Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dealt with an appeal by special leave against the Allahabad High Court Division Bench judgment dated 02.02.1995 affirming a Single Judge order granting regular pay scale to temporary appointees. The respondents were appointed as Investigators-cum-Computer on fixed remuneration of Rs. 400 per month by order dated 17.09.1986, under a temporary scheme valid only up to 28.02.1987 in 15 districts of Uttar Pradesh. The selection process was irregular as the authorities received 208 direct applications in addition to employment exchange sponsored names and ultimately selected 44 persons. The State Government, upon discovering the irregularity, cancelled the appointments by order dated 06.03.1987. The respondents challenged the cancellation before the Allahabad High Court, which passed an interim order on 14.08.1987 allowing them to continue. The State's application to vacate the stay was not decided, and the respondents continued in service. Subsequently, the respondents filed another writ petition claiming equal pay with regular Investigators-cum-Computer in the Animal Husbandry Department on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The State did not file a counter affidavit in that proceeding. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 03.03.1994, granting the respondents regular pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040. The State's special appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench on 02.02.1995, leading to the present appeal. The State argued that the respondents were appointed under a temporary scheme, their appointments had been cancelled, and they continued only due to an interim order; the essential qualification, mode of recruitment and nature of duties were different from regular employees. The respondents contended that the State did not file a counter before the Single Judge and that their work was similar to regular Investigator-cum-Computer, justifying equal pay for equal work. The Supreme Court noted that the respondents did not disclose in the subsequent proceedings that they were continuing only because of an interim order in the earlier proceedings challenging cancellation. The court found that the principle of equal pay for equal work applies only when two sets of employees are similarly situated and discharging similar functions but receive different scales of pay. Comparing qualifications, mode of recruitment and duties, the court held that temporary appointees required Intermediate while regular posts required Bachelor's degree with Statistics or Mathematical Statistics or Mathematics, and knowledge of Hindi in Devanagri Script was prescribed only for regular posts. Temporary posts were filled through Departmental Selection Committee, whereas regular posts were filled through Public Service Commission Uttar Pradesh or U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board. The duties of respondents were narrower, limited to data collection from 14 districts, while regular employees had additional responsibilities including tabulation and supervision. Therefore, the principle of equal pay for equal work was not attracted. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments of the Division Bench and Single Judge, held that the respondents were not entitled to the pay scale of regular Investigator-cum-Computer, and allowed the appeal without any order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Equal Pay for Equal Work - Principle not attracted when employees not similarly situated - Constitution of India - The respondents were appointed as Investigators-cum-Computer on a purely temporary basis under a temporary scheme with essential qualification of Intermediate, while regular Investigators-cum-Computer required Bachelor's degree with Statistics or Mathematical Statistics or Mathematics and knowledge of Hindi in Devanagri Script. The mode of recruitment for temporary posts was through Departmental Selection Committee, whereas regular posts were filled through Public Service Commission Uttar Pradesh or U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Board. The nature of duties of respondents was limited to collecting data for livestock number and livestock products from 14 Districts, while regular employees had broader duties including supervision of statistical work. Held that the principle of equal pay for equal work could not be attracted because the two sets of employees were not similarly situated. (Paras Not mentioned) B) Civil Procedure - Equitable Relief - Non-disclosure of material facts disentitles party to equitable relief - Constitution of India, Article 136 - The respondents failed to disclose in the subsequent writ petition claiming equal pay that they were continuing only by virtue of an interim order passed in earlier proceedings challenging cancellation of appointments. The State did not file a counter in the subsequent proceedings, but the court held that such non-disclosure disentitled the respondents to any equitable relief. Held that this non-disclosure was a material factor against granting relief under Article 136 of the Constitution. (Paras Not mentioned) C) Judicial Process - Abuse of Process - Continuation under interim order does not create right to pay parity - The court observed that this was a glaring instance of abuse of judicial process partly due to State inaction, but clarified that continuance under an interim order did not confer upon the respondents the right to claim regular pay scales. The original proceeding challenging cancellation was still pending, and the court declined to express any opinion on the legality of cancellation. Held that the High Court erred in directing the State to pay the same salary as regular cadre. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents, appointed on a purely temporary basis under a temporary scheme, were entitled to the same pay scale as regular Investigators-cum-Computer on the principle of equal pay for equal work.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; impugned judgment of Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 534 of 1994 and Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 32001 of 1992 set aside; respondents held not entitled to pay scale of regular Investigator-cum-Computer; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Equal pay for equal work only when employees are similarly situated
- temporary appointees under temporary scheme with lower qualifications
- different recruitment mode and narrower duties are not entitled to pay parity
- non-disclosure of material facts disentitles equitable relief
- interim order does not confer permanency or parity
