FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA & ORS.versusBHARTIYA KHADYA NIGAM KARMCHARI SANGH & ANR.

                        [2012] 1 S.C.R. 230

A           FOOD CORPORATION OF !NOIA & ORS.
                                  v.
    BHARTIYA KHADYA NIGAM KARMCHARI SANGH & ANR.
               (Civil Appeal No. 7268 of 2002)
                        JANUARY 13, 2012
8
               [D.K. JAIN AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]

        CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950:

c       Article 14 - Classification between two sets of employees
   - Grant of incentives only to the in-service employees of the
 · FCJ, who acquired professional qualifications after entering in
   service and denial of the same to those who had acquired the
   same professional qualifications before entering the service
0 - Reasonableness of classification - Held: The classification
   sought to be made by the FCJ between the two sets of
   employees bore a just and rational nexus to the object sought
   to be achieved by introducing the said incentive scheme -
   Judged from this point of view grant of the incentive in relation
E to the in-service employees, in no way amounted to
   discrimination between the in-service employees and the
   employees recruited with higher qualification, offending either
   Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution, particularly when the
   incentive was in the form of a special increment as 'personal
   pay' to be merged in pay at the time of promotion to the next
F higher grade and thus, having no bearing on the inter-se
   seniority and/or to the future promotion to the next higher
   grade - Service Jaw.
        Article 226 - Scope of interference - Held: Courts should
G interfere with the administrative decisions pertaining to pay
  fixation and pay parity only when they find such a decision to
  be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of
  employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant
  factors - Judicial review.
H                                230
    FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA v. BHARTIYA               231
       KHADYA NIGAM KARMCHARI SANGH
      On 29th July, 1985, the FCI issued Circular No.40 of A
 1985 introducing a scheme which provided for incentives
 to its employees on acquiring additional qualifications
 during their service in the FCI. The Circular provided for
 grant of two increments to employees in their respective
 pay scales on acquiring such professional degrees and B
 diplomas as were mentioned in the Circular.
 Subsequently, another Circular No. 72of1986, dated 14th
 November, 1986, was issued, extending the benefit of
 one special increment to in-service employees who
 acquire one year diploma course in any professional c
 subject as mentioned in the Circular. These circulars
were complimented by Circular No. 58of1987, dated 24th
August, 1987, which clarified that the increments shall
only be in the form of a personal pay to an official till his
promotion to the next higher grade, which shall be 0
subsequently absorbed in the basic pay at the time of pay
fixation for the promoted post The Circular of 1985 was
challenged on the ground that it resulted in
discrimination between in-service employees acquiring
additional qualification and the persons recruited by the E
FCI already possessing the prescribed additional
qualification. The High Court while allowing the
intervention application of the respondent (Karamchari
Sangh) allowed the petition and directed that the writ
petitioner be granted two additional increments under the
said Circular.                                                F

     The Karamchari Sangh filed a writ petition before the
High Court. The High Court held that the said Circular
was discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution and directed the FCI not to give effect to the   G
Circular and to withdraw any incentives, if already given
to the employees in furtherance of the said Circular. The
FCI and the Karamchari Sangh filed appeals challenging
the order of the High Court.
                                                              H
    232     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A     The question which arose for consideration in these
  appeals was whether grant of incentives only to the in-
  service employees of the FCI, who acquired professional
  qualifications after entering in service and denial of the
  same to those who had acquired the same professional
B qualifications before entering the service is invalid in law,
  being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

         Allowing the appeal of FCI and dismissing the appeal
    of the Karamchari Sangh, the Court

C     HELD: 1. It is trite law that Article 14 of the
  Constitution, which enshrines the principle of equality, is
  of wide import. It guarantees equality before the law and
  equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
  It implies right to equal treatment in similar
D circumstances, except in cases where the two persons
  form a separate and distinct class and such classification
  is a reasonable one based on intelligible differentia
  having nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
  [Para 11] [238-E-F]
E
        State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) SCR
    284: John Vallamattom & Anr. v. Union of India (2003) 6 SCC
    611: 2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 638 • relied on.

       2. The fundamental objective of the impugned
F circular is to provide an incentive to the in-service
  employees in order to motivate and encourage them to
  acquire professional qualifications in various courses,
  spelt out in the Circular, for their career progression and
  at the same time enable the FCI to build a reserve of
G qualified professionals from within the organisation to
  back up key positions. Evidently, the incentive would not
  only improve their overall performance and efficiency in
  the organisation, but also, in the final analysis would
  strengthen the management with the advent of an
H atmosphere of professionalism in the FCI. The
        FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA v. BHARTIYA           233
           KHADYA NIGAM KARMCHARI SANGH
 classification sought to be made by the FCI between the       A
 two sets of employees bore a just and rational nexus to
 the object sought to be achieved by introducing the said
 incentive scheme. Judged from this point of view grant
 of the incentive in relation to the in-service employees,
 in no way amounted to discrimination between the in-          B
 service employees and the employees recruited with
 higher qualification, offending either Articles 14 or 16 of
 the Constitution, particularly when the incentive was in
 the form of a special increment as 'personal pay' to be
 merged in pay at the time of promotion to the next higher     c
 grade and thus, having nQ bearing on the inter-se
 seniority and/or to the future promotion to the next higher
 grade. [Paras 13, 15] [242-C~D; 243-B-E]

     H.P. Gupta and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors. (2002)
 10 SCC 658 • relied on.                                       D

      Food 'Corporation of India & Ors. v. Ashis Kumar
, Ganguly & Ors. (2009) 7 sec 734: 2009 (8) SCR 806; B.
  Manmad Reddy & Ors. v. Chandra Prakash Reddy & Ors.
  (2010) 3 SCC 314: 2010 (2) SCR 860 • Distinguished.          E

     3. Article 14 of the Constitution permits reasonable
classification based on qualities or characteristics of
persons recruited and grouped together, as against
those who are left out. Courts should interfere with the
administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and        F
pay parity only when they find such a decision to be
unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of
empk>yees and taken in ignorance of material and
relellant factors. The decision of the High Court, holding
the said Circular to be discriminatory and in violation of
                                                               G .
Articles 14 aQd 16 of the Constitution cannot be sustained.
[Paras 16, 19] [243-0-H; 244-A-B; 245-C]
    r    -   ,


    State of M.P. and Anr. v. Shakri Khan (1996) 8 SCC 648:
1996 (1) Suppl. SCR 608; United Bank of India v. Meenakshi     H
    234       SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A Sundaram and Ors. (1998) 2 SCC 609: 1998 (1) SCR 233 ·
  referred to.
                         Case Law Reference:
    1996 (1) Suppl. SCR 608        referred to         Para 8
B
    1998 (1) SCR 233               referred to         Para 8
    (2002) 1o sec 658              relied on           Para 8
    2009 (8) SCR 806               distinguished       Para 9
c   2010 (2) SCR 860               distinguished       Para 9
    (1952) SCR 284                 relied on           Para 11
    2003 (1) Suppl. SCR 638        relied on           Para 12
D       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    7268 of 2002.

      From the Judgment & Order dated 23.05.2002 of the High
  Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu in S.W.P. No. 1470 of
E 1994.
                                  WITH
    C.A. No. 6878 of 2003.

       Ajit Pudussery, Dinesh Khurana, Archana Mohanty, Ashok
F Mathur, Anshul Narayan, Kanika Singh for the appearing
  parties.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       D.K. JAIN, J.: 1. Challenge in these appeals is to the
G judgment dated 23rd May, 2002, rendered by a Division Bench
  of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Jammu in S.W.P
   No. 1470of1994. By the impugned judgment, while declaring
  Circular No.40of1985, dated 29th July, 1985, which accorded
   monetary incentives to in-service employees of the Food
H Corporation of India (for short "the FCI") for acquiring higher
    FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA v. BHARTIYA     235
 KHADYA NIGAM KARMCHARI SANGH [D.K. JAIN, J.]
qualifications, as discriminatory, the High Court has directed        A
that if any benefit under the said Circular has been given to any
employee, it shall be withdrawn.

      2. Since both the appeals, one by the FCI and the other
 ~y the Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karamchari Sangh (for short 8
'the Karamchari Sangh"), arise out of the same judgment, the
same are being disposed of by this common judgment. We may
however, note that the FCI is aggrieved by the impugned
judgment as a whole, whereas the Karamchari Sangh impugns
the direction relating to the denial of the incentives to other C
employees, possessing same qualifications.

      3. The material facts, giving rise to the appeal are as
follows:-

     The FCI was set up with the objective of safeguarding the        D
interest of the farmers, distribution of food grains throughout the
country and to maintain a satisfactory level of food grain stocks
to ensure national food security. The Food Corporation of ln9ia
Act, 1964, became effective w.e.f. 17th December 1964.
Section 45 of the said Act empowers the FCI to make                   E
regulations for regulating the appointment, conditions of service
and scales of pay of its officers and employees. Resultantly,
the Food Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations, 1971, were
made and came into effect from the year 1971.
                                                                      F
     4. With a view to ensure a desired degree of efficiency and
mobility in the administration and management of its affairs, the
FCI, vide Circular No.40 of 1985, dated 29th July, 1985,
introduced a scheme providing for incentives to its employees
on acquiring additional qualifications during their service in the    G
FCI. The Circular provided for grant of two increments to
employees in their respective pay scales on acquiring such
professional degrees and diplomas as were mentioned in the
Circular. Subsequently, another Circular No. 72 of 1986, dated
14th November, 1986, was issued, extending the benefit of one         H
    236     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A special increment to in-service employees who acquire one
  year diploma course in any professional subject as mentioned
  in the Circular.

        5. The afore-mentioned Circulars were complimented by
8 Circular No. 58 of 1987, dated 24th August, 1987, which
  clarified that the increments shall only be in the form of a
  personal pay to an official till his promotion to the next higher
  grade, which shall be subsequently absorbed in the basic pay
  at the time of pay fixation for the promoted post.
c      6. The Circular of 1985 was challenged by one Shri. V.K.
  Tandon, vide S.W.P. No. 1146 of 1986, on the ground that it
  resulted in discrimination between in-service employees
  acquiring additional qualification and the persons recruited by
  the FCI already possessing the prescribed additional
D qualification. The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, vide
  order, dated, 13th October, 1992, while allowing the intervention
  application of the Karamchari Sangh, allowed the petition and
  directed that the writ petitioner be granted two additional
  increments under the said Circular. Letters Patent Appeal
E against the said judgment came to be dismissed on the ground
  of delay. Nonetheless, the Zonal Office of the FCI, vide letter
  dated 19th May, 1994, notified that the aforesaid judgment was
  a judgment in personam.

F      7. Probably, the said clarification prompted the
  Karamchari Sangh to file the writ petition (W.P. No.1470 of
  1994) in which the impugned judgment has been delivered. As
  aforestated, the High Court has held that, the said Circular is
  discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
G India, 1950 (for short "the Constitution") and has directed the
  FCI not to give effect to the Circular and to withdraw any
  incentives, if already given to the employees in furtherance of
  the said Circular. Hence, the appeal by the FCI. The nub of the
  grievance of the Karamchari Sangh in their appeal (C.A.
H No.6878/2003) is that having held the said Circular to be
  FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA v. BHARTIYA      237
KHADYA NIGAM KARMCHARI SANGH [D.K. JAIN, J.]
discriminatory, the High Court ought to have directed grant of   A
similar incentives to other employees as well.

       8. Mr. Ajit Pudussery, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the FCI, vehemently urged that the said Circular was
constitutionally valid and in consonance with the established 8
principles of law, inasmuch as the employees already working
in the FCI, with lower professional qualifications as compared
to those who already had higher qualification at the time of
initial recruitment a~e a class by themselves and therefore, there
was no question of any discrimination between the two c
differently placed set of employees. It was submitted that the
objective sought to be achieved by providing incentive to the
already recruited employees with lower qualifications was to
motivate them to acquire higher qualifications in various fields
while in service, which would not only benefit the employee 0
concerned but also the FCI in the long run. It was thus, stressed
that the classification adopted by the FCI had a rational nexus
with the objective sought to be achieved and therefore, was not
discriminatory, offending Article 14 of the Constitution. In
support of the proposition that the beneficiaries of the said E
incentive being a class by themselves; there being no parity
between grant of incentives to in-service employees, who
acquire the prescribed qualifications and denial of the same
to the employees recruited with higher qualification; the Circular
does not result in discrimination, the learned counsel placed F
reliance on the decisions of this Court in State of M.P. and Anr.
Vs. Shakri Khan 1; United Bank of India Vs. Meenakshi
Sundaram and Ors. 2, and H.P. Gupta and Anr. Vs. Union of
India and Ors3.

      9. Per Contra, Mr. Ashok Mathur, learned Counsel           G
appearing on behalf of the respondents, argued that the said

1.   (1996) 8 sec 648.
2.   (1998) 2 sec 609.
3.   c2002) 10 sec 658.                                          H
    238         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2012] 1 S.C.R.


A Circular was clearly discriminatory, inasmuch as the incentive
  under the said Circular was denied to one set of employees
  and granted to another set of employees, governed by the
  same service conditions and possessing such prescribed
  additional qualifications. Commending us to the decisions of
B this Court in Food Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. Ashis
  Kumar Ganguly & Ors. 4 and B. Manmad Reddy & Ors. Vs.
  Chandra Prakash Reddy & Ors., 5 learned counsel urged that,
  irrespective of the educational qualifications, all employees in
  a particular grade got integrated into one class and therefore,
C there could be no discrimination amongst them in the matter
  of grant of incentives.

          10. The short question that falls for consideration is,
  whether grant of incentives only to the in-service employees of
  the FCI, who acquire professional qualifications after entering
0
  in service and denial of the same to those who had acquired
  the same professional qualifications before entering the service
  is invalid in law, being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
  Constitution?

E          11. It is trite law that Article 14 of the Constitution, which
  enshrines the principle of equality, is of wide import. It
  guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the
  laws within the territory of India. It implies right to equal treatment
  in similar circumstances, except in cases where the two
F persons form a separate and distinct class and such
  classification is a reasonable one based on intelligible
  differentia having nexus with the object sought to be achieved.
  (See: State of West Bengal Vs. Anwar Ali Sarkar and John
   Vallamattom & Anr. Vs. Union of lndia7).
G
           12. Before examining the issue at hand on the touchstone
    4.    (2009) 7 sec 734.
    s.    (2010) 3 sec 314.
    6.    (1952) SCR 284.
H   7.    c2003) 6 sec 611.
   FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA v. BHARTIYA     239
KHADYA NIGAM KARMCHARI SANGH [D.K. JAIN, J.]
of the aforesaid principle envisaged in Article 14 of the           A
Constitution, it would be apposite to refer to the relevant
portions of the Circular dated 29th July, 1985. These read as
follows:

    "The Food Corporation of India, since its inception, has        B
    been pursuing the policy of Management Development by
    providing suitable training facilities both within the
    Corporation as well as by nominating its employees to
    short-term professional courses, work-shops, seminars,
    conferences etc. organized by leading management                C
    institutions in India and abroad.

    2. These efforts can get an uplift and possibly be
    supplemented to a great extent by the involvement of its
    employees in acquiring professional management
    qualifications on their own. In order, therefore, to fill the   D
    basic gaps to acquire knowledge, the matter has been
    under consideration for introducing suitable incentive
    scheme for motivating the employees of the Corporation
    to encourage them to acquire professional qualifications
    for rapid caraer ad ancement and enabling the                   E
    Corporation to build a reserve of qu'3lified professionals
    from within to back up key positions and to improve the
    overall performance and efficiency of the organization. This
    will further create an atmosphere of "professionalism" in
    the working of the Corporation. With this end in view it has    F
    been decided with the approval of the Board pf Directors
    to introduce the following incentive scheme with effect from
    1st April, 1984.

    3. The following courses of study have been approved for        G
    grant of the two increments as indicated in subsequent
    pages.

           (A)   ......... ········· ................. .

           (B) 'iiigh professional qualifications viz. MBA,         H
    240          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                                [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A                    ACA, AMIE, LLB, BL, ACS etc. All the above
                     courses (Diplomas/Degrees) should be at least of
                     two years duration.

          4.    The following are the details of the scheme for grant
          of incentive:-
B
          ELIGIBILITY:

          All regular employees of the Corporation would be eligible
          for benefit under the Scheme subject to the following terms
c         and conditions:-

          (i) The scheme would apply to all regular employees of the
          Corporation except deputationists/those employed on
          contract basis/ casual or on tenure basis.

D         (ii) Employees covered under (i) above should have
        acquired or may acquire higher professional qualifications
        from recognised institutions/Universities during the course
        of their service in the FCI with prior permission from the
        competent authority of the Corporation. The acquisition of
E     . said qualification should be useful to the Corporation in its
        operations.

          (111) ................................... .
          (iv) ................................... .
F
          (v) ................................... .
          (vi) .............. : .................... .
          (vii) ................................... .

          (VIII) ... . .. .. . ... ... ... .. . .. . ... ........ .

          (ix) In cases where the employees, who join the higher post
          under direct recruitment and where for such higher post the
H         prescribed minimum qualification is the same as acqu°ired
   FOOD CORPORATION OF !NOIA v. BHARTIYA     241
KHADYA NIGAM KARMCHARI SANGH [D.K. JAIN, J.]
   by the employee while in the lower post, the incentive       A
   already granted to him/her in the lower post would not be
   allowed to continue on his/her appointment to the higher
   post.

   INCENTIVE ADMISSIBLE:                                        B
   Employees fulfilling the eligibility conditions referred to
   above would only be entitled to the benefits under the
   scheme. The incentives offered under this Scheme would
   be in the form of two special increments as 'personal pay', C
   to be merged in pay at the time of promotion to the next
   higher grade. This incentive would be admissible only on
   written orders by the competent authority on merit of each
   case. The incentive in the form of two increments would
   be granted starting from first day of the following month
   when the employee concerned has been declared to have D
   passed the listed Courses or the date of enforcement of
   this scheme whichever is later.
   ENTITLEMENT :
                                                                 E
   In order to overcome the administrative difficulties and
   financial implications in implementation of the Scheme with
   retrospective effect covering all the cases of eligible
   employees who might have acquired such higher
   management or professional qualifications prescribed in F
   this Scheme once or more than once in the past and might
   be holding higher post on promotion or direct recruitment
   within the Corporation, the employees would be entitled to
   the incentive under this scheme with effect from 1.4.1984
   only. Eligible employees would be entitled to draw G
   incentive increments at the rates applicable to their present
   pay scales. Arrears of incentive increments shall be
   payable.

   In the case of past cases, eligible employees should apply
                                                                H
    242         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A         within six months from the date of the Scheme is circulated.
          In case of employees who may acquire any of the above
          qualifications hereafter, they may apply as and when they
          acquire the higher qualifications in the prescribed
          Proforma enclosed.
B
          ········· .......................... .•
        13. It is manifest from a bare reading of the above-
  menlioned portions of Circular that the fundamental objective
  of the Circular is to provide an incentive to the in-service
C employees in order to motivate and encourage them to acquire
  professional qualifications in various courses, spelt out in the
  Circular, for their career progression and at the same time
  enable the FCI to build a reserve of qualified professionals from
  within the organisation to back up key positions. Evidently, the
D incentive will not only improve their overall performance and
  efficiency in the organisation, but also, in the final analysis would
  strengthen the management with the advent of an atmosphere
  of professionalism in the FCI.

E      14. Our attention was also drawn to Circular No. 27 of
  2000, dated 11th September, 2000, empowering the
  competent authorities to grant higher start/advance increments
  to newly recruited employees at par with the pay drawn in their
  previous employment before joining the FCI. It is therefore, plain
F that the provision to grant extra benefit to a new recruit
  possessing higher qualifications was already in existence. It is
  also pertinent to note that the said Circular and the benefit
  which is sought to be given under any of the Circulars, referred
  to above, is not assailed by the respondents. Their only
G grievance is that there is no justification in depriving the
  persons, who already possess the higher qualifications from the
  benefit of extra incentives, which are being granted to the in-
  house employees.
       15. We are of the opinion that bearing in mind the
H aforesaid fact situation and the objective sought to be achieved
  FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA v. BHARTIYA      243
KHADYA NIGAM KARMCHARI SANGH [D.K. JAIN, J.]
by issuance of the said Circular, there is substantial merit in A
the stand of the FCI. The classification adopted by the FCI is
between an employee obtaining a higher qualification after
joining service and an employee who already possessed such
qualification before joining the service. As aforesaid, the main
purpose of this classification is to grant an incentive to the B
employees already in service in the FCI to motivate them to
acquire higher qualifications for their own benefit as well as of
their employer viz. the FCI. We are convinced that the
classification sought to be made by the FCI between the two
sets of employees bears a just and rational nexus to the object c
sought to be achieved by introducing the said incentive
scheme. Judged from this point of view, in our opinion, grant
of the incentive in relation to the in-service employees, in no
way amounts to discrimination between the in-service
employees and the employees recruited with higher
                                                                  0
qualification, offending either Articles 14 or 16 of the
Constitution, particularly when the incentive is in the form of a
special increment as 'personal pay' to be merged in pay at the
time of promotion to the next higher grade and thus, having no
bearing on the inter-se seniority and/or to the future promotion
to the next higher grade.                                         E

     16. The decisions of this Court in B. Manmad Reddy &
Ors. Vs. Chandra Prakash Reddy & Ors. (supra) and Food
Corporation of India & Ors. Vs. Ashis Kumar Ganguly & Ors.
(supra), on which reliance was placed by learned counsel for F
respondents are clearly distinguishable on facts inasmuch as
these decisions deal with cases relating to employees being
classified into separate categories for the purpose of promotion
on the basis of the source from which they were drawn and
increments being given only to the Central Government G
employees on being absorbed into the corporation respectively,
which is not the case here. However, it is important to note that
in both these cases, it was observed that the doctrine of equal
pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine. Article 14 of the
Constitution permits reasonable classification based on H
    244       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012) 1 S.C.R.


A qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped
  together, as against those who are left out. Courts should
  interfere with the administrative decisions pertaining to pay
  fixation and pay parity only when they find such a decision to
  be unreasonable, unjust and prejudicial to a section of
B employees and taken in ignorance of material and relevant
  factors.

        17. At this juncture, it would be profitable to refer to the
  decision of this Court in H.P. Gupta and Anr. (supra), which is
C on all fours to the fact situation in the present appeal. In the said
  case, grant of two advance increments to Telecom Officers who
  acquired Engineering degree while in service and not to those
  who possessed such degree at the time of joining the service
  was held to be constitutionally valid. Dealing with a similar
  controversy, the Court observed as follows:
0
       "The object of giving two advance increments to those
       officials who did not possess degree in Engineering
       before joining the service, is only to encourage them to get
       such a degree so that they could improve themselves while
E      in service. When that object is satisfied, the contentions
       that there should be equality in the matter of payment of
       salary or other emoluments or that there should be parity
       in the matter of giving increments, cannot be accepted. It
       is true that in such a situation, certain anomalies may arise
F      in specific cases when the official who has acquired
       degree in Engineering subsequent to joining of service
       may get higher salary though junior to those who
       possessed the qualification of degree in Engineering even
       at the time of joining the service. There cannot be perfect
G      equality in any matter on an absolute scientific basis and
       there may be certain inequities here and there. If the
       classification is correct and serves a particular purpose,
       the same is not to be judicially interfered with."

H
  FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA v. BHARTIYA      245
KHADYA NIGAM KARMCHARI SANGH [D.K. JAIN, J.]
     We deferentially concur with the observations in the afore-   A
extracted passage.
     18. For the view we have taken above, we deem it
unnecessary to deal with the contentions urged on behalf of the
parties in C.A. No. 6878 of 2003, praying for extension of the     B
said incentive to the employees recruited with higher
qualifications.

      19. In view of the foregoing discussion, the decision of the
High Court, holding the said Circular to be discriminatory and C
in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution cannot be
sustained. Consequently, C.A. No. 7268 of 2002, filed by the
FCI is allowed and C.A. No.6878 of 2003 preferred by the
Karamchari Sangh is dismissed. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their
own costs throughout.                                              0

D.G.                                     Appeals disposed of.