Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court addressed a service dispute concerning equal pay for equal work. The appellant, a Veterinary Extension Officer in Orissa, was appointed on 10.10.1958 and subsequently held various posts including Supervisor in Milk Service Scheme, Dairy Overseer, and claimed promotion to Dairy Supervisor on 26.11.1969. He was posted as Farm Manager in District Livestock breeding Farm and sought equal pay for equal work for the periods 1969-1974 and 1974-1977, asserting that Farm Manager was a Class II post and he was entitled to the corresponding pay scale. In 1977, after obtaining a B.V.S. degree, he was granted the Class II Gazetted pay scale of Rs.525-975/- from 1.7.77. The Orissa Administrative Tribunal in T.A. No.302/86 by order dated September 13, 1991 refused to grant the same scale of pay, noting that Farm Manager was an interchangeable post but not an intermediary between Gazette cadre and the immediate post held by the appellant; the Dairy Department service consisted of Dairy Overseer, Dairy Supervisor and Dairy Inspector, the last being equivalent to Gazetted post, and Farm Manager post was held by both Class II and Class I officers depending on exigencies. The appellant relied on a High Court order in O.J.C. No.1189/73 and other matters which had held that Farm Manager post was an intermediary post for promotion to the Gazetted cadre and that all persons holding that post were entitled to equal pay, and that order became final after dismissal of the SLP by the Supreme Court. The State contended that holders of the post had different scales of pay, mere exigency of holding the post as Farm Manager did not per se entitle the incumbent to the same scale, pay scales varied according to gazetted or non-gazetted cadre, and there was a distinction between posts in the farm branch and dairy branch; granting equal pay would allow the appellant to jump the queue and land in a higher ladder. The Supreme Court held that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be used as a shield to reach a higher cadre of service in accordance with rules of promotion and seniority. It found no acceptable material on record to conclude that the appellant was holding a Class II Gazetted post in his own right, and the Tribunal was justified in distinguishing the earlier High Court judgment. The appeal was dismissed with no costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Equal Pay for Equal Work - Limitation on Doctrine - Not mentioned - Appellant claimed equal pay for Farm Manager post from 1969 to 1977 but was not substantively promoted to Class II Gazetted cadre; Government contended pay scales differed by cadre and branch, and mere exigency of holding the post did not confer entitlement. Court held that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be used as a shield to reach higher cadre of service in accordance with rules of promotion and seniority, and upheld Tribunal's refusal to grant same scale of pay. (Paras 1-2) B) Service Law - Interchangeable Posts - Effect on Pay Scale - Not mentioned - Although Farm Manager post was interchangeable and held by both Class II and Class I officers depending on exigencies, that alone did not entitle the incumbent to the same scale of pay; the Tribunal was justified in distinguishing the earlier High Court order in O.J.C. No.1189/73 because granting equal pay would allow the appellant to jump the queue and land in a higher ladder. (Paras 1-2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether an employee holding a Farm Manager post on an interchangeable or exigency basis, without substantive promotion to Class II Gazetted cadre, was entitled to equal pay for equal work for the periods 1969-1974 and 1974-1977.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed, no costs. Tribunal's order refusing same scale of pay upheld.
Law Points
- Equal pay for equal work limited by promotion and seniority rules
- mere interchangeability of post does not confer higher pay scale
- pay scales vary by gazetted/non-gazetted cadre
- distinction between farm and dairy branch justified
- equal pay cannot be used to jump queue
