DHARAM CHAND AND ORS.versusHARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY AND ORS

A                   DHARAM CHAND AND ORS.
                              v.
            HARYANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY AND ORS.

                              NOVEMBER 12, 2003

B                   [V.N. KHARE, CJ., AND S.B. SINHA, J.]


         Service Law:

         Parity in pay scale-Claim for-Haryana Agricultural University-
C Class Ill employees-Revision of pay scale at par with State Government
    employees-Persons employed prior to 6.6.1980 adversely affected as prior
    to revision they were getting higher pay scale-Anomaly removal Committee
    in order to protect their pay, recommending a different scale ofpay to them-
    Persons employed after 6.6.1980 claiming same pay scale on the principle
D   of 'equal pay for equal work'-Held, on facts, doctrine of equal pay for equal
    work not applicable-Authorities of the University merely accepted
    recommendations of Anomaly Removal Committee in terms whereofpay scale
    of employees appointed prior to 6. 6. 1980, which is personal in nature, was
    protected-These employees form a different class and entitled to different
    treatment-State is entitled to make a classification provided the same is
E   reasonable and based on intelligible dijferentia-Decision of University
    neither arbitrary nor discriminatory-Doctrine of equal pay for equal work.

          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 53 83 of 1998.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 24.10.97 of the Punjab and Haryana
F High Court in L.P.A. No. 192of1991.
         Raj Kumar Gupta, Sheo Kumar Gupta, Ms. Bhanu Pratap Gupta and A.N.
    Bardiyar for the Appellants.

          Mahabir Singh, Rakesh Dahiya and Nikhil Jain for the Respondents.
G
          The following Order of the Court was delivered :

        The appellants herein are the members of the ministerial staff working
  in the Haryana Agricultural University. It is not disputed that they came to
  be appointed after 6th June, I980.
H                                     480
            DHARAM CHANDv. HARYANAAGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY                48 J
      On or about 2nd April, 1980, the Board of Management of the University     A
authorised the Finance committee to revise the pay scale of all the employees
of the University with effect from Ist April, 1979, pursuant whereto and in
furtherance whereof recommendations were made to grant revised scale of
pay to the employees of the University. The University accepted the said
recommendations and issued a Notification as regards the revisions of pay
scale of all categories of University employees, including clerks on 6th June,   B
1980. The appellants admittedly herein were appointed on or about after 6th
June, 1980.

     . Having regard to the recommendations of the Finance Committee, the
scale of pay of Class III employees of the University was made at par with C
those of Class III employees of the State Government. The question which
arose for consideration before the University was that in the event same scale
of pay is made available in relation to the employees appointed both prior to
and after 6th June, 1980, the pay scale of the Clerks, who were already in
employment of th~ University, on that day, would go down. In that view of
the matter, a representation was made by the said employees before the D
University and the matter was referred to the Anomaly Removal Committee.
Before the Anomaly Removal Committee, the contention of Class III employees
of the University, who were appointed prior to 6th June, 1980, was that their
scale of pay was earlier fixed at Rs.120-300 whereas those of the State
Government was Rs. 110 and 225. Upon consideration of the matters in E
various meetings, the Anomaly Removal Committee had recommended as
under:

       "(i) (a) since the pre-revised scale of pay of clerical cadre in the
       University was Rs. 120-300 against Rs.110-225 under State Government,
       the persons employed in the clerical cadre of the University, prior to p
       the date of notification of the revised scales i.e., prior to 6.6.80 should
       be allowed the scale of Rs.420-700 as a personal measure, but
       recruitment to the clerical cadre on or after that date (6.6.80) should
       be made in the normal scale of Rs.400-600. Selection grade of Rs.480-
       760 shall be applicable to 20% of all permanent posts of clerical cadre
       whether in the scale ofRs.400-660 or·in the personal scale of Rs. 420- G
       700."

     The recommendations of the Anomaly Removal Committee was accepted
by the Board of Management of the University. The appellants herein
emboldened by the said fact filed a writ petition before the High Court under
                                                                                 H
    482                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance in the nature of
    mandamus directing the respondent-University to give into them the same
    scale of pay granted to the other employees on the basis of equal pay for
    equal work.

          The learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
B accepted the plea of the appellants herein and allowed the writ petition and
    issued direction that the appellants would be given the same pay scales as
    being paid to Class III employees appointed prior to 6th June, 1980. Aggrieved,
    the respondent filed a Letters Patent Appeal before the high Court. The High
    Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the learned Single
C   Judge. It is against the said judgment, the appellants are in appeal before us
    by means of special leave petition.           ,:•

        Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submit that as the service
  rules applicable to all the employees is the same, a common seniority list was
  prepared and thus the cut off date fixed by the University must be held to
D be arbitrary and unreasonable. Learned counsel contended that keeping in
  view the admitted fact that the appellants discharge the same duties and
  functions as those who are appointed prior to 6th June, 1980, they must be
  held to have been discriminated against as the same scale of pay was not
  granted to them. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on
  the other hand would support the judgment under appeal.
E
        In the instant case, the question of applicability of the Doctrine of Eqaal
  Pay for Equal Work does not arise. There is no dispute that the appellants
  herein, as also those who are appointed prior to 6th June, 1980, perform similar
  nature of duties and functions. However, in the instant case, the authorities
F of the University, as noticed hereinbefore, have merely accepted the
  recommendations of the Anomaly Removal Committee in terms where.of the
  scales of pay payable to the Clerks, who were appointed prior to 6th June,
  1980, was protected. By accepting the said recommendations, the University
  did not make any discrimination; keeping that in view the fact that those who
  are appointed prior to 6th June, 1980 form a different class and, thus, they
G were entitled to different treatment. Insofar as the scale of pay which was in
  vogue immediately prior to 6th June, 1980 is concerned, the same was given
  to them merely with a view to protect their pay. Such an order directing
  protection of scale of pay of employees, which is personal in nature, will not
  confer any legal right upon the appellants herein to claim the same remuneration
H in terms of the principles of equal pay for equal work or otherwise. It is now
             DHARAl'vl CHAND v. HARV ANA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY              483
well known that the state is entitled to make a classification provided the same A
is a reasonable one and based on intelligible differentia. As the employees,
who were appointed prior to 6th June, 1980, form a separate and distinct class.
Such a classification was permissible, keeping in view the fact that they were
in enjoyment of a higher scale of pay. The decision of the respondent-
University to revise their scales of pay, in our considered opinion, cannot be B
held to be arbitrary and discriminatory.

      For the aforesaid reasons, we do _not find any merit in the appeal. It fails
and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

RP.                                                           Appeal dismissed.