Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sardara Singh, was an Electrical Foreman at the Central Poultry Breeding Farm (CPBF) under the Union of India, Department of Animal Husbandry. He was initially appointed on a temporary ad-hoc basis in 1976, and his appointment was regularised in 1980 with relaxation of the essential Diploma qualification under the Central Poultry Breeding Farm (Electrical Foreman) (Group ‘C’ post) Recruitment Rules, 1976. The Vth Central Pay Commission had recommended the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 for common category posts in sub-ordinate engineering cadres, which included the post of Electrical Foreman at CPBF. However, the petitioner was denied this scale, while another Electrical Foreman at the same farm, M.F. Karim, who possessed the Diploma, was granted the scale by the Bangalore Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in OA 344 of 2002. The Mumbai Bench of CAT dismissed the petitioner’s application in 2003, leading to the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The core legal issues were whether the denial of pay scale amounted to hostile discrimination, whether the relaxation of qualification enured to pay scale benefits, and whether the CAT order was sustainable. The petitioner’s counsel argued that pay scale is attached to the post, not the individual, and that performing same duties as M.F. Karim entitled him to equal pay under Articles 14, 16, 39(d) of the Constitution. The respondents contended that the petitioner lacked the Diploma, distinguishing his case, and that pay scales are policy matters warranting restraint by courts. The High Court per M.S. Sonak, J. held that once the petitioner was validly appointed with relaxation of the Diploma requirement, he could not be denied the pay scale applicable to the post. The court observed that the Vth CPC recommendations were accepted for all sub-ordinate engineering cadre posts, and the petitioner held the same designation and performed identical duties as M.F. Karim. The denial of the same scale constituted hostile discrimination violative of Article 14. The court emphasized that the relaxation granted under Rule 5 and the note to Column 7 of the Recruitment Rules was not limited to appointment but extended to all benefits attached to the post. The decision in M.F. Karim’s case, which was not appealed and was implemented, further demonstrated arbitrary treatment. The court accordingly quashed the CAT order dated 25.07.2003, allowed OA 448 of 2000, and directed the respondents to grant the petitioner the pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 effective from 20.03.2003, the date of the Bangalore CAT order, with all consequential benefits to be paid within four months. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Pay Parity - Equal Pay for Equal Work - Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16, 39(d) - The petitioner, an Electrical Foreman at CPBF, performed same duties as another Electrical Foreman (M.F. Karim) who was granted pay scale of Rs.5000-8000; denial of same scale to petitioner constitutes hostile discrimination. Held, denial of equal pay for equal work violates Article 14 and is arbitrary; petitioner entitled to same scale from date of grant to similarly situated employee (Paras 10-12, 22). B) Service Law - Pay Scale - Applicability to Post Not Person - Vth Central Pay Commission Recommendations - Pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 was recommended for common category of posts in sub-ordinate engineering cadres, including Electrical Foreman; once post is covered, scale attaches to post irrespective of individual qualifications. Held, pay scale is attached to the post and cannot be denied based on initial lack of Diploma when appointment was validly made and relaxation granted (Paras 10, 13, 21). C) Service Law - Recruitment Rules - Relaxation of Qualifications - Central Poultry Breeding Farm (Electrical Foreman) (Group 'C' post) Recruitment Rules, 1976, Rule 5, Note to Column 7 - The essential qualification of Diploma was relaxed for the petitioner under the rules; relaxation enures for all benefits of the post. Held, respondents cannot fall back on absence of Diploma to deny pay scale when relaxation was specifically granted by the competent authority (Paras 13, 14, 17-21). D) Administrative Law - Judicial Discipline - Coordinate Bench Decisions - The Bangalore Bench of CAT had granted same scale to M.F. Karim, which was implemented; denial to petitioner at same farm with identical duties is discriminatory. Held, such differential treatment violates Article 14; the decision in M.F. Karim was not appealed and was accepted, so denial to petitioner is unreasonable (Paras 11-12, 22). E) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Interference - Constitution of India, Articles 226/227 - The High Court can quash CAT order if it is patently illegal or results in discrimination. Held, impugned CAT order set aside as it perpetuated discriminatory denial of pay scale and ignored binding principles (Paras 1-2, 23-26).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in dismissing the petitioner's claim for pay scale of Rs.5000-8000, and whether denial of such scale despite holding the same post and duties as another Electrical Foreman who received the scale amounts to hostile discrimination, especially when the petitioner's appointment was regularized with relaxation of educational qualifications
Final Decision
Petition allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 25.07.2003 of CAT Mumbai quashed and set aside. Original Application No. 448 of 2000 allowed. Respondents directed to grant petitioner pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 with effect from 20.03.2003, the date of Bangalore CAT decision in M.F. Karim case, along with all consequential benefits within four months.
Law Points
- Equal pay for equal work
- hostile discrimination
- relaxation of educational qualification
- pay scale attached to post
- Vth Central Pay Commission recommendations
- Article 14
- Article 16
- Article 39(d)
- Article 300A
- parity with similarly placed employees
- pay scale of Rs.5000-8000 for Electrical Foreman
