Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned the correctness of Government resolutions relating to the pay scales of First Grade clerks in the Revenue Department following the reorganisation of States in 1956. Three First Grade clerks attached to the offices of Collectors of Wardha, Bhandara and Chanda districts filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Bombay High Court. They challenged Government Resolution No. SR/INT/1057/VI dated October 21, 1957, which continued the existing scale of pay of Rs. 80-5-130 for their posts, and alternatively sought to quash Government Resolution No. SR/INT/2159/21365-F dated October 12, 1960, which fixed a new scale of pay of Rs. 100-8-140 but only from May 1, 1960. The petitioners contended that their posts should be equated with the post of Aval Karkuns in the former State of Bombay and that the revised scale should apply from November 1, 1956, the date the States Reorganisation Act took effect. The High Court rejected the claim for equivalence but accepted the contention that the revised pay scale should commence on November 1, 1956, and not May 1, 1960. Both the clerks and the State Government appealed to the Supreme Court. The clerks argued that the Government was bound to find an equivalent post, that Aval Karkuns was the nearest equivalent, and that Rule 12 of the Allocated Government Servants Rules, 1957, which permitted non-equation, was discriminatory. The State contended that under Rule 10, the Government could fix pay scales from any subsequent date due to the phrase "except where Government otherwise directs". The Supreme Court held that the duties of Aval Karkuns were entirely different from those of First Grade clerks, so no equivalent post existed and the Government was not obliged to equate the posts. It further held that Rule 12 was not discriminatory because a rule providing special treatment for an odd case is not necessarily discriminatory; discrimination can be proved only if equivalence is not carried out although an equivalent post is available. On the date of pay scale application, the Court interpreted Rules 10 and 12 together and concluded that the date of operation of revised scales was intended to be November 1, 1956, and the Government could not change that date. Both appeals were dismissed, and the High Court's judgment was affirmed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Equivalence of Posts - States Reorganisation Act, 1956, Sections 115-116 and Allocated Government Servants (Absorption, Seniority, Pay & Allowances) Rules, 1957, Rule 12 - Equivalence between a post in the reorganised State and a former State must be based on similarity of duties; mere designation or pay scale similarity is not enough - The court held that Aval Karkuns in the former State of Bombay performed duties entirely different from those of First Grade clerks in the Collectorate, therefore no equivalent post was available; Government was not obliged to equate the posts under Sections 115 and 116 - Held that the State Government's refusal to equate was correct (Paras 138-139). B) Constitutional Law - Discrimination - Rule 12 of Allocated Government Servants Rules, 1957 - A rule providing special treatment for an odd post is not necessarily discriminatory - Discrimination can be proved only if equivalence is not carried out although an equivalent post is available; Rule 12 was made due to multifariousness of posts in different components and to treat un-equatable posts independently - Held that Rule 12 is not discriminatory (Paras 138-139). C) Service Law - Pay Scale Commencement - States Reorganisation Act, 1956, Section 115 read with Allocated Government Servants Rules, 1957, Rules 10 and 12 - The power to prescribe new pay scale under Rule 12 must be exercised from 1 November 1956, the date of States reorganisation - The court interpreted Rule 10 as not enabling Government to change the date of operation of the scale, only to make special orders contrary to clauses (i) and (ii); Rules 14-19 and 23 consistently mention 1 November 1956 as the fixed date line - Held that revised scales must come into operation from 1 November 1956, not 1 May 1960 (Paras 140).
Issue of Consideration
1. Whether the posts of First Grade clerks in the Collectorate should be equated with the post of Aval Karkuns under Sections 115 and 116 of the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 and the Allocated Government Servants Rules, 1957. 2. Whether Rule 12 of the said Rules, which permits a post not to be equated, is discriminatory. 3. Whether the revised pay scale for First Grade clerks should commence from 1 November 1956 or from 1 May 1960 under Rules 10 and 12 of the said Rules.
Final Decision
Both appeals were dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the Bombay High Court's judgment: it rejected the claim for equivalence of First Grade clerks with Aval Karkuns, upheld the validity of Rule 12 against the challenge of discrimination, and held that the revised pay scale must operate from 1 November 1956, not 1 May 1960.
Law Points
- Equivalence of posts under States Reorganisation Act requires actual similarity of duties
- rule providing special treatment for an odd post is not discriminatory
- discrimination can be proved only if equivalent post is available but equivalence not carried out
- date for application of revised pay scale under Rule 12 is 1 November 1956
- Government cannot change the date of operation of new pay scale under Rule 10
