# Ramesh Chandra & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors. 132 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES - **Citation:** (2020) 8 ILRA 131 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2020 - **Case number:** Wrti A No. 56660 of 2011 - **Bench:** Sudhir Agarwal, Rajeev Misra - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ramesh-chandra-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-132-indian-law-reports-allahabad-series-46000 - **Pages:** 24 ## Headnote A. Service Law - U.P. Agricultural Produce Market Commodities (Centralized Service) Regulations, 1984 - Regulation 4 - Pay Parity - Equal Pay for Equal Work - - Equal Pay for Equal Work is not an abstract doctrine but has been applied only when all relevant factors and considerations in comparative posts are same. (Para 25) The Petitioners being the Secretaries in various Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samities are seeking parity in condition of employment in particular pay scale of Secretaries irrespective of size, quantum of transaction and other business carried out in such Samities. (Para 3) A perusal of Rules and Regulations makes it clear that the Rule framing authority contemplated a specific hierarchy of Secretaries at different levels and for recruitment thereto different qualifications, eligibility conditions etc. have been provided. The appointment and posting of Secretaries belong to different cadres depends upon various factors. Thus it is always open to rule framing authority to provide different pay scales and hierarchy of their employees taking into account relevant factors justifying such creation of hierarchy and different pay scales and grade. In view of this, ex-facie, the scheme can neither be said to be irrationalnor it violates any right enshrined under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (Para 24) Writ Petition Rejected. (E-10) List of cases cited:- ## Text _Characters 0–39,918 of 72,885. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39918 for what follows._ 8 All. Ramesh Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 131 employee would get a status which would enable him to obtain a declaration for continuance in service, if he was dismissed or discharged contrary to the regulations. Court said that what is misconduct must be specifically provided in the rules and terms and conditions of service. Any vague or general words cannot be imported to impose punishment upon an employee holding him guilty of misconduct which is not specified as such under the rules prescribed in misconduct. 47. Again in Glaxo Laboratories (I.) Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut, AIR 1984 SC 505, Court has held : - "everything which is required to be prescribed has to be prescribed with precision and, no argument can be entertained that something not prescribed can yet be taken into account as varying what is prescribed. In short it cannot be left to the vagaries of management to say ex post facto that some acts of omission or commission nowhere found to be enumerated in the relevant standing order is nonetheless a misconduct not strictly failing within the enumerated misconduct in the relevant standing order but yet a misconduct for the purpose of imposing a penalty." (para 23) 48. In Rasiklal Vaghajibhai Patel vs. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Anr. (1985)2 SCC 35, Court said : "It is thus well-settled that unless either in the Certified Standing Order or in the service regulations an act or omission is prescribed as misconduct, it is not open to the employer to fish out some conduct as misconduct and punish the workman even though the alleged misconduct would not be comprehended in any of the enumerated misconduct. " (Emphasis added) 49. Above decision has been followed by a learned Single Judge in Santosh Kumar Shukla vs. Syndicate Bank 2014(5) ADJ 370 where, in para 24 of judgment Court has said: "Supreme Court in Rasiklal Vaghajibhai Patel case (supra) held that it is necessary for the employer to prescribe what would be a misconduct so that the workman/employee knows the pit falls, he should guard against. The misconduct has to be defined and enumerated. " (Emphasis added) 50. In view of above discussion, punishment and appellate orders cannot be sustained. 51. Writ petition is allowed. Order of punishment dated 26.5.2004 and Appellate order dated 15.12.2012/05.01.2013 (Annexures 12 and 16 to the writ petition respectively) are set aside. Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefit and also cost, which I quantify to Rs.25,000/-. ---------- (2020)08ILR A131 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.02.2020 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. THE HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J. Wrti A No. 56660 of 2011 Ramesh Chandra & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents 132 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Shashindra Tripathi, Sri Dharm Vir Singh, Sri Shekhar Srivastava, Sri V.D. Dubey Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C., Sri Sathis Mandhyan, Sri Suresh C. Dwivedi, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi A. Service Law - U.P. Agricultural Produce Market Commodities (Centralized Service) Regulations, 1984 - Regulation 4 - Pay Parity - Equal Pay for Equal Work - - Equal Pay for Equal Work is not an abstract doctrine but has been applied only when all relevant factors and considerations in comparative posts are same. (Para 25) The Petitioners being the Secretaries in various Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samities are seeking parity in condition of employment in particular pay scale of Secretaries irrespective of size, quantum of transaction and other business carried out in such Samities. (Para 3) A perusal of Rules and Regulations makes it clear that the Rule framing authority contemplated a specific hierarchy of Secretaries at different levels and for recruitment thereto different qualifications, eligibility conditions etc. have been provided. The appointment and posting of Secretaries belong to different cadres depends upon various factors. Thus it is always open to rule framing authority to provide different pay scales and hierarchy of their employees taking into account relevant factors justifying such creation of hierarchy and different pay scales and grade. In view of this, ex-facie, the scheme can neither be said to be irrationalnor it violates any right enshrined under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (Para 24) Writ Petition Rejected. (E-10) List of cases cited:- 1. Randhir Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors. (1982) 1 SCC 618 2. R.D. Gupta & ors. Vs Lt. Governor, Delhi Administration & ors. (1987) 3 SCC 505 3. Federation of All India Customs & Central excise Stenographers & ors. Vs U.O.I. & ors. (1988) 3 SCC 91 4. Jaipal & ors. Vs St. of Hary. & ors. (1988) 3 SCC 354 5. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs J.P. Chaurasia & ors. (1989) 1 SCC 121 6. Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union Vs U.O.I. & ors. JT 1991 (1) SC 60 7. Jaghnath Vs U.O.I. AIR 1992 SC 126 8. Secretary, Finance Department & ors. Vs West Bengal Registration Service Association & ors. AIR 1992 SC 1203 9. St. of M.P. & anr. Vs Pramod Bhartiya & ors. (1993) 1 SCC 539 10. Shyam Babu Verma & ors. Vs U.O.I. & ors. (1994) 2 SCC 521 11. Sher Singh & ors. Vs U.O.I. & ors. (1995) 6 SCC 515 12. U.O.I. and ors. Vs Delhi Judicial Service Assn. & anr. JT 1995 (2) SC 578 13. Sita Devi & ors. Vs St. of Hary. & ors. JT 1996 (7) SC 438 14. The St. of Mysore & anr. Vs P. Narasinga Rao AIR 1968 SC 349 15. St. of J.& K. Vs Triloki Nath Khosa AIR 1974 SC 1 16. P. Murugesan & ors. Vs St. of T.N. 1993 (2) SCC 340 17. St. of Hary. Vs Jasmer Singh & ors. AIR 1997 SC 1788: 1997 (1) AWC2.145 (SC) (NOC) 18. Garhwal Jal Sansthan Karamchari Union & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (1997) SCC 24 19. St. of Raj. Vs Kunji Raman AIR 1997 SC 693 8 All. Ramesh Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 133 20. U.O.I. & ors. Vs Pradip Kumar Dey (2000) 8 SCC 580: 2001 (1) AWC 176 (SC) 21. St. of Orissa & ors. Vs Balaram Sahu & ors. (2003) 1 SCC 250: 2003 (1) AWC 273 (SC) 22. State of Hayana & anr. Vs Haryaa Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assoc. (2002) 6 SCC 72: 2002 (3) AWC 2477 (SC) 23. S.B.I. & anr. Vs M.R. Ganesh Babu and ors. (2002) 4 SCC 556 24. S.B.I. & ors. Vs Gurdeep Kumar Uppal & ors. AIR 2001 SC 2691 25. St. of Pun. & ors. Vs Ishar Singh & ors. AIR 2002 SC 2422 26. Punjab State Electricity Board & ors. Vs Jagjiwan Ram & ors. JT 2009 (3) SC 400 27. U.O.I. & anr. Vs Mahajabeen Akhtar AIR 2008 SC 435 28. Haryana State Electricity & anr. Vs Gulshan Lal & ors. JT 2009 (9) SC 95 29. State of Hary. & ors. Vs Charanjit Singh & ors. AIR 2006 SC 161 30. U.O.I. & ors. Vs Dineshan K. K. AIR 2008 SC 1026 31. Harayana State Minor Irrigation Tubewells Corporation & ors. Vs G.S. Uppal and ors. AIR 2008 SC 2152 32. F.C.I. & ors Vs Ashish Kumar ganguli & ors. 2009 (8) SCALE 218 33. St. of Punj. & anr. Vs Surjit Singh & ors. (2009) 9 SCC 514 34. St. of M.P. & ors. Vs Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (2009) 13 SCC 635 35. A.K. Behra Vs U.O.I. & anr. JT 2010 (5) SC 290 36. St. of Raj. & ors. Vs Daya Lal & ors. (2011) 2 SCC 429 37. Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh & ors. Vs Mrs. Manju Mathur & anr. JT 2011 (3) SC 179 38. Hukum Chand Gupta Vs Director General, I.C.A.R. & ors. AIR 2013 SC 547 39. S. H. Baig & ors. Vs St. of M.P. & ors. (2018) 10 SCC 621 40. General Manager, Electrical Rengali Hydro Electric Project, Orissa & ors. Vs Giridhari Sahu & ors. (2019) 10 SCC 674 41. SAIL. & ors. Vs Jaggu & ors. (2019) 7 SCC 658 (Delivered by Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J. & Hon'ble Rajeev Misra, J.) 1. Heard Sri Dharm Vir Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Surech Chand Dwivedi, Advocate for Respondents-2 to 4. 2. This is an old writ petition of 2011 and despite repeated request learned counsel for petitioners did not advance any argument and in these circumstances we ourselves have gone through the writ petition. 3. Petitioners are all Secretaries in various Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samities in State of U.P. A writ of mandamus has been prayed by petitioners to seek parity in condition of employment, in particular pay scale of Secretaries of all Mandi Samities working under U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, irrespective of size, quantum of transaction and other business carried out in such Samities. It is stated that various Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samities established in State of U.P. have been categorised in four categories, i.e., A Class Mandi Samities, B 134 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Class Mandi Samities, C Class Mandi Samities and D Class Mandi Samities. Secretaries posted in said Mandi Samities have been categorized according to aforesaid categories of Mandi Samities, i.e., Secretaries Grade-I, II, III and IV. Secretaries Grade IV are liable to be posted in D Class Mandi Samities, Secretaries Grade III are liable to be posted in Grade C Mandi Samities and so on. 4. The basic contention of petitioners is that duties, responsibilities and work performed by said Secretaries are similar, therefore, they are entitled to be treated at par and should be given a common and same pay scale applying the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and on the basis of categorization of Mandis no further classification should be made in respect of categories of Secretaries and there should be no difference in pay scales. 5. Petitioners have also challenged validity of Regulation 4 of U.P. Agricultural Produce Market Committees (Centralized Service) Regulations, 1984 (hereinafter referred to "Regulations, 1984") as ultra vires and violative of Articles 14 and 16 and doctrine of "equal pay for equal work". 6. The record shows that earlier one, Shahzade, came to this Court in Writ Petition No. 2742 of 2000 claiming that he was entitled for highest pay scale admissible to the post of Secretary on the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and prayed for a mandamus to respondents to grant the same. Vide judgment dated 27.02.2000 writ petition was decided requiring Chairman, U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad (hereinafter referred to as "Chairman, UPRKUMP") to decide his representation. Representation was rejected by Chairman vide order dated 22.05.2001. Same was challenged by Sri Shahzade, a Secretary in Mandi Samiti, in Writ Petition No. 30319 of 2001 which was decided vide judgment dated 23.04.2002. It was allowed. On behalf of U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad (hereinafter referred to as "UPRKUMP") a review petition was filed but the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 23.05.2003. UPRKUMP brought the matter to Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5289-5290 of 2004 (Chairman, Rajay Krishi Utpadan Nandi Parishad and others vs. Shahjade) which were allowed vide judgment dated 03.05.2011 and judgment of this Court was set aside. The judgment of Supreme Court dated 03.05.2011 reads as under: "These appeals are directed against orders dated 23.04.2002 and 23.05.2003 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 30319 of 2001 and Civil Miscellaneous Review Petition No. 104056 of 2002 whereby the High Court directed the appellants to fix the pay of the respondent in the scale of Rs. 2000-3000 with effect from 1.1.1986 with consequential benefits and dismissed the review petition filed by the appellants. Respondent No. 3, who was then holding the post of Secretary Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samit, Baberu (Banda) filed Writ Petition No. 2742/2000 for issue of a direction to the functionaries of Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, Uttar Pradesh (for short, "the Parshad") to fix his pay in the higher scale of pay. 8 All. Ramesh Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 135 The same was disposed of by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court with a direction that the concerned authority shall decide the representation. In compliance of the direction given by the High Court, Director of the Prishad passed detained order dated 22.5.2001 and rejected the respondent's claim for fixation of his pay in the scale of Rs. 3,000-4,500. The respondent challenged the aforesaid order in Writ Petition No. 30319/2001, which was allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court in the manner indicated hereinabove. The appellants sought review of order dated 23.04.2002 but could not persuade the High Court to entertain the same. We have heard Smt. Shobha Dikshit, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri S.R. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent. If is not in dispute that the conditions of service of the persons holding the posts of Secretaries are governed by the Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Produce Market Committees (Centralised) Service Regulations, 1984 (for short, "the Regulations"). Regulation 4 thereof, insofar as it relevant for deciding these appeals reads as under: "4. Creation of Centralized Service-With effect from the commencement of these regulations there shall be a centralized service for the market Committes consisting of the cadres and posts given below: 1. Secretaries- (a) Secretaries, Class-I (b) Secretaries, Class-II (c) Secretaries, Class III, Grade-I (d) Secretaries, Class III, Grade-II (e) Secretaries, Class III, Grade-III." A glance at the above reproduced Regulation makes it clear that there are different classes and grades of Secretaries of the Market Committees. The High Court did not strike down classification of the cadre of Secretaries and yet directed the appellants to fix the respondent's pay in the higher scale. This, in our considered view, was legally impermissible. Learned counsel for the respondent fairly states that without striking down Regulation 4, the High Court could not have ordained fixing of his client's pay in the higher scale. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal of the writ petition. It will be open to the respondent to seek amendment of the writ petition for the purpose of challenging the vires of Regulation 4 and other related provisions. If such an application is filed, the High Court shall decide the same after giving notice to the appellants." (emphasis added) 7. We are informed by learned counsel for respondents that above Writ Petition No. 30319 of 2001 has ultimately been decided by this Court by a detailed judgment dated 22.01.2014. This Court has repelled challenge to vires of Regulation 4 of Regulations, 1984. 8. It appears that petitioners of this writ petition, also came to this Court earlier in Writ Petition No. 3369 of 2004 136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES wherein present petitioners were arrayed as Petitioners-2, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19. They also challenged validity of Regulation 4 of Regulations, 1984 as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution on the ground of equal pay for equal work. A Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 24.05.2006 considered the matter in detail and dismissed writ petition vide judgment dated 24.05.2006. These very petitioners filed appeal in Supreme Court, i.e., Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 18674 of 2006 which also appears to have been heard by Supreme Court on 03.05.2011 alongwith Civil Appeal No. 5289-5290 of 2004 and appeal of present petitioners was allowed to be withdrawn but with further observing that petitioners may file a fresh writ petition and the same shall be decided without being influenced by the reasons incorporated in the judgment impugned in appeal before Supreme Court, i.e., judgment dated 24.05.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 3369 of 2004. 9. We have, therefore, considered the matter independently and proceed to decide the same on the basis of record and relevant statutes. 10. Petitioners are working as Secretaries in different grades in various Mandi Samities. The matter is governed by U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1964"). Aforesaid Act was enacted by State Legislature providing for the regulation of sale and purchase of agricultural produce and for the establishment, superintendence and control of markets in the State of U.P. The legislature by its experience found that Farmers and Agricultural Producers were being exploited in Agricultural Produce Markets in different ways causing not only undue exactions but also lesser share of agricultural produce to the Owners. In the matter of dispute, the Producers used to suffer due to disadvantageous position lacking bargaining power. They also suffer due to user of defective weights and scales in the market. The Producers used to be denied lion's share of their produce. The situation was causing lot of dissatisfaction amongst the Farmers citizen of State attracting Government to consider the matter and take care by providing suitable legislation. Even Planning Commission recommended for a legislation in respect of regulation of market in pursuant whereto many other States enacted such laws. Ultimately U.P. Legislature enacted Act, 1964. The broad outlines and objective as mentioned in statement of object and reasons were as under:- (i) to reduce the multiple trade chares, levies and exactions charged at present from the producer-sellers; (ii) to provide for the verification of accurate weights and scales and see that the producer-seller is not denied his legitimate due; (iii) to establish market committees in which the agricultural producer will have his due representation; (iv) to ensure that the agricultural producer has his say in the utilization of market funds for the improvement of the market as a whole; (v) to provide for fair settlement of disputes relating to the sale of agricultural produce; (vi) to provide amenities to the producer-seller in the market; 8 All. Ramesh Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 137 (vii) to arrange for better storage facilities; (viii) to stop inequitable and unauthorized charges and levies from the producer-seller; and (ix) to make adequate arrangements for market intelligence with a view to posting the agricultural producer with the latest position in respect of the markets dealing with his produce." 11. Section 12 of Act, 1964 provides for establishment and incorporation of Mandi Samiti of a Market Area declared under Sections 5 and 6 of Act. Section 13 of Act provides for constitution of Committee and Section 23 provides for appointment of officers and servants of Mandi Samiti, which includes Secretaries of Committee. It provides that every committee shall have a Secretary and such other officers as may be considered necessary by Board for efficient discharge of functions of Committee, appointed by Board on such terms and conditions as being provided in Regulations, made by it. 12. It was amended vide U.P. Act No. 10 of 1991, w.e.f. 01.09.1990 and Section 23 (2), thereafter, read as under:- Section 23 (2)- Every Committee shall have such number of secretaries and such other officers as may be considered necessary by the Board for the efficient discharge of the functions of the Committee, appointed by the Board on such terms and conditions as may be provided for in the regulations made by it. 13. Section 23-A was inserted by U.P. Act No. 13 of 1973 and re-enacted by U.P. Act No. 30 of 1974 providing Constitution of Centralized service and transfer of employees. The said Section is reproduced herein as under- "Section 23-A. Constitution of Centralized service and transfer of employees:-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, the Board may constitute cadres of secretaries and such other officers common to all Committees as it may deem fit to appoint under sub-section (2) of Section 23. (2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2-B)- (a) every person, other than a government servant, serving in any Committee on deputation, who holds a post comprised in the cadre referred to in sub-section (1), and (b) every Government servant, serving in any Committee on deputation on a post in the said cadre, who is not found to be unsuitable, suitability being determined in such manner as may be laid down in regulations, shall on and from the date of the constitution of the said cadre (hereinafter in this section to be referred to as the said date) become member of the cadre on the terms and conditions mentioned in sub-section (2-A). 14. Section 24 provides for functions, powers and duties of the 'Secretary'. Section 24 as amended vide U.P. Act 10 of 1991 is reproduced as under:- "24. Functions, powers and duties of the Secretary-(1) The secretary of a committee shall be its chief executive officer, and shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, perform such 138 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES functions exercise such powers and discharge such duties, as may be prescribed, or provided for in the byelaws or as the Board or the Director may, by order in writing direct: Provided that when more than one secretaries are posted in a Committee, the Director shall nominate one of the Secretaries to be its chief executive officer and shall determine the functions to be performed, powers to be exercised and duties to be discharged by each of them. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions, but subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules and bye-laws made thereunder, the Secretary shall. (a) -exercise all powers of superintendence and control over- (i) all officers and servants of the Committee so as to ensure less proper and efficient discharge of the duties assigned to them less by or under this Act; and (ii) the affairs of the Committee; (b) report cases of neglect, misconduct or dereliction of duty by an employee of the Committee to the appointing authority for necessary action, and where so empowered, take disciplinary action against any of the employees of the Committee; (c) ensure proper execution of all orders issued by the Board, the Chairman or the Committee; (d) ensure proper maintenance of- (i) accounts of all money received and of all moneys expended for and on behalf of the Committee; (ii) records of disputes coming up for decision under this Act or the rules or bye-laws framed thereunder; and (iii) a record of the disputes settled by him in such form as may be prescribed. (3) All licenses under this Act shall be issued under his signatures." 15. Section 25-A provides for prescription of terms and conditions of employment of officers and servants of Committees by Regulations. Section 40 confers powers upon State Government to frame Rules. 16. Exercising Rule framing power, State Government has enacted U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Niyamavali 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1965"). Chapter V of Rules, 1965 deals with the officers and servants of the Committee. Prior to 30.6.1984, Rule 59 reads as under:- "59- Secretary of the Market Committee-(Section 23)--(1) Persons who are approved by the public Service Commission U.P. for a post in U.P. Subordinate Agriculture Service and possess at least two years experience in Agricultural Marketing and have successfully completed one years Training course in Agricultural Marketing or the training course of market Secretary organized by the Directorate of Marketing and Inspection, Government of India, shall be eligible for appointment s Secretary of the market committee. (2) The cadre of Secretary shall have the following three grades namely; (a) Grade I-For A Class Markets. 8 All. Ramesh Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 139 (b) Grade II-For B Class Markets. (c) Grade III-For C Class Markets. (3) The scale of pay of the market Secretary in each grade shall be such as may be approved by the State Government and shall carry the usual allowances as may be admissible to Government Servants of the State in corresponding scales of pay from time to time. (4) The Seniority of the incumbents in each grade of the cadre of market secretary shall be reckoned from the date of the order of their first appointment as secretary in that grade, but in case the date of appointment of two or more incumbents as secretary in any grade is same, their seniority shall be in accordance with the order of their appointment. (5) The secretary shall be liable to be transferred from one market committee to another in any part of the state by the appointing authority and his transfer traveling allowances shall be borne by the committee to which he is transferred. (6) The secretary shall be entitled to raveling allowance as admissible to the Government servants of the state in the corresponding scales of pay. (7) The secretary of every committee shall be governed by such rules and regulations as are applicable to Government Servants on foreign services as laid down in Fundamental Rules 110 to 127 of Financial Handbook volume II Part-II" 17. Vide notification dated 30.06.1984, the entire Rule 59 was substituted as under- "59- Secretary of the Market Committee (Section 23)-- That qualifications, method of recruitment and other conditions of service of the secretaries and other officers and employees of centralized service constituted under section 23-A shall be such as may be laid down by Regulations." (emphasis added) 18. Rule 60 provides qualifications, designations, grades, salaries and allowance of the posts of officers and servants whose appointing authority is Committee and to be approved by Director. 19. Rule 63 provides functions, powers and duties of Secretary, which is reproduced herein as under- "63. Functions, powers and duties of the Secretary (section 24)-(1) The Secretary shall be the Chief Executive Officer of the Market Committee and shall carry into effect the resolutions of the Market Committee. (2) All other officers and servants of the Committee shall be subject to his control. He shall also be responsible for directing their work in such manner as to ensure proper and efficient working of the Market committee. (3) It shall be the duty of the Secretary to supervise the work of the officers and servants of the committee and to take necessary disciplinary action against any of the officers and servants of the committee for their neglect, misconduct, dereliction of duty etc. subject to the approval of the Chairman of the Committee. 140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES (4) The secretary shall be responsible for the proper execution of all orders issued by the Chairman or the Committee. He shall take or cause action to be taken against any of the officers and servants of the Committee in accordance with the directions given by the Chairman of the Committee. (5) Subject to the control of the Chairman, or in his absence of the viceChairman of the Market Committee, the secretary shall be responsible for maintaining proper accounts of money received and/or expended for or on behalf of the Committee. (6) The Secretary shall conduct all routine correspondence and attend to other office work and all correspondence with the Director or Officers subordinate to the Director shall be conducted through the Chairman or with the previous approval of the Chairman. (7) The Secretary shall be responsible for maintaining complete records of all the disputes, which come up for decision before the Disputes SubCommittee in such manner as may be specified in the bye-laws of the Committee. (8) The Secretary shall maintain a record of the disputes settled by him in the form and manner as may be specified in the bye-laws of the Committee. (9) On receipt of a complaint either written or oral regarding any matter concerning sale or purchase of specified agricultural produce in the Market Area, the Secretary shall conduct an enquiry and shall make a report of he same to the Chairman for taking such action as he may think necessary in accordance with the provisions of the Act, these rules and the bye-laws. (10) It shall be the duty of the Secretary to ensue that proper payments to sellers in the Market Yards are made and no irregularities in making weighment of the specified agricultural produce in the Market Yards are committed. (11) The secretary shall advise the Committee and its Chairman in all matters elating to the regulation of the sale and purchase of agricultural produce in the light of the provisions of the Act, these rules and the bye-laws framed thereunder and his opinion shall be recorded in the proceedings of the Committee. (12) The Secretary shall grant casual leave to the officers and servants of the Committee. For other kinds of leave the Secretary shall recommended he same to the Chairman who shall take action to sanction such leave in accordance with the leave rules applicable to officers and servants of the Committee. (13) The Secretary shall submit to the Chairman by thirtieth April each year his annual confidential remarks in respect of the work and worth of the officers and servants appointed by the Committee. (14) The Secretary shall submit to the Chairman his recommendations in respect of the annual increments of the officers and servants appointed by the Committee within thirty days from the date any such increment falls due. (15) The Secretary shall, on the orders or with the prior approval of the Chairman or on the orders of Director call meetings of the Market Committee and shall have right to attend, speak at, and otherwise take part in the meetings of the Committee; 8 All. Ramesh Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 141 Provided that the secretary shall not have the right to vote in the meetings of the committee." (emphasis added) 20. In exercise of power under Section 25-A read with 26-X of Act, 1964, Board has framed Regulations, 1984. Regulation 4 of Regulations, 1984 provides for creation of Centralized Services of Secretaries and others and prior to 05.03.1991, it reads as under- "Regulation-4: with effect from the commencement of these regulations there shall be a centralized service for the market committees consisting of the cadres and post given below- (i) Secretaries: (a)Secretaries, Grade-I, for ''A' Class Markets, (b)Secretaries, Grade-II, For ''B' Class Markets, (c)Secretaries, Grade-III, for ''C' Class Markets, (d)Secretaries, Grade-IV, for ''D' Class Market, (ii) Market Staff (a)Mandi Paryavekshak (b)Amin/Auctioneers (iii) Accounts Staff: (a)Accountant (b)Accounts Clerk (c)Cashier-cum-clerk, (iv) General Staff: (a)Head Clerk (b)Clerk-cum-Typist." 21. The aforesaid Regulation 4 was amended on 05.03.1991 and in respect of Secretaries it was substituted as under- 1. Secretaries. (a) Secretaries Grade -I (b) Secretaries Grade -II (c) Secretaries Grade -III Class I (d) Secretaries Grade -III Class II (e) Secretaries Grade -III Class III 22. However after amendment of 1991 in Regulation 4, it appears that corresponding amendment in regulation 13 has not been made and it continue to read as under:- "13 Quota.-Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) recruitment to various categories of posts in the cadres of the service shall be made from the source and in the proportion indicated below: S.No Name of post Source and method of Recruitmen t Percentage 1. Secret ary, Grade IV Direct recruitmen t 100 2. Secret ary, Grade III By promotion of secretary grade IV, who has put in at least 5 years continuous service as such (Not being service on ad hoc basis) as on the first day of year of recruitmen t. By promotion of Mndi 75 25 142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES Paryveksh ak who has put in at least 5 years continuous service as such of year of recruitmen t 3. Secret ary, Grade II By promotion of secretary Grade III, who has put in at least 5 years continuous service as such (not being service on ad hoc basis) as on the first day of year of recruitmen t. 100 4. Secret ary, Grade I By direct recruitmen t. By promotion secretary grade II, who has put in at least 5 years continuous service as such (not being service on ad hoc basis) as on the first day of the year of recruitmen t. 50 23. Regulation 23 provides that seniority of persons in any category or grade of any post shall be determined from the date of the order of substantive appointment. It is further stated that after 1991 and 1995 amendment of the Regulations, 1984, there are four grades of Secretaries which are as follows:- i. Secret ary Class I 3000-4500 ii Secret ary Class II 2200-4000 iii Secret ary Class III Grade I Grade II Grade III 2000-3500 1400-2600 merged with scale 1350-2200 of 1640-2900 1640-2900 w.e.f 1.10.95 24. A perusal of Rules and Regulations aforesaid makes it clear that Rule framing authority contemplated a specified hierarchy of Secretaries at different levels and for recruitment thereto different qualifications, eligibility conditions etc. have been provided. The appointment and posting of Secretaries belong to different cadres depends upon various factors, namely Mandi Samiti of highest class having highest quantum of transaction and business shall be maintained by the Secretaries working in highest grade or there may be more than one secretary in such Mandis of same grade or different grades and the Secretaries of lower grade may be posted in smaller Mandi Samitis. It is worth of notice that prior to amendment of this Act, each Mandi Samiti had to have one Secretary and therefore, classification of Mandi Samitis was also relevant and hierarchy of Secretary would have its application accordingly. However, vide 8 All. Ramesh Chandra & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 143 1991 amendment while omitting the provision pertaining to classification of Mandi Samitis, simultaneously it has been provided under Section 23 read with Section 24 of the Act that there can be more than one secretary in a Mandi Samiti and in such case Director shall have the authority to nominate one Secretary as Chief Executive Officer of a Mandi Samit. Obviously, pursuant to the existing provision, more than one Secretaries may be posted in a Mandi Samiti considering its size, quantum of business etc. Further, Director while nominating Chief Executive Officer is bound to take into account the qualifications, hierarchy of Secretaries, grade and seniority etc. working in the Mandi Samitis. In view of the aforesaid, ex-facie, the aforesaid scheme can neither be said to be irrational nor it violates any right enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is always open to the Rule framing authority to provide different pay scales and hierarchy of their employees taking into account relevant factors justifying such creation of hierarchy and different pay scale and grade. 25. The principle of equal pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine but has been applied on the facts and circumstances when it is found in all respects that two sets of employees are equally placed. Time and again what circumstances would be necessary to attract doctrine of equal pay for equal work has been examined by Supreme Court in catena of decisions and instead of referring to all aforesaid authorities, we find appropriate to refer that a Division Bench judgment dated 22.01.2014 passed in Writ Petition No. 30319 of 2001 (Shahjade vs. Chairman, Rajay Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad) where it has held as under: "So far as the challenge on the bifurcation of the cadre of Secretary under Regulation-4 on the ground that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India is concerned , we may only record that under Regulations of 1984 an hierarchy of post of Secretary's has been created. A right for being considered for promotion from lower class/grade to higher within the category of Secretaries has been provided under Regulation-10 read with Regulation-13. For a Secretary of Class-3 Grade-II to be promoted as Secretary Class-3 Grade I five years continuous service as on the first date of the year of recruitment has been provided for. The post of Secretary Class-3 Grade-I are to be filled up by way of promotion 100%. As already noticed above, the power to lay down the strength and the pay-scale to each category of posts has been conferred under Regulation -6 upon the Board and such pay-scales have to be the one as recommended from time to time and approved by the State Government. So far as the plea of violation of Article 14 is concerned, suffice it to refer the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Jasmer Singh & Ors.,(1996) 11 SCC 77, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the provisions of Article 39 (d), 14 and 16 of the Constitution and held that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not always easy to apply. There are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work done by different persons in different organisations, or even in the same organisation. there may be differences in educational or technical 144 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 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 difference in pay scales on the basis of criteria such as experience and seniority, or a need to prevent stagnation in the cadre, so that the 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. The evaluation of such jobs for the purposes of pay scale must be left to expert bodies and, unless there are any malafides, its evaluation should be accepted. In view of the aforesaid, the challenge to the classification o the ground it violates the principles of equal pay for equal work appears to be wholly misconceived. The Regulation provides hierarchy qua the different categories of post of Secretaries and merely because the Secretaries belonging to as of the categories can be posted in any Mandi Samiti because of the deletion of the categories of the modes will make no difference in the matter of salary admissible to the possible classification under Regulation-4. The order absorbing the petitioner as senior Grade III Class II dated 2.7.1996 was accepted by the petitioner by open eyes and has not been questioned even in the petition. In the totality and circumstances of the record, we do not find any substance and plea raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to the challenge to the vires of Regulation-4. In view of the aforesaid facts and the reasons recorded, we repel the challenge to the vires of Regulation-4 of the The Uttar Pradesh Agricultural Produce Market Committees (Centralised) Services Regulations, 1984. Since, the challenge to Regulation-4 fails, the question of higher pay-scale being granted to the petitioner fails. No relief can be granted. The writ petition is dismissed." (emphasis added) 26. We do not find any reason to have a different view than what has been taken in aforesaid judgment. 27. Even otherwise, we find that principle of "equal pay for equal work" is not attracted in the case in hand. Doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract doctrine but it has to be applied only when all relevant factors and considerations in comparative posts are same. 28. In Randhir Singh v.