# Baldeo Singh v. The State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 3 ILRA 927
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-11-13
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No.1527 of 2007
- **Bench:** S. Rafat Alam, Sudhir Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/baldeo-singh-v-the-state-of-u-p-and-others-41184
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India-Art.
39
(d)-
Principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work'-
can not be applied mechanically on
ground of nomenclature-it depends upon
variety
of
factors-even
a
single
difference may justify differences in Pay
Scale-Lab
Assistant
(Ayurvedic)-
eligibility of work, area of work different,
service
rules
different-held-can
not
invoke the said principle.

Held: Para 21

In view of the aforesaid exposition of
law and considering the facts that the
qualification, nature of work etc. of the
Lab
Assistant
(Ayurved)
and
Lab
Assistant (Rural) both cannot be said to
be identical in any manner, in our view,
the petitioner cannot invoke the above
principle being situated differently. We,
therefore, do not find any factual or legal
error in the judgment of the Hon'ble
Single Judge impugned in this appeal
warranting interference.
1982 (1) SCC-618, 1987 (4) SCC-505, 1998 (3)
SCC-91, 1988 (3) SCC-354, 1989 (1) SCC-121,
J.T. 1991 (1) SC-60, J.T. 1992 (2) SC-27, AIR
1992 SC-126, 1993 (1) SCC-539, 1994 (2)
SCC-521, 1995 (6) SCC-515, J.T. 1995 (2)
SCC-521, 1995 (6) SCC-515, J.T. 1995 (2) SC578, JT 1995 (2) SC-578, J.T. 196 (7) SC-438,
AIR 1968 SC-349, AIR 1974 SC-1, 1993 (2)
SCC-340, AIR 1997 SC-1788, 1997 SCC-24,
2000 (8) SCC-580, 2003 (1) SCC-200, 2002
96) SCC-72, 2002 (4) SCC-556, AIR 2006 SC161, AIR 2007 SC-1948, J.T. 2007 (10) SC272.

## Text

3 All] Baldeo Singh V. The State of U.P. and others
927
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.11.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S. RAFAT ALAM, J.
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Special Appeal No.1527 of 2007

Baldeo Singh

...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri A.P. Tewari
Sri S.S. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution
of
India-Art.
39
(d)-
Principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work'-
can not be applied mechanically on
ground of nomenclature-it depends upon
variety
of
factors-even
a
single
difference may justify differences in Pay
Scale-Lab
Assistant
(Ayurvedic)-
eligibility of work, area of work different,
service
rules
different-held-can
not
invoke the said principle.

Held: Para 21

In view of the aforesaid exposition of
law and considering the facts that the
qualification, nature of work etc. of the
Lab
Assistant
(Ayurved)
and
Lab
Assistant (Rural) both cannot be said to
be identical in any manner, in our view,
the petitioner cannot invoke the above
principle being situated differently. We,
therefore, do not find any factual or legal
error in the judgment of the Hon'ble
Single Judge impugned in this appeal
warranting interference.
1982 (1) SCC-618, 1987 (4) SCC-505, 1998 (3)
SCC-91, 1988 (3) SCC-354, 1989 (1) SCC-121,
J.T. 1991 (1) SC-60, J.T. 1992 (2) SC-27, AIR
1992 SC-126, 1993 (1) SCC-539, 1994 (2)
SCC-521, 1995 (6) SCC-515, J.T. 1995 (2)
SCC-521, 1995 (6) SCC-515, J.T. 1995 (2) SC578, JT 1995 (2) SC-578, J.T. 196 (7) SC-438,
AIR 1968 SC-349, AIR 1974 SC-1, 1993 (2)
SCC-340, AIR 1997 SC-1788, 1997 SCC-24,
2000 (8) SCC-580, 2003 (1) SCC-200, 2002
96) SCC-72, 2002 (4) SCC-556, AIR 2006 SC161, AIR 2007 SC-1948, J.T. 2007 (10) SC272.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.)

1. The intra court appeal, under the
rules of the court, arises from the
judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge
dated 25.9.2007 dismissing the appellant's
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.46478 of
2007, which had been preferred against
the order of the State Governmentrespondent no.1 dated 5.9.2007.

2. We have heard Shri S.S. Tripathi,
learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the respondents and perused the record.

3. It appears that the petitionerappellant is working as Lab Assistant
(Rural). However, he made representation
before the State Government claiming pay
scale of Lab Assistant (Ayurved), which
had been rejected vide order dated
5.9.2007.
Aggrieved,
the
appellant
preferred the aforesaid writ petition. The
Hon'ble Single Judge having heard
learned counsel for the parties and having
noticed that the eligibility of work and the
area of work being different held that
there could be no comparison between the
Lab Assistant (Ayurved) and the Lab
Assistant
(Rural)
and,
therefore,
dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this
appeal.

4. Shri S.S. Tripathi, learned counsel
for the appellant vehemently contended
that earlier there were only one cadre of
928 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
Lab Assistant and common pay scale had
been provided. However, subsequently,
the Lab Assistant (Ayurved) claimed
salary of Lab Technician, which was
allowed. The Hon'ble Single Judge by the
judgment dated 3.2.1989 in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No.8364 of 1989 directed to
the State Government to examine the case
and grant the aforesaid pay scale on the
ground that their qualification, nature of
duties are similar to each other, therefore,
they deserve same pay scale. It is further
contended that against the aforesaid
judgment
SLP
was
dismissed
and,
therefore, the State Government granted
pay scale of Lab Technician to the Lab
Assistant
(Ayurved).
He,
therefore,
submitted that since the qualification etc.
are similar to each other the Lab
Assistants (Rural) are entitled to get the
same scale, which is paid to Lab Assistant
(Ayurved).

5. We are not convinced with the
submission for the reason that it is
apparent from the order of the State
Government dated 5.9.2007 that the
qualification, nature of work etc. of the
Lab Assistant (Rural) is not similar to that
of Lab Assistant (Ayurved). Besides that,
admittedly, their cadre is separate and
governed by separate rules. Thus, there
being no similarity in the nature of work,
qualification and the place of work, the
parity in the pay scale cannot be claimed.

6. The principle of equal pay for
equal work can neither be applied
mechanically nor in a casual manner nor
would be attracted only on the ground that
nomenclature or some of the conditions of
work or qualification etc. are similar. It
depends upon a variety of factors and
even a single difference may justify
difference in the pay scale. It is difficult
to exhaustively give all such factors or
circumstances wherein the difference in
pay can be justified but some of such
aspect may be given hereunder as having
been laid down even by the Hon'ble Apex
Court, since this issue has time and again
cropped up before the Hon'ble Apex
Court and this Court frequently. The law
has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in catena of cases, some of which
are referred to herein-below.

7. In Randhir Singh vs. Union of
India and others, (1982) 1 SCC 618 the
Apex Court considering the principle of
equal pay for equal work held as under-

"It is not an abstract doctrine but one
of substance. Construing Articles 14 and
16 in the light of the Preamble and Article
39 (d) of the Constitution, the Apex Court
held that the principle of equal pay for
equal work is deducible from those
Articles and may be properly applied to
cases of unequal scales of pay based on
no
classification
or
irrational
classification though those drawing the
different scales of pay do identical work
under the same employer." (Paras 7 & 8)

In R.D. Gupta & others vs. Lt.
Governor,
Delhi
Administration
&
others, (1987) 4 SCC 505 the Apex Court
applying the principle of equal pay for
equal work, in para 20 of the judgment,
considered the correctness of defence
justifying non application of the said
principle and held: -

"the ministerial staff in the NDMC
constitute a unified cadre. The recruitment
policy for the selection of the ministerial
staff is a common one and the recruitment
is also done by a common agency. They
are governed by a common seniority list.
3 All] Baldeo Singh V. The State of U.P. and others
929
The ministerial posts in the three wings of
the BDNC viz, the general wing, the
electricity wing and the waterworks wing
are interchangeable posts and the postings
are
made
from
the
common
pool
according to administrative convenience
and exigencies of service and not on the
basis of any distinct policy or special
qualifications. Therefore, it would be
futile to say that merely because a
member of the ministerial staff had been
given a posting in the electricity wing,
either due to force of circumstances or
due to voluntary preferment, he stands on
a better or higher footing or in a more
advantageous
position
than
his
counterparts in the general wing. It is not
the case of the respondents that the
ministerial staff in the electricity wing
perform more onerous or more exacting
duties than the ministerial staff in the
general wing. It therefore follows that all
sections of the ministerial staff should be
treated alike and all of them held entitled
to the same scales of pay for the work of
equal nature done by them." (Para 20)

8. In Federation of All India
Customs
and
Central
excise
Stenographers & others Vs. Union of
India and others. (1988) 3 SCC 91, it was
held that- "there may be qualitative
difference as regards reliability and
responsibility justifying different pay
scale. Functions may be the same but the
responsibilities make a difference. One
cannot deny that often the difference is a
mater of degree and that there is an
element of value judgment by those who
are charged with the administration in
fixing the scales of pay and other
conditions of service. So long as such
value
judgment
is
made
bonafide,
reasonably on an intelligible criterion,
which has a rational nexus with the object
of differentiation, such differentiation will
not amount to discrimination. It was
further observed that the same amount of
physical work may entail different quality
of work, some more sensitive, some
requiring more tact, some less, it varies
from nature and culture of employment."
(Paras 7 & 11)

9. In Jaipal and others Vs. State of
Haryana & others (1988) 3 SCC 354, the
Apex Court held as under: -

"The doctrine of equal work equal
pay would apply on the premise of similar
work, but it does not mean that there
should be complete identity in all
respects. If the two classes of persons do
same work under the same employer, with
similar
responsibility,
under
similar
working conditions the doctrine of ''equal
work equal pay would apply and it would
not be open to the State to discriminate
one class with the other in paying salary.
The State is under a constitutional
obligation to ensure that equal pay is paid
for equal work." (Para...6)

In State of U.P. and others Vs. J.P.
Chaurasia and others, (1989) 1 SCC 121,
the Apex Court while considering the
justification of two pay scales of the
Bench Secretaries of the High Court
observed as under: -

"Entitlement to the pay scale similar
would not depend upon either the nature
of work or volume of work done by
Bench Secretaries. Primarily it requires
among others, evaluation of duties and
responsibilities of the respective posts.
More often functions of two posts may
appear to be the same or similar, but there
may be difference in degrees in the
performance. The quantity of work may
930 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
be the same, but quality may be different
that cannot be determined by relying upon
averments in affidavits of interested
parties. The equation of posts or equation
of pay must be left to the executive
Government. It must be determined by
expert bodies like Pay commission. They
would be the best judge to evaluate the
nature of duties and responsibilities of
posts. If there is any such determination
by a Commission or Committee, the court
should normally accept it. The Court
should not try to tinker with such
equivalence unless it is shown that it was
made with extraneous consideration."
(Para-18).

In Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers'
Union vs. Union of India & others, JT
1991 (1) SC 60, it was observed that- "
the question of parity in pay scale cannot
be determined by applying mathematical
formula. It depends upon several factors
namely nature of work, performance of
duties, qualifications, the quality of work
performed by them. It is also permissible
to have classification in services based on
hierarchy of posts, pay scale, value of
work and responsibility and experience.
The classification must, however, have a
reasonable relation to the object sought to
be achieved." (Para-7)

In
The
secretary,
Finance
Department & others vs. The West
Bengal Registration Service Association
& others, JT 1992 (2) SC 27, the Apex
Court observed as under: -

"job evaluation is both a difficult and
time consuming task which even expert
bodies having the assistance of staff with
requisite expertise have found difficult to
undertake sometimes on account of want
of relevant data and scales for evaluating
performances of different groups of
employees. The factors which may have
to be kept in view for job evaluation may
include (1) the work programme of his
department (ii) the nature of contribution
expected of him (iii) the extent of his
responsibility and accountability in the
discharge of his diverse duties and
functions (iv) the extent and nature of
freedoms/limitations available or imposed
on him in the discharge of his duties (v)
the extent of powers vested in him (vi) the
extent of his dependence on superiors for
the exercise of his powers (vii) the need to
co-ordinate with other departments etc. It
was further observed that normally a pay
structure is evolved keeping in mind
several factors e.g., ((i) method of
recruitment,
(ii)
level
at
which
recruitment is made, (iii) the hierarchy of
service in a given cadre, (iv) minimum
educational/technical
qualifications
required, (v) avenues of promotion (vi)
the nature of duties and responsibilities,
(vii) the horizontal and vertical relativities
with similar jobs, (viii) public dealings,
(ix) satisfaction level, (x) employer's
capacity to pay, etc.".....(Para 12)

10. In Jaghnath Vs. Union of India
& another, AIR 1992 SC 126 the Apex
Court following the earlier judgment
observed that- "classification of officers
into two grades with different scales of
pay
based
either
on
academic
qualification or experience or length of
service is sustainable. Apart from that,
higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or
resultant
frustration
for
lack
of
promotional avenues is very common in
career service. There is selection grade for
District Judges. There is senior time scale
in Indian Administrative Service. There is
suppertime scale in other like services.
The entitlement to these higher pay scales
3 All] Baldeo Singh V. The State of U.P. and others
931
depends upon seniority-cum-merit or
merit -cum-seniority. The differentiation
so made in the same cadre will not
amount
to
discrimination.
The
classification based on experience is a
reasonable classification. It has a rational
nexus with the object thereof. To hold
otherwise, it would be detrimental to the
interest of the service itself."...(Para-7)

11. In State of Madhya Pradesh &
another Vs. Pramod Bhartiya & others,
(1993) 1 SCC 539 the Apex Court held as
under:-

"It would be evident from this
definition that the stress is upon the
similarity of skill, effort and responsibility
when performed under similar conditions.
Further, as pointed out by Mukharji, J. (as
he then was) in Federation of All India
Customs and Excise Stenographers' the
quality of work may vary from post to
post. It may vary from institution to
institution. We cannot ignore or overlook
this reality. It is not a matter of
assumption but one of proof. The
respondents (original petitioners) have
failed to establish that their duties,
responsibilities and functions are similar
to those of the non-technical lecturers in
Technical Colleges. They have also failed
to establish that the distinction between
their scale of pay and that of non technical
lecturers working in Technical Schools is
either irrational and that it has no basis, or
that it is vitiated by mala fides, either in
law or in fact (see the approach adopted in
Federation case). It must be remembered
that since the plea of equal pay for equal
work has to be examined with reference
to Article 14, the burden is upon the
petitioners to establish their right to equal
pay, or the plea of discrimination, as the
case may be. This burden the original
petitioners (respondents herein) have
failed to discharge.".(.Para-13)

12. In Shyam Babu Verma & others
Vs. Union of India & others, (1994) 2
SCC 521 the Apex Court observed that-
"the principle of equal pay for equal work
should not be applied in a mechanical or
casual manner. Inequality of the men in
different groups excludes applicability of
the principle of equal pay for equal work
to them. Unless it is established that there
is no reasonable basis to treat them
separately in matters of payment of wages
or salary, the Court should not interfere
holding
different
pay
scale
as
discriminatory" (Para-9)

13. In Sher Singh & others Vs.
Union of India & others, (1995) 6 SCC
515, the Apex Court rejected the claim of
the library staff of Delhi University and
its constituent colleges regarding parity in
pay with the teaching staff on the ground
that the nature of duties, work load,
experience and responsibilities of the two
sets of employees in question are totally
different from each other. (Para..5)

In Union of India & others vs. Delhi
Judicial Service Assn. & another- JT
1995 (2) SC 578 the Apex Court
reversing the judgment of the High Court
allowing the same scale of pay to all the
officers of Higher Judicial Services, held
as under: -

"We think that the high Court was
not right in giving selection grade scale of
pay to all the officers on the principle of
equal pay for equal work. If that be so the
Dist. Munsif (Junior civil Judge, Junior
subordinate Judge) etc, lowest officer in
judicial hierarchy is entitled to the pay of
the Senior most super-time scale district
932 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
Judge as all of hem are discharging
judicial duty. The marginal difference
principle also is equally inappropriate.
Similarly of posts or scale of pay n
different services are not relevant. The
nature of the duty, nature of the
responsibility
and
degree
of
accountability etc. are relevant and
germane
considerations.
Grant
of
selection grade, suppertime scale etc.
would be akin to a promotion. The result
of the impugned direction would wipe out
the distinction between the time Scale and
Selection grade officers. The learned
counsel for the Union of India, pursuant
to our order, has placed before us the
service conditions prevailing in the
Higher Judicial Services in other States in
the country. Except Gujrat which had
wiped out the distinction after the
judgment in all India Judges Association's
case, all other States maintained the
distinction between the Grade 1 and
Grade II Higher Judicial offices or Time
Scale and Selection Grade or Suppertime
scales etc. In fact this distinction is
absolutely necessary to inculcate hard
work, to maintain character, to improve
efficiency, to encourage honesty and
integrity
among
the
officers
and
accountability. Such distinctions would
not only be necessary in the Higher
Judicial Service but also, indeed in all
services under the State and at every
stage."...(Para-5).

14. In Sita Devi & others Vs. State
of Haryana & others -JT 1996 (7) SC
438, the Apex Court upheld different pay
scale on the basis of qualification relying
on the earlier judgments of the Apex
Court in The State of Mysore and
another v. P. Narasinga Rao, AIR 1968
SC 349; State of Jammu and Kashmir v.
Triloki Nath Khosa, AIR 1974 SC 1 and
P. Murugesan & others v. State of Tamil
Nadu, 1993 (2) SCC 340.

In State of Haryana Vs. Jasmer
Singh & others, AIR 1997 SC 1788, the
Apex Court justified different pay scale
on various factors observing as under: -

"It is, therefore, clear that the quality
of work performed by different sets of
persons holding different jobs will have to
be evaluated. There may be differences in
educational or technical qualifications
which may have a bearing on the skills
which the holders bring to their job
although the designation of the job may
be the same. There may also be other
considerations which have relevance to
efficiency in service which may justify
differences in pay scales on the basis of
criteria such as experience and seniority,
or a need to prevent stagnation in the
cadre, so that good performance can be
elicited from persons who have reached
the top of the pay scale. There may be
various other similar considerations which
may
have
a
bearing
on
efficient
performance in a job. This Court has
repeatedly observed that evaluation of
such jobs for the purposes of pay scale
must be left to expert bodies and, unless
there are any mala fides, its evaluation
should be accepted." (Para-8)

In
Garhwal
Jal
Sansthan
Karmachari Union & another Vs. State
of U.P. & others- (1997) SCC 24, the
Apex Court in para 8 of the judgment
rejected the claim of pay parity between
the employees of Jal Nigam and Jal
Sansthan on the ground of qualitative
difference in the duties, function and
responsibilities in the two organizations.
(Para 8)
3 All] Baldeo Singh V. The State of U.P. and others
933
In Union of India & others vs.
Pradip Kumar Dey, (2000) 8 SCC 580,
the question of parity of pay scale of
Naik, Radio Operator in CRPF and the
employees working as Radio Operator in
Directorate
of
Coordination
Police
Wireless came up for consideration on the
principle of equal pay for equal work, the
Apex Court negated the validity of parity
observing that the different pay scale
prescribed taking into account hierarchy
in service and other relevant factors
cannot be interfered as it would disturb
the entire chain of hierarchy....Para-14

In State of Orissa & others v.
Balaram sahu & others, (2003) 1 SCC
250 the Apex Court observed in para 11
as under: -

"Though "equal pay for equal work"
is considered to be a concomitant of
Article 14 as much as "equal pay for
unequal work" will also be a negation of
that right, equal pay would depend upon
not only the nature or the volume of work,
but also on the qualitative difference as
regards reliability and responsibility as
well and though the functions may be the
same, but the responsibilities do make a
real and substantial difference."...(Para
11)

In State of Haryana & another Vs.
Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff
Association, (2002) 6 SCC 72, it was held
in para 10 -

"It is to be kept in mind that the
claim of equal pay for equal work is not a
fundamental right vested in any employee
though it is a constitutional goal to be
achieved by the Government. Fixation of
pay and determination of parity in duties
and responsibilities is a complex matter
which is for the executive to discharge.
While taking a decision in the matter,
several relevant factors, some of which
have been noted by this court in the
decided case, are to be considered
keeping in view the prevailing financial
position and capacity of the State
Government
to
bear
the
additional
liability of a revised scale of pay. It is also
to be kept in mind that the priority given
to different types of posts under the
prevailing
policies
of
the
State
Government is also a relevant factor for
consideration by the State Government. In
the context of the complex nature of
issues
involved,
the
far-reaching
consequences of a decision in the matter
and its impact on the administration of the
State Government, courts have taken the
view that ordinarily courts should not try
to
delve
deep
into
administrative
decisions pertaining to pay fixation and
pay parity. That is not to say that the
matter is not justiciable or that the courts
cannot entertain any proceeding against
such administrative decision taken by the
Government. The courts should approach
such matters with restraint and interfere
only when they are satisfied that the
decision of the Government is patently
irrational, unjust and prejudicial to a
section of employees and the Government
while taking the decision has ignored
factors which are material and relevant for
a decision in the matter...(Para 10)

15. In State Bank of India &
another Vs. M.R. Ganesh Babu &
others, (2002) 4 SCC 556, the Apex
Court observed in para 16 as under: -

"The principle of equal pay for equal
work has been considered and applied in
may reported decisions of this Court. The
principle has been adequately explained
934 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
and crystallized and sufficiently reiterated
in a catena of decisions of this Court. It is
well settled that equal pay must depend
upon the nature of work done. It cannot
be judged by the mere volume of work;
there may be qualitative difference as
regards reliability and responsibility.
Functions may be the same but the
responsibilities make a difference. One
cannot deny that often the difference is a
matter of degree and that there is an
element of value judgment by those who
are charged with the administration in
fixing the scales of pay and other
conditions of service. So long as value
judgment is made bona fide, reasonably
on an intelligible criterion which has a
rational
nexus
with
the
object
of
differentiation, such differentiation will
not
amount
to
discrimination.
The
principle is not always easy to apply as
there
are
inherent
difficulties
in
comparing and evaluating the work done
by
different
persons
in
different
organizations, or even in the same
organization. Differentiation in pay scales
of persons holding same posts and
performing similar work on the basis of
difference in the degree of responsibility,
reliability and confidentiality would be a
valid differentiation. The judgment of
administrative authorities concerning the
responsibilities which attach to the post,
and the degree of reliability expected of
an incumbent, would be a value judgment
of the authorities concerned which, if
arrived at bona fide, reasonably and
rationally, was not open to interference by
the court." (Para-16)

16. In State of Haryana and others
v. Charanjit Singh and others, AIR 2006
SC 161 in para 17 the Apex Court
observed as under: -

"Having considered the authorities
and the submissions we are of the view
that the authorities in the cases of Jasmer
Singh, Tilak Raj, Orissa University of
Agriculture & Technology and Tarun K.
Roy
lay
down
the
correct
law.
Undoubtedly, the doctrine of "equal pay
for equal work" is not an abstract doctrine
and is capable of being enforced in a
Court of law. But equal pay must be for
equal work of equal value. The principle
of "equal pay for equal work" has no
mechanical application in every case.
Article
14
permits
reasonable
classification
based
on
qualities
or
characteristics of persons recruited and
grouped together, as against those who
were left out. Of course, the qualities or
characteristics must have a reasonable
relation to the object sought to be
achieved. In service matters, merit or
experience can be a proper basis for
classification for the purposes of pay in
order
to
promote
efficiency
in
administration. A higher pay scale to
avoid stagnation or resultant frustration
for lack of promotional avenues is also an
acceptable reason for pay differentiation.
The very fact that the person has not gone
through the process of recruitment may
itself, in certain cases, make a difference.
If the educational qualifications are
different, then also the doctrine may have
no application. Even though persons may
do the same work, their quality of work
may differ. Where persons are selected by
a Selection Committee on the basis of
merit with due regard to seniority a higher
pay scale granted to such persons who are
evaluated by competent authority cannot
be challenged. A classification based on
difference in educational qualifications
justifies a difference in pay scales. A mere
nomenclature designating a person as say
a carpenter or a craftsman is not enough
3 All] Baldeo Singh V. The State of U.P. and others
935
to come to the conclusion that he is doing
the same work as another carpenter or
craftsman in regular service. The quality
of work which is produced may be
different and even the nature of work
assigned may be different. It is not just a
comparison of physical activity. The
application of the principle of "equal pay
for equal work" requires consideration of
various dimensions of a given job. The
accuracy required and the dexterity that
the job may entail may differ from job to
job. It cannot be judged by the mere
volume of work. There may be qualitative
difference as regards reliability and
responsibility. Functions may be the same
but the responsibilities made a difference.
Thus normally the applicability of this
principle must be left to be evaluated and
determined by an expert body. These are
not matters where a writ court can lightly
interfere. Normally a party claiming equal
pay for equal work should be required to
raise a dispute in this regards." (Para
17)(emphasis added).

17. Recently, in State of Bihar and
others v. Bihar State + 2 Lecturers
Association and others, AIR 2007 SC
1948 the Hon'ble Apex Court referring to
its earlier judgments has stated that the
doctrine of equal pay for equal work
should not be applied in casual manner.
Though it is a doctrine well established in
service jurisprudence and also is a
concomitant
of
Article
14
of
the
Constitution but equal pay depends not
only on the nature or volume of work but
also on quality of work as regards
reliability and response etc. In S.C.
Chandra
and
others
v.
State
of
Jharkhand and others, JT 2007 (10) SC
272 dated 21.8.2007 the Hon'ble Apex
Court held that ''to attract the principle of
''equal pay for equal' work one must
satisfy the basis that he is performing
equal and identical work as is being
discharged by others against him.

18. His lordship Hon'ble Markandey
Katju, J in his separate but concurring
judgment in S.C. Chandra and others
(supra) has observed as under: -

"Equal pay for equal work' is a
concept,
which
requires
for
its
applicability, complete and wholesale
identity between a group of employees
claiming identical pay scales and the other
group of employees, who have already
earned such pay scale. The problem about
equal pay cannot always be translated into
mathematical formula".

19. His lordship has also observed
that grant of pay scale is purely executive
function and the Court should not
interfere with the same. It may have a
cascading effect creating all kinds of
problem
for
the
government
and
authority, hence the court should exercise
judicial restraint and should not interfere
in such executive functions. In para 26 of
the judgment S.C. Chandra and others
(supra) his Lordship further held as
under:-

"In our opinion, fixing pay scale by
courts by applying the principle of equal
pay for equal work upsets the high
Constitutional principle of separation of
powers between the three organs of the
State. Realizing this, this Court has in
recent
years
avoided
applying
the
principle of equal pay for equal work,
unless there is complete and wholesale
identity between the two groups (and
there too the matter should be sent for
examination by an expert committee
936 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
appointed by the Government instead of
the Court itself granting higher pay.)

20. Same view was reiterated by his
Lordship in Canteen Mazdoor Sabha v.
Metallurgical Engineering Consultants
(I) Ltd. and others, JT 2007 (10) SC 292
and recently, in Union of India and
others v. Hiranmoy Sen and others (Civil
Appeal No.7232 of 2003) decided on
12.10.2007.

21. In view of the aforesaid
exposition of law and considering the
facts that the qualification, nature of work
etc. of the Lab Assistant (Ayurved) and
Lab Assistant (Rural) both cannot be said
to be identical in any manner, in our view,
the petitioner cannot invoke the above
principle being situated differently. We,
therefore, do not find any factual or legal
error in the judgment of the Hon'ble
Single Judge impugned in this appeal
warranting interference.

22. The appeal is devoid of merit
and is hereby dismissed. No order as to
costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.09.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. POONAM SRIVASTAVA, J.

Criminal Misc. Application No. 20834 of
2007

Adesh Kumar and another
...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P.

...Opposite party

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Prabha Shankar Pandey

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 51Release
of
Vehicle-Vehicle
having
temporary
registration-involve
in
accident-punishment
of
driver-cannot
come in the way of release of vehicle-for
in definite period-Magistrate ought to
have exercised such power promptlydirection issued for release of vehicle in
favour of owner or insurer within 15
Days.

Held: Para 8

In view of decisions of the Apex Court, I
quash
the
impugned
orders
dated
16.9.2006 and 10.1.2007 passed by the
Judicial Magistrate and the Session
Judge respectively and direct the courts
concerned
to
release
Chassis
No.
426021AUZ200824.
Engine
no.
50A62380439
vide
temporary
registration no. JH-O5 C-49977 in favour
of the applicants either Adesh Kumar or
Tata Motors forthwith within a period of
15 days from the date a certified copy of
this order is produced before him.
Case law relied on:
2003(43) ACC 223
1997(14) ACC 220 (SC)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Poonam Srivastav, J.)

1. Heard Sri Prabha Shanker
Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants
and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The order dated 16.9.2006 passed
by the Judicial Magistrate, Bhoganipur,
Kanpur Dehat in case no. 13 of 2005 is
impugned ill the instant application,
whereby an application for release of
Chassis No. 426021 AUZ200824, Engine
No.
50A62380439
vide
temporary
registration no. JH-05 C-4977 (hereinafter
referred as the vehicle in question) has
been rejected. The order rejecting release