Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a claim by Junior Analysts working in the Institute of Preventive Medicine, Public Health Labs and Food (Health) Administration under the Medical and Health Department of the Government of Andhra Pradesh. The respondents alleged that their juniors in the cadre of Junior Analysts were drawing higher pay and invoked the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal seeking equal pay under Article 39(A) of the Constitution. The Tribunal allowed the writ petition and directed implementation of orders passed in similar circumstances. The State appealed against this direction. The Supreme Court noted that two respondents had died and the State failed to implead their legal representatives despite opportunity, leading to abatement of the appeal against them. On merits, the Court examined the claim for parity of pay. The State contended that one junior was granted Selection Grade and drew a higher scale of pay, while another junior drew higher pay due to longer service in the feeder cadre. These circumstances did not entitle seniors to equal pay. The respondents argued that the Government had implemented directions in several G.Os. and could not deny the same relief. The Court held that the G.Os. were issued only to implement interim directions of courts and were expressly subject to the final outcome of pending matters. The Court relied on State of A.P. v. G. Sreenivasa Rao (1989) 2 SCC 290, where it was held that if juniors draw higher scale of pay due to length of service, parity cannot be claimed by seniors. Article 39(A) had no application to such a situation. The Court also noted that a larger Bench was pending on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Consequently, the directions given by the Tribunal were held illegal. The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's orders were set aside, and no costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Equal Pay - Article 39(A) Constitution - Senior employees cannot claim parity of pay with juniors who draw higher scale due to selection grade or longer service in feeder cadre - Court relied on State of A.P. v. G. Sreenivasa Rao (1989) 2 SCC 290 - Held that Article 39(A) has no application to such situation and directions of Tribunal were illegal (Paras 1-2). B) Service Law - Pay Fixation - Fundamental Rules, Rule 22(a)(i) - Grant of special pay to a candidate in higher promotional post due to longer service in feeder cadre does not entitle seniors in cadre to parity - Held that higher scale drawn by junior under length of service is not a valid ground for equal pay (Paras 1-2). C) Civil Procedure - Abatement of Appeal - Non-impleadment of legal representatives - Appeal abates as against deceased respondents when legal representatives are not brought on record despite opportunity - Held appeal as against those respondents stands dismissed (Paras 1-2). D) Constitutional Law - Administrative Tribunals - Jurisdiction - Interim directions subject to final decision - Government orders implementing interim directions are subject to result in pending matters; larger Bench pending on tribunal jurisdiction - Held that interim implementation does not confer permanent right (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether senior Junior Analysts are entitled to parity of pay with juniors drawing higher scale due to selection grade or longer service in feeder cadre under Article 39(A) of the Constitution.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; orders of the Tribunal set aside; no costs. Appeal as against deceased respondents 1 and 14 abated and dismissed.
Law Points
- Equal pay cannot be claimed by seniors when juniors draw higher pay due to selection grade or longer service in feeder cadre
- Article 39(A) Constitution has no application
- government orders implementing interim directions are subject to final result
- appeal abates for non-impleadment of legal representatives
