# State of U.P. and others v. Ramesh Pratap Singh and others

- **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 228
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2003-02-28
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 328 of 1999
- **Bench:** Tarun Chatterji, C.J. R.K. Agarwal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-and-others-v-ramesh-pratap-singh-and-others-39983
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Construction of India, Article 39(a)-
Equal pay for equal work- Assistant
Machine operators of set- claimed same
pay scale of machine man off set-- both
performing same duty were given the
same pay scale at the recommendation
of 2nd pay commission report- even
samta samiti recommended the same
pay scale of Rs.1200/-1800/- for the
first time vide order dated 31.7.96 pay
scale of machine man off set enhanced -
hence is a case of removal of anomaly in
pay scale of Assistant Machine operator
of set.

Held- para 20

In the present case the parity is not
being claimed with the employees of
another Government but discrimination
meted out to the petitioners in respect of
employee of the same department who
were holding the equivalent post and
discharging the same duties is being
sought to be redressed.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1989 SC-19
AIR 1990 SC-334
AIR 1995 SC-809
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] State of U.P. and others V. Ramesh Pratap Singh and others 229
AIR 2002 SC-2197
J.T. 2002 (5) SC-189
J.T. 2002 (6) SC-369
1986 SCC (1) 637

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
228 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
Thus we are of the opinion that the
petitioner's bus is a "contract carriage"
and not "stage carriage".

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has invited our attention to a Full Bench
decision in Brijendra Chaudary vs.
State Transport Authority (AIR 1991
Alld. 300). This decision in fact supports
the view which we are taking in this case.
In para 8 of the said Full Bench judgment
it has been held that in the case of stage
carriage there is absence of prior contract
by the passenger or passengers for the
carriage to be used as a whole for fixed or
agreed sum. Instead, in case of stage
carriage when it is boarded by the
passengers on a route they pay for the
distance they propose to travel. Infact, this
Full Bench decision also supports the
view, which we are taking that the
petitioners' vehicle is not a stage carriage
but is contract carriage . This is also the
view of the Supreme Court in Roshanlal
vs. State of U.P. and others (AIR 1965
SC 991).

For the reasons given above the writ
petition fails and is dismissed.

There will be however, no order as to
costs.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.2.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN CHATTERJI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE R.K. AGARWAL, J.

Special Appeal No. 328 of 1999

State of U.P. and others
...Appellants
Versus
Ramesh Pratap Singh and others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Sabhajit Yadav
S.C.

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri H.N. Singh

Construction of India, Article 39(a)-
Equal pay for equal work- Assistant
Machine operators of set- claimed same
pay scale of machine man off set-- both
performing same duty were given the
same pay scale at the recommendation
of 2nd pay commission report- even
samta samiti recommended the same
pay scale of Rs.1200/-1800/- for the
first time vide order dated 31.7.96 pay
scale of machine man off set enhanced -
hence is a case of removal of anomaly in
pay scale of Assistant Machine operator
of set.

Held- para 20

In the present case the parity is not
being claimed with the employees of
another Government but discrimination
meted out to the petitioners in respect of
employee of the same department who
were holding the equivalent post and
discharging the same duties is being
sought to be redressed.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1989 SC-19
AIR 1990 SC-334
AIR 1995 SC-809
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] State of U.P. and others V. Ramesh Pratap Singh and others 229
AIR 2002 SC-2197
J.T. 2002 (5) SC-189
J.T. 2002 (6) SC-369
1986 SCC (1) 637

(Delivered by Hon'ble R.K. Agrawal, J.)

1. The present special appeal has
been directed against the judgment and
order dated 25.9.1998 passed by the
learned single judge in civil misc. writ
petition no. 8027 of 1992 whereby the
learned single judge has allowed the writ
petition and directed the appellants to
treat the respondents- petitioners entitled
for pay scale of Rs. 1350-30-1440-401800- EB-50-2200 from the date on
which it was admissible to employee
working in the post of Machine man
offset under the Government order dated
12.4.1990, and the balance of the amount
which has not been paid to the petitioner
for
the
period
after
12.4.1990
to
31.7.1996 shall be paid to them within a
period of six months from the date a copy
of the order passed in the said writ
petition, is filed before the appropriate
authority.

2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise
to the present special appeal are that the
respondents- writ petitioners, at the
relevant period, were posted as Assistant
Machine
Operators,
offset,
in
the
Government Press, Ram Nagar district
Varanasi. Prior to July 1979, the pay scale
relating to the posts of Assistant Machine
Operators, Offset and Machine man
Offset were treated to be equivalent posts
and the pay scale for both the posts were
same at Rs.200-320. The pay scale was
revised at Rs.354-550 pursuant to the
recommendation made by the 2nd Pay
Commission. The Equivalence Committee
(Samta Samiti) which was constituted by
the State Government vide order dated
14.10. 1988 also recommended the same
pay scale for both the posts which was
accepted by the State Government and
vide order dated 21.8.1989, the same pay
scale was stipulated for two posts. The
post of Assistant Machine Operators
offset was shown at serial no. 63,
whereas the post of Machine Man offset
was shown at serial no. 65. The pay scale
recommended for these two posts was at
Rs.1200-30-1440 EB-30-1800.

3.

It
appears
that
on
the
representation made by the employees
working on the post of machine man
offset, the Government order dated
21.8.1989, was modified vide order dated
12.4.1990 and the pay scale for the post of
machine man offset shown at serial no. 65
in the Government order dated 21.8.1989,
was enhanced to Rs. 1350-30-1440-401800-EB-50-2200. However the pay scale
for the post of Assistant Machine
Operator offset, which was shown at
serial no. 63, remained unchanged. Thus,
the parity in the pay scale of two posts,
was, for the first time disturbed on
12.4.1990. The respondents- petitioners
made representation ,but no action was
taken by the State Government. However,
vide Government order dated 1.7.1996,
the pay scale for the post of Assistant
Machine Operator offset, was made at par
with that of machine man offset and the
grievance of the respondents- petitioners
before the learned single judge, was that
two posts ought to have been equated
with similar pay scale from 12.4.1990
itself, when the pay scale of machine man
offset , was enhanced.

4. The Appellants had filed counter
affidavit before the learned single judge
wherein
they
had
admitted
the
discriminatory
nature
of pay
scale.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
Paragraph 5,6 and 8 of the said counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the State
Government in the writ petition are
reproduced below :

"5. That the Pay Commission in its
recommendation dated 31.8.1989 had
provided the same pay scale of both the
posts.

6. That the order dated 12.4.1990 is
discriminatory in nature as the pay scale
of machine man offset has been revised to
Rs. 1350-2200 whereas the post held by
the petitioners being of the same cadre
and bearing the same pay scale from
before, has been left out.

8.
That so far as the claim of the
petitioners
regarding
payment
of
difference and pay is concerned, it is
submitted that the same cannot be granted
to them for the reasons firstly that no
entitlement ever accrued in their favour
and secondly if particular cadre has been
wrongly benefited , the other cadres not
so benefited, would not be entitled to
claim difference of pay. The disparity
does not create any right for such claim
and the same having been removed by the
order dated 31.7.1996, the grievance of
the petitioners has been redressed and no
other dispute relating to payment of
difference amount can be raised by the
petitioners. '

5. The learned single judge, came to
the
conclusion
that
admittedly,
the
employees working on both the posts
namely Assistant Machine Operators
offset and Machine Man offset were being
paid same pay scale which uniformity was
maintained in the recommendation made
by the pay commission and the pay
committee at the time of revision and,
therefore, it is not a case of a particular
cadre having been wrongly benefited
with the enhancement in the pay scale..
The State Government, realizing its
mistake granted the same pay scale to the
Assistant Machine operator offset w.e.f.
1.7.1996 and, there was no reason as to
why it denied the benefit of the said pay
scale
from
12.4.1990
which
the
employees working in the post of
Machine Man offset were getting.

6. We have heard Sri Sabhajit Yadav
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
the
appellants and Sri H.N. Singh learned
counsel for the respondents.

7. The learned Standing Counsel
submitted that the post of Assistant
Machine Operators offset and Machine
Man offset are different posts and the
employees in two posts are discharging
different duties, thus, there was no
question of granting similar pay scale of
machine man offset to the employees
working on the post of Assistant Machine
Operator offset.

8. He further submitted that it was
the sole discretion and within the
exclusive
domain
of
the
State
Government to grant any particular pay
scale to a particular posts and thus, the
Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
should not interfere in such matters.

9. In support of these contentions, he
relied upon the following decisions
mentioned below :

(i)
State of U.P. and others vs.
J.P. Chaurasia and others,
AIR 1989 SC 19
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] State of U.P. and others V. Ramesh Pratap Singh and others 231
(ii)
Supreme Court employees
Welfare
Association
vs.
Union of India and others,
AIR 1990 SC 334,
(iii)
State of Rajasthan vs. Gopal
Das AIR 1995 SC 809
(iv)
Union of India and others vs.
Indu Lal and others, AIR
2002 SC 2197
(v)
State of Haryana and Anr. Vs.
Haryana
Civil
Scretariat
personal Staff Association ,
JT 2002 (5) SC 189
(vi)
State of Haryana & Ors. Vs.
Jagroop Singh JT 2002 (6)
SC 369.

10. Sri H.N. Singh learned counsel
for the respondents writ petitioners
submitted that the employees working on
the two posts namely Assistant Machine
Operator offset and Machine Man offset
perform similar duties on the offset
machine and that is why, they were
granted the same pay scale. Even the 2nd
Pay Commission, also recommended the
same pay scale for these two posts. Thus,
the position in respect of these two posts
in
question,
continued
equally
till
12.4.1990.
Thereafter
on
some
representation being made, the difference
crept in. However, the State Government,
on representation being made, rectified
the mistake by granting same pay scale on
31.7.1996 and there was no reason
whatsoever to deny the benefit of the
same pay scale during the period
12.4.1990 to 31.7.1996. He submitted that
the respondents petitioners were not
claiming any parity of salary and
emoluments for the first time before this
Court as the State Government itself had
treated the two posts similar since
beginning upto 12.4.1990 and again from
1.7.1996 till date. The respondents writ
petitioners were also not claiming any
fixation of their pay scale, but, are
seeking redressal of discrimination meted
out to them which fact has also been
admitted by the State Appellants in their
counter
affidavit
as
mentioned
hereinabove. According to him the
decisions relied by the learned Standing
Counsel have no application to the facts
and circumstances of the present case.

11. Having heard the learned
counsel for the parties, we find that it is
not in dispute that the pay scale of
Assistant machine operators offset and
machine man offset was the same i.e. Rs.
200-320 prior to July 1979. The 2nd Pay
Commission also recommended the same
pay scale for these two posts at Rs.354550.
The
Equivalence
Committee
constituted under the Government order
dated 14.10.1988 also recommended the
equal pay scale for two posts at Rs. 12000-1440 EB-30-1800 which report was
accepted by the State Government vide
order dated 21.8.1989. The pay scale of
Machine Man offset, was enhanced by the
State Government vide order dated
12.4.1990 on some representation being
made by the concerned employees.
However, no enhancement in the pay
scale relating to the post of Assistant
Machine Operator offset was made, the
State Government once again vide order
dated 31.7.1996, removed the anomaly
crept into these two posts and granted the
same pay scale which was applicable to
the post of Machine Man offset. In
paragraph 5, and 6 of the counter affidavit
filed by R.N. Tripathi on behalf of the
State Appellants in the writ petition, it
admitted that the Pay Commission in its
recommendation dated 21.8.1989 had
prescribed the same pay scale to both the
posts. In paragraph 6 of the counter
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
affidavit it has been admitted that the
order dated 12.4.1990 is discriminatory in
nature as the pay scale of Machine Man
offset has been revised to Rs.1350-2200
whereas the post held by the respondent-
writ petitioners being of the same cadre
and bearing same pay scale from before
has been left out. Thus, it is admitted by
the Appellants that the posts of Machine
Man
offset
and
assistant
machine
operators offset is of the same cadre and
has been discriminated. Thus, from own
showing of the Appellants, the order
dated 12.4.1990 by which the pay scale
relating to the post of Machine Man
offset, had been enhanced leaving out the
post of assistant machine operator offset,
is discriminatory. Apart from it, the State
Government has all along been treating
these two posts as equivalent and that is
why the same pay scale was granted for
both the posts. But only in the year 1990,
vide Government order dated 12.4.1990, a
departure was made, which mistake was
corrected on 31.7.1996. No reason has
been assigned by the State Government as
to why the Assistant Machine Operators
Offset were not entitled for similar
treatment (same pay scale) which was
given to the Machine Man Offset for the
period from 12.4.1990 to 31.7.1996 when
prior to 12.3.1990 and after 31.7.1996
both the posts carried the same pay scale.
In the absence of any reason having been
put forward, the plea taken by the
Appellant that the Assistant Machine
Operator Offset cannot be granted the
same pay scale, is not sustainable.
However, the appellants accorded the
same pay scale since 31.7.1996. Thus, we
hold that the stand that if a particular
cadre has wrongly been benefited and
then other cadre shall not be benefited, is
discriminatory in nature and is hit by
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
12. In the case of State of U.P. and
others Vs. J.P. Chaurasia and others
(supra) the Hon. Supreme Court has held
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. The problem about equal
pay cannot always be translated into a
mathematical formula. If it has a rational
nexus with the object to be sought for, as
reiterated before a certain amount of value
judgment of the administrative authorities
who are charged with fixing the pay scale
has to be left with them and it cannot be
interfered with by the Court unless it is
demonstrated that either it is irrational or
based on no basis or arrived mala fide
either in law or in fact."

13. In the case of Supreme Court
Employees
Welfare
Association
Vs.
Union of India and others (supra), the
Hon. Supreme Court has held that "It
follows from the above decisions that
although the doctrine of 'equal pay for
equal work' does not come within Art. 14
of the Constitution as an abstract doctrine,
but if any classification is made relating
to the pay-scales and such classification is
unreasonable and/or if unequal pay is
based on no classification, then Art. 14
will at once be attracted and such
classification should be set at naught and
equal pay may be directed to be given for
equal work. In other words, there unequal
pay has brought about a discrimination
within the meaning of Art. 14 of the
Constitution, it will be a case of equal pay
for equal work', as envisaged by Art. 14
of the Constitution. If the classification is
proper and reasonable and has a nexus to
the object sought to be achieved, the
doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' will
not have any application even though the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] State of U.P. and others V. Ramesh Pratap Singh and others 233
persons doing the same work are not
getting the same pay. In short, so long as
it is not a case of discrimination under
Art. 14 of the Constitution, the abstract
doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work', as
envisaged by Art. 39 (d) of the
Constitution,
has
no
manner
of
application, nor is it enforceable in view
of Art.37 of the Constitution. Dhirendra
Chamoli V. State of U.P. (1986) 1 SCC
637 is a case of 'equal pay for equal work,
as envisaged by Art. 14, and not of the
abstract doctrine of equal pay for equal
work'.

14. These decisions have no
application to the facts of the present case
as
the
appellants
themselves
have
admitted the two posts to be in the same
cadre and the discrimination met out to
the Assistant Machine Operator offset
was rectified subsequently.

15. In the case of State of Rajasthan
Vs. Gopal Das (supra) the pay scale of
Upper Division Clerks of subordinate
offices was revised under the Rules from
Rs.385-650 to Rs.520-925 whereas the
existing pay scale of Upper Division
Clerks of Secretariat which was at
Rs.440-775 was revised to Rs.610-1090
w.e.f. 1.9.1981. On representation being
made by the Upper Division Clerk to the
subordinate offices, the pay scales were
made at par with the Upper Division
Clerk of the Secretariat w.e.f. 1.2.1985.
The plea taken by the Upper Division
Clerk was that they are entitled for the
same pay scale w.e.f. 1.9.1981. On these
facts, the Hon. Supreme Court held that
the notification dated 23.2.1985 relating
to the U.D.Cs. of subordinate offices was
not a issue with a view to remove any
anomaly or to make any provision for
category which was left out of the Rules.
It was a notification issued as a result of
the acceptance of the demand of the
UDCs of the subordinate offices for grant
of higher pay scale which was given to
their counterparts in the Secretariat and
the State Government was justified in
granting revised pay scale w.e.f. 1.2.1985.

16. In the present case we find that
the pay scale of Assistant Machine
Operators Offset and Machine Man Offset
was
the
same
pursuant
to
the
recommendation
of
the
Equivalence
Committee. The pay scale of Machine
Man Offset was enhanced on 12.4.1990
leaving out the pay scale of Assistant
Machine Operator Offset who were also
enjoying the same pay scale and were
doing similar work. The anomaly was
removed vide order dated 31.7.1996.
Thus, it is not the case of granting revised
pay scale but of removal of anomaly in
the pay scale of Assistant Machine Offset.

17. In the case of Union of India and
others Vs. Indu Lal and others (supra) the
Hon. Supreme Court has held that the
Chief Law Assistant and Law Assistant
who were designated as presenting
Officer under Section 19 (2) of the
Railways Claim Tribunal Act cannot be
equated and no parity in pay scale can be
given as Law Assistant and Chief Law
Assistant
were
working
under
the
supervision and guidance of Junior
Administrate
Grade,
the
presenting
Officer who has full administrative
control over them and they do not
discharge similar nature of duties and at
no stage these officers were authorised to
act independently and had to get the
approval for every act done by them from
Junior Administrative Grade Presenting
Officer.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003
18. In the present case, the two posts
carried the same pay scale until 12.4.1990
and also from 31.7.1996. On the basis of
that two posts are equivalent and the
employees
working
thereon
are
discharging the similar duties.

19. In the case of State of Haryana
and Anr. Vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat
Personal Staff Association (supra), the
Personal
Assistance
in
State
Civil
Secretariat
of
Haryana
State
were
claiming the same scale of pay granted by
the Central Govt. to the Personal
Assistant
working
in
the
Central
Secretariat. The Hon. Supreme Court in
para 10 of the judgment has held as
follows:

"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 party 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 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 Court should approach
such matters with restrain 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. Even in a case
where the court holds the order passed by
the government to be unsustainable then
ordinarily a direction should be given to
the state government or authority taking
the decision to reconsider the matter and
pass a proper order. The court should
avoid giving a declaration granting a
particular scale of pay and compelling the
government to implement the same. As
noted earlier, in the present case the High
Court has not even made any attempt to
compare the
nature
of
duties and
responsibilities of the two sections of
employees, one in the state secretariat and
the other in the central secretariat. It has
also be ignored the basic principle that
there are certain rules, regulations and
executive instructions issued by the
employers
which
govern
the
administration of the cadre."

20. In the present case the parity is
not being claimed with the employees of
another Government but discrimination
meted out to the petitioners in respect of
employee of the same department who
were holding the equivalent post and
discharging the same duties is being
sought
to
be
redressed.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Badri and others V. D.D.C., Ghazipur and others 235
21. In the case State of Haryana &
Ors. Vs. Jagroop Singh (supra) the 4th
Pay Commission recommended the pay
scale of Rs. 950-1500 w.e.f. 1.1.1986
which was given by the State Government
w.e.f. said date. On representation being
made, the pay scale was enhanced to
Rs.1200-2040
w.e.f.
1.5.1990.
The
employee approached the High Court
claiming entitlement of pay scale of
Rs.1200-2040 w.e.f. 1.1.1986 without
assailing the notification issued by the
State Government modifying the pay
scale. The Government on the basis of
representation made, suggestion received
as well as qualification for different posts
had modified the pay scale w.e.f.
1.5.1990. The Hon. Supreme Court did
not find any infirmity in the Government
decision particular when the employee did
not assail the legality of the aforesaid
notification.

22. In the present case, as already
mentioned hereinbefore, the respondentswrit petitioners had alleged discrimination
and sought the same pay scale w.e.f.
12.4.1990, which had been given to the
employees working as Machine Man
Offset. We have already held that the
respondent-writ petitioners have been
arbitrarily discriminated and action of the
appellant in not granting the same pay
scale which was given to the Machine
Offset is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. Thus, we are of the
view that the decisions relied upon by the
Appellants have no application to the
facts of the present case.

23. In view of the foregoing
discussions, we do not find any legal
infirmity in the impugned judgment and
order passed by the learned Single Judge.
The Special Appeal fails and is dismissed.
However, the parties shall bear their
own costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.3.2003

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17568 of 1999

Badri and others

 ...Petitioners
Versus
Deputy
Director
of
Consolidation,
Ghazipur and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri G.N. Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Aditya Narain
Sri A.N. Singh
S.C.

U.P. Consolidation of Holding Act 1962-
Section 48- impugned order passed by
Deputy Director of Consolidation- the
Conclusion recorded- without discussion-
held illegal.

Held- Para 4

What are the material ingredients to
constitute
a
finding
received
consideration of the Apex Court as also
this Court in a catena of decisions and
position is now well settled that the
finding includes materials considered,
reasons recorded and then conclusions.
The
impugned
order
contains
conclusions and not reasons. Therefore,
the impugned order detracts from being
a judicial order containing reasoning and
is liable to be quashed. I would not
shrink from observing that expeditious
disposal is a desirable thing but it should
not
be
preferred
at
the
altar
of
requirements consisting in a judicial
order.