E-G]
Federation of All India .Customs and Central Stenogra-
phers (Recognised) v. Union of India, [1988] 3 SCC 91; State
of U.P. v .J.P. Chaurasia, [1989] 1 SCC 121 and Mewa Ram
Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Judg.
Today (1989) 1 SC 512, referred to.
(6) This Court granted relief in a number of cases after
recording findings that the aggrieved employees were dis-
criminated in violation of the equality clause under Arti-
cles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, without there being any
rationale for the classification, even though in some cases
the two class of employees did not constitute the same
service. [434C]
Randhir Singh v. Union of India, [1982] 3 SCR 298; P.
Savita v. Union of India, [1985] Suppl. SCR 101; Dhirendra
Chamouli v. State of U.P., [1986] 1 SCC 637; Surinder Singh
v. Engineer-in-Chief CPWD, [1986] 1 SCC 639; Bhagwan Dass v.
State of Haryana, [1987] 4 SCC 634 and Jaipal v. State of
Haryana, [1988] 3 SCC 354, referred to.
(7)
Article 39(d)
contained in Part IV of the Constitu-
tion, ordains the State to direct its policy towards secur-
ing equal pay for equal work for both men and women. Provi-
sions contained in the Chapter on Directive Principles of
State Policy cannot be enforced by courts although the
principles contained therein are fundamental in nature for
the governance of our country. [432H; 433A]
(8) Fundamental rights and the Directive Principles
constitute "Conscience of the Constitution". The Constitu-
tion aims at bringing about a synthesis between "Fundamental
Rights' and 'Directive Principles of State Policy' by giving
to the former a place of pride and to the latter a place of
permanence; together they form core of the Constitution.
They constitute its true conscience and without faithfully
implementing the Directive Principles it is not possible to
achieve the welfare State contemplated by the Constitution.
[433D]
Keshavanand Bharti v. State of Kerala, [1973] 4 SCC 225,
referred to.
(9) The Court has no power to direct the Legislature to
frame laws to give effect to the Directive Principles as
contained in Part IV of the Constitution or to injunct the
Legislature from making any such law. But while considering
the question of enforcement of fundamental rights of a
citizen, it is open to the Court to be guided by the Direc-
tive Principles to ensure that in doing justice the Princi-
ples contained therein are maintained. [433A-B]

JUDGMENT:

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 764 of
1978.

From the Judgment and Order dated 5.7.1974 of the Andhra
Pradesh High Court in W .A. No. 71 of 1974.

H.S. Guru Raja Rao, S. Markendeya, Mrs. Chitra Marken-
deya, G. Seshagiri and Kumari Usha Saraswat for the Appel-
lants.

P.A. Choudhary and T.V.S.N. Chari for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SINGH, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment
and order of a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra
Pradesh setting aside the order of a learned single Judge,
dismissing the appellant' writ petition made under
Article
of the Constitution.

The appellants are members of the Andhra Pradesh Engi-
neering Subordinate Service as supervisors in Category 1 of
the Engineering Branch. The Engineering Branch category 1
includes officers, namely, Supervisors, Overseers, Head
Draftsmen, Civil Draftsmen, Artists Draftsmen, Tracers,
Blue-Print Operators and Building Mistries. Supervisors are
recruited by direct recruitment as well as by promotion from
amongst the Overseers. The cadre of supervisors include
degree holders in engineering and diploma or licence hold-
ers. Both perform the same duties and functions in the
engineering branch. Promotion to the post of Assistant
Engineer, the next higher post is made from amongst the post
of supervisors, in accordance with the Andhra Pradesh Engi-
neering Service Rules 1967. Graduate Overseers are given
preference in the ratio of promotion to the post of Assist-
ant Engineer inasmuch as the quota of promotion is four to
one from amongst the graduate supervisors and non-graduate
supervisors. In addition to the disparity in the matter of
promotion, graduate supervisors and non-graduate supervisors
are granted different pay.
On recruitment to the service of supervisors a graduate
supervisor is granted higher starting salary than non-gradu-
ate supervisors. Subsequently, a lower pay scale was pre-
scribed for the non-graduate supervisors. Aggrieved the
non-graduate supervisors filed two writ petitions in the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh under
Article 226
of the Con-
stitution challenging validity of discrimination in pre-
scribing two different scales of pay. The appellants con-
tended that diploma-holder supervisors were entitled to the
same scale of pay as prescribed for the graduate supervisors
on the principle of equal pay for equal work as they consti-
tuted the same service and performed the same duties and
functions as those performed by graduate supervisors. The
State Government contested their case on the pleading that
graduate supervisors and diploma supervisors always remained
separate and they were never fused into one service. The two
class of employees discharged the same functions and carried
out similar duties, but the State was justified in prescrib-
ing different pay scales for historical reasons, and also on
the basis of difference in the educational qualifications.
Plea of discrimination against non-graduate supervisors was
denied. A learned Single Judge of the High Court Justice O.
Chinnappa Reddy (as he then was) by his judgment and order
dated February 26, 1974 held that the State practised invid-
ious discrimination without there being valid justification
between the two categories of supervisors graduates and
non-graduates. The learned judge allowed both the writ
petitions and issued mandamus to the State Government to
accord the same scale of pay to the non-graduate supervisors
as prescribed for the graduate supervisors under the Govern-
ment Order dated June 13, 1969. On appeals preferred by the
State of Andhra Pradesh a Division Bench of the High Court
set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and
dismissed the writ petitions on the finding that the State
practised no discrimination and the appellants were not
entitled to relief on the principle of equal pay for equal
work. Hence this appeal by special leave.

This is the second round of litigation by the Diploma-
holder Supervisors. Earlier they had challenged the grant of
higher quota of promotion for graduate Supervisors on the
ground that when graduate and non-graduate Supervisors,
belong to the same cadre, and are eligible for promotion,
then giving preferential treatment to graduates amount to
denial of equal opportunity to the non-graduate Supervisors.
This Court in
Mohd. Sujat Ali v. Union of India
, [1975] 1
SCR 449, rejected the challenge holding that two categories
of Supervisors were never fused into one class and have
throughout remained distinct and apart. The non-graduate
supervisors have again challenged the
disparity in the pay scale prescribed for the two class of
supervisors.

Since controversy in the present appeals centers round
the pay of the Supervisors it is necessary to refer to the
history of pay scales prescribed for the Supervisors. Prior
to 1958 the scale of pay prescribed for Supervisors was Rs.
100-5-1-250 but directly recruited graduate Supervisors were
granted initial starting salary at Rs. 150 on the date of
their initial appointment while a diploma holder Supervisor
was paid starting salary of Rs. 100 only, though the same
pay scale was prescribed for both the degree holders and
diploma holders. On his appointment a graduate supervisor
Was designated as Junior Engineer while a non-graduate
continued to be designated as supervisor. In 1958 the scale
of pay of Supervisors was revised to Rs. 100-5-150-7.1/2-
20010-300 but graduate Supervisors were continued to be
granted higher starting salary at Rs. 180 on the date of
their initial appointment. Later, the starting salary of
graduate Supervisors was raised to Rs.200 and their pay was
fixed in the pay scale of Rs.200-10-300. In 1961 the scale
of pay of Supervisors was again revised according to which
non-graduate supervisors were granted pay-scale of Rs. 180-
7.1/2-210-10280-15-400, while Junior Engineers (graduate
Supervisors) were granted the scale of Rs.250-15-400. Though
different pay scales were provided for non-graduate Supervi-
sors and graduate Supervisors but the maximum pay for both
the categories was maintained at the same level, irrespec-
tive of the Supervisor being a graduate or a non-graduate.
The State Government further revised the pay scale of both
the categories of Supervisors by the Government Order No.
173 dated 13th June 1969 according to which the scale of pay
of non-graduate Supervisors was revised to
Rs.200-12-320-16-400 while the scale for Junior Engineers
(Graduate Supervisors) was revised to Rs.300-20600. The
revised pay scales made substantial difference in the matter
of pay between the graduate supervisors and non-graduate
supervisors, which gave rise to the disputes before the High
Court.

Mr. H.S. Gururaja Rao, learned counsel for the appel-
lants urged that non-graduate supervisors and graduate
supervisors constitute the same class as they belong to the
same service and both the class of officers are fused into
one, as the two posts are interchangeable. The graduate
supervisors are no doubt designated as Junior Engineers but
the work and duties of both are the same, and both set of
officers are treated at part for every other purpose. Since
the two categories of officers were fused into one, the
State denied equality by prescribing different scales of pay
for the non-graduate supervisors. Learned counsel further
urged that even if the graduate
supervisors (Junior Engineers) and non-graduate supervisors
constitute two different categories, but since they have
been carrying out the same work and performing the same
duties carrying the same responsibility, without any dis-
tinction the doctrine of equal pay for equal work is fully
applicable and on that basis the non-graduate supervisors
are also entitled to the same pay scales as prescribed for
the graduate supervisors (Junior Engineers). Learned counsel
emphasised that for application of the principle of equal
pay for equal work it is not necessary that the two class of
officers must belong to one integrated service instead if
the nature of duties and functions of the two posts are
identical or similar, the principle would apply. He referred
to a number of decisions, reference to which will be made at
the appropriate stage. Shri P.A. Chaudhry, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent State seriously contested the
correctness of the submissions made on behalf of the appel-
lants and urged that in view of the Constitution Bench
decision of this Court in
Mohammad Shujat Ali
's case (supra)
the appellants are not entitled to any relief.
Since the Division Bench of the High Court rejected the
appellants' claim for equal pay in view of the findings of a
Constitution Bench of this Court in Mohammad Shujat Ali's
case it is necessary to refer to that case in some detail.

In
Shujat Ali
's case non-graduate supervisors of Andhra
Pradesh had challenged validity of the rule which gave
preferential treatment to graduate supervisors (Junior
Engineers) for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer
on the ground that it violated the equality clause enshrined
under
Articles 14
and
of the Constitution. In that con-
text, the question arose whether the preferential treatment
given to graduate supervisors was justified on any reasona-
ble classification or it was arbitrary and irrational.
Bhagwati, J. speaking for the Constitution Bench after
considering various decisions of this Court observed as
under:

"But where graduates and non-graduates are
both regarded as fit, and, therefore, eligible
for promotion, it is difficult to see how,
consistently with the claim for equal opportu-
nity, any differentiation can be made between
them by laying down a quota of promotion for
each and giving preferential treatment to
graduates over non-graduate in the matter of
fixation of such quota. The result of fixation
of quota of promotion for each of the two
categories of Supervisors would be that when a
vacancy arises in the post of Assistant Engi-
neer, which, according to the quota is re-
served for graduate Supervisors, a non-
graduate supervisors cannot be promoted to
that vacancy, even' if he is senior to all
other graduate Supervisors and more suitable
than they. His opportunity for promotion would
be limited only to vacancies available for
non-graduate Supervisors. That would clearly
amount to denial of equal opportunity to him."

The above observation would show that the
Constitution Bench held that fixation of quota
giving preference to graduate supervisors
amounted to denial of equal opportunity to the
non-graduate supervisors. But after making the
aforesaid observations the Constitution Bench
considered the history of the graduate super-
visors and non-graduate supervisors under the
Andhra Pradesh Rules and thereupon, it record-
ed findings that the graduate supervisors have
always been treated as a distinct and separate
class from non-graduate supervisors both under
the Hyderabad Rules as well as under the
Andhra Pradesh Rules and they were never
treated as equals. The Bench observed as
under:

"The pay-scale of Junior Engineers was always
different from that of non-graduate supervi-
sors and for the purpose of promotion, the two
categories of supervisors were kept distinct
and apart under the Andhra Rules even after
the appointed day. The common gradation list
of supervisors finally approved by the Govern-
ment of India also consisted of two parts, one
part relating to Junior Engineers and the
other part relating to non-graduate supervi-
sors. The two categories of supervisors were
thus never fused into one class and no ques-
tion of unconstitutional discrimination could
arise by reasons of differential treatment
being given to them."

In view of the aforesaid findings of the Constitution Bench
which relate to this very cadre of supervisors, it is diffi-
cult to accept the appellants' contention that the graduate
supervisors and non-graduate supervisors were integrated
into one class of service and that no differential treatment
is permissible to the non-graduate supervisors. The Consti-
tution Bench on elaborate discussion held that the equality
clause under
Articles 14
and
of the Constitution was not
violated in the matter of promotion of graduate supervisors
and non-graduate supervisors, as the graduate supervisors
and non-graduate supervisors constituted two different
classes. The necessary consequence of the Constitution Bench
findings are that the classification of Supervisors into two
clas-
ses on the basis of historical reasons is valid and it does
not offend
Article 14
or 16 of the Constitution. Once the
classification is upheld it is difficult to hold that non-
graduate supervisors are entitled to the same pay scale as
prescribed for graduate supervisors as equality in pay is
permissible with equals and not with unequals. There is
basic difference between the two class of supervisors as
graduate supervisors hold degree in Engineering while non-
graduate supervisors are only Diploma and Licence holder and
they have all along been treated differently on the basis of
different in educational qualifications.

In State of Mysore v.P. Narasingh Rao, [1968] 1 SCR 407
the question arose whether two different pay scales could be
prescribed for the employees working in the same service on
the basis of educational qualification. In the State of
Mysore tracers included matriculates and non-matriculates.
The government prescribed higher pay scale to matriculate
tracers although the non-matriculates and matriculates
tracers both were performing the same duties and functions.
The non-matriculate tracers challenged the validity of
different pay scales on the ground that it violated the
guarantee of equality under
Articles 14
and
of the Con-
stitution as there was no valid reason for making distinc-
tion. The High Court accepted their contention and allowed
their petition holding that there was no valid reason for
making distinction as both matriculate and non-matriculate
tracers were doing the same kind of work and the denial of
different scale of pay was in violation of
Articles 14
and
of the Constitution. On appeal by the State Government
this Court set aside the order of the High Court on the
finding that higher educational qualification is a relevant
consideration for fixing different pay scales and the clas-
sification of two grades of tracers did not violate of

Article 14
or 16 of the Constitution. The Constitution Bench
observed as under:

"The provisions of
Article 14
or
Article 16
do
not exclude the laying down of selective
tests, nor do they preclude the Government
from laying down qualifications for the post
in question. Such qualifications need not be
only technical but they can also be general
qualifications relating to the suitability of
the candidate for public service as such. It
is therefore not fight to say that in the
appointment to the post of tracers the Govern-
ment ought to have taken into account only the
technical proficiency of the candidates in the
particular craft. It is open to the Government
to consider also the general educational
attainments of the candidates and to give
preference to candidates who have a better
educational qualification besides technical
proficiency of a tracer."

Classification in service rounded on the basis of educa-
tional and academic qualifications is now well recognised.
It is open to the Administration to give preference to a
class of employees on the basis of educational qualifica-
tions having regard to the nature of duties attached to the
post for the purposes of achieving efficiency in public
services. It is permissible to give preference to degree
holders as was held by this Court in
Union of India v. Dr.
(Mrs.) S.B. Kohli
, [1973] 3
SCC 592 and State of Jammu &
Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa
, [1974] 1 SCC 19. Since clas-
sification on the basis of educational qualification is a
valid consideration for discriminating in matters pertaining
to promotion to the higher post, there is no reason as to
why the same principle is not be applicable for prescribing
scales of pay.

Having regard to the findings recorded by the
Constitution Bench in
Mohammad Shujat Ali
's case that gradu-
ate supervisors and non-graduate supervisors constitute two
distinct class, the non-graduate supervisors cannot validly
claim parity with the graduate supervisors regarding pay
scales. The appellants grievance that they have been denied
equality in violation of
Article 14
or 16 of the Constitu-
tion is not sustainable.

Learned counsel for the appellants urged that even if
the appellants' grievance regarding violation of
Articles 14

and
of the Constitution is not sustainable, the appel-
lants are entitled to the same scale of pay as granted to
the graduate supervisors on the principle of 'equal pay for
equal work' enshrined under
Article 39(d)
of the Constitu-
tion. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in

Randhir Singh v. Union of India & Ors.
, [1982] 3 SCR 298;
P.
Savita v. Union of India
, [1985] Supp.

SCR 101;
Dhirendra
Chamoli & Anr. v. State of U.P.
, [1986] 1 SCC 637;
Surinder
Singh & Anr. v. Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD & Ors.
, [1986] 1 SCC
639;
Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana
, [1987] 4 SCC 634 and
Jaipal v. State of Haryana, [1988] 3 SCC 354. In view of
these authorities the learned counsel contended, there is no
justification to disregard the doctrine of 'equal pay for
equal work' as graduate supervisors and the non-graduate
supervisors both have been doing the same work with the same
responsibilities without there being any difference in the
duties and functions of the two categories of officers.

Article 39(d)
contained in part IV of the Constitution,
ordains the State to direct its policy towards securing
equal pay for equal work for both men and women. Provisions
contained in the Chapter on
Directive Principles of State Policy cannot be enforced by
courts although the principles contained therein are funda-
mental in nature for the governance of our country. The
court has no power to direct the Legislature to frame laws
to give effect to the Directive Principles as contained in
Part IV of the Constitution or to injunct the Legislature
from making any such law. But while considering the question
of enforcement of fundamental rights of a citizen it is open
to the court to be guided by the Directive Principles to
ensure that in doing justice the principles contained there-
in are maintained. The purpose of
Article 39(d)
is to fix
certain social and economic goals for avoiding any discrimi-
nation amongst the citizens doing similar work in matters
relating to pay. If the court finds that discrimination is
practised amongst two set of employees similarly situated in
matters relating to pay, the court must strike down discrim-
ination, and direct the State to adhere to the doctrine of
'equal pay for equal work' as enshrined under
Article 39(d)

of the Constitution. Fundamental rights, and the Directive
Principles constitute "conscience, of the Constitution". The
Constitution aims at bringing about a synthesis between
'Fundamental Rights' and 'Directive Principles of State
Policy' by giving to the former a place of pride and to the
latter a place of permanence, together they form core of the
Constitution.
They constitute its true conscience and with-
out faithfully implementing the Directive Principles it is
not possible to achieve the welfare State contemplated by
the Constitution see Keshavanand Bharti v. State of Kerala,
[1973] 4 SCC 225.

In
Randhir Singh
's case (supra) and later in
Dhirendra
Chamoli
's case (
supra), Surinder Singh
's case (
supra),
Bhagwan Dass
's case (supra).

Jaipal's case (
supra) and P.
Sativa
's case (supra), 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 class of employees under the same
employer even though the two class of employees did not
constitute the same service. But in all the aforesaid cases
relief was granted only after it was found that discrimina-
tion was practised in giving different scales of pay in
violation of the equality clause enshrined under
Article 14

and
of the Constitution. The principle of equal pay for
equal work was enforced on the premise that discrimination
was practised between the two set of employees performing
the same duties and functions, without there being any
rational classification. The principle of 'equal pay for
equal work' is not abstract one, it is open to the State to
prescribe different scale of pay for different cadres having
regard to nature, duties, responsibilities and educational
qualifications. Different grades are
laid down in
service
with varying
qualification for entry into, particular 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, duties, functions and measure of responsi-
bilities and yet they are denied equality in pay. If the
classification, for prescribing different scales of pay is
rounded on reasonable nexus the principle will not apply.
But if the classification is rounded on unreal and unreason-
able basis it would violate
Articles 14
and
of the Con-
stitution 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
and
of the Constitu-
tion, without there being any rationale for the classifica-
tion.

In 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 classi-
fication rounded on the measure of responsibilities, educa-
tional qualifications, experience and other allied matters.
In Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Ste-
nographers (Recognised) v. Union of India, [1988] 3 SCC 91,
Justice Sabyasachi Mukharji said (SCC p. 100 para 7).

"There may be qualitative differences as
regards reliability and responsibility. Func-
tions 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
criteria which has a rational nexus with the
object of differentiation, such differentia-
tion 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: (SCC pp.
104-105 para 11)
"The same amount of physical work may entail
different
quality less--it varies from nature and cul-
ture of employment. The problem about equal
pay cannot always be translated into a mathe-
matical formula. If it has a rational nexus
with the object to be sought for, as reiterat-
ed 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
infact.

In State of U.P. and Others v.J.P. Chaurasia & Ors.,
[1989] 1 SCC 121, this Court negatived the claim of Bench
Secretaries for equal pay for equal work on the basis of
reasonable classification based on merit, experience and
seniority though both set of employees were performing the
similar duties and having similar responsibilities.
In
Mewa
Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences &
Ors., Judg
. Today 1989 (1) SC 5 12, 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 basis of
educational qualifications.

In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion
that where two class of employees perform identical or
similar duties and carrying out the same functions with the
same measure of responsibility having same academic qualifi-
cations, they would be entitled to equal pay. If the State
denies them equality in pay, its action would be violative
of
Articles 14
and
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 of the relevant rules, orders, nature of
duties, functions, measure of responsibility, and education-
al qualifications required for the relevant posts, the court
finds that the classification made by the State in giving
different treatment to the two class of employees is rounded
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 is demonstrated before the
court that invidious discrimination is practised by the
State in prescribing two different scales for the two class
of employees without there being any reasonable classifica-
tion
for the same. If the aggrieved employees fail 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 amongst the equals, the court should intervene
to undo the wrong, and to ensure equality among the similar-
ly placed employees. The Court however cannot prescribe
equal scales of pay for different class of employees.
In the instant case the graduate overseers have all
along being treated separate entity from the non-graduate
supervisors and they have been drawing different pay since
long. The Constitution Bench has already recorded findings
that two set of officers, namely, graduate supervisors and
non-graduate supervisors do not belong to the same class of
service and unequal treatment relating to promotion is
justified on the basis of educational qualification. There-
fore the classification made between the graduate supervi-
sors and non-graduate supervisors is reasonable and the
State Government did not violate
Article 14
or 16 of the
Constitution in prescribing different scales of pay for
them. In result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dis-
missed. There will be no order as to costs.

R.S.S. Appeal dis-
missed.