Holding

The classification of senior draughtsmen into two pay‑scale groups without an intelligible basis violates Article 14 and is unconstitutional.

Summary

Senior draughtsmen employed in the Ordnance Factories performed identical work and held the same post, but the Government, following the Third Pay Commission, divided them into two groups with different pay scales based solely on seniority. The appellants, who were not in the group entitled to the higher scale, challenged the classification as violative of Article 14 and Article 39(d) of the Constitution. The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the Government could fix different pay scales for different classes of employees. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the classification and held that where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts must not be treated differently. The Court found the grouping arbitrary, lacking any intelligible basis, and therefore unconstitutional. Consequently, the order was struck down and the Court directed that all senior draughtsmen be placed on the higher pay scale, and awarded costs to the appellants.

Issues considered

Whether the division of senior draughtsmen into two pay‑scale groups on the basis of seniority, without any other differentiating factor, violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether Article 39(d) (equal pay for equal work) is infringed by the classification.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16, s. Article 39(d)

Subjects

Equal pay for equal workArticle 14DiscriminationPay scale classificationSeniorityCivil serviceConstitutional law

Judgment

tei
i>. SAVITA S/0 SHRI P.L. SAVITA
•• A
v.

UNION OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
(DEPARTMENT OF DEFENCE PRODUCTION)
NEW DELHI AND OTHERS
B
May I, 1985

(A.P. SEN AND V. KHALID, JJ.)

Constitution of India, Article 14 and 39(d)-Equal pay for equal work- C
Senior Draughtsmen doing the same work and discharging similar functions and
duties-Clarification into two groups on the basis of seniority with two different
pay scales-Whether discriminatory.

Ci\'il Service-Government servant doing same work and discharging
similar duties-Classification based on seniority with two different pay scales-
Whether /ega/ and justified. D
Sr:nior Draughtsmen in the Ordnance Factories under the Ministry of
Defence are either directly recruited or promoted from the post Draughtsmen.
At all relevant times all the Senior Draughtsmen throughout the above establish·
mer.ts were drawing the same pay scale of Rs. 205-280. While revising the pay-
scale of various categories of employees, the Third Pay Commission recommcn- E
ded that the Draughtsmen should be placed in the scale of Rs. 330-560. The
Pay Commission also recommended that the Senior Draughtsmen should be
divided into two groups and half the number of posts of Draughtsmen in the
above organisations on the present pay-scale of Rs. 205-280 be placed in the
revised scale of Rs. 425-700 on the basis of seniority and the remaining half in
the revised scale of Rs. 330-560. Pursuant to the aforesaid recom1nendation,
the Government of India by its Order dated 1st July, 1978 directed that only F
those senior Draughtsmen who were holding that post on 31st Decernber, 1972
would be given the senior scale of pay i.e. Rs. 425-700.

- The appellants who are senior Draughtsmen made representation to the
Government of India against this grouping by the Third Pay Commission.
As the representations were not accepted, the appellants challenged the Order
of the Government before the High Court in a Writ Petition contending that
G
all the Senior Draughtsmen did the same kind of work and discharged same
or similar duties and therefore there was no justification for distinction being
made amongst the Senior Draughtsmen, providing two different pay-scales on
the basis of ~eniority. The High Court dis1nissed the petition holding that it
"was open to the Government to fix two different pay scales for Senior H
Draughtsmen and that it was for the Government to decide what pay scale
should be provided to the different classes of employees,
102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1985) SUPPL. s.c.li..

Allowing the appeal,
A
HELD : (I) Where all relevant considerations are the same, persons
holding identical posts and discharging similar duties should not be treated
differently. Therefore the Order passed by the Government of India imple-
menting the impugned recommendation of the Third Pay Commission dividing
the Senior Draughtsmen into two categories with two different pay-scales on
the basis of seniority violates Article 14 of the Constitution and is struck
B down.
Randhir Singh v. Union of India and Ors. [1982] 3 S.C.R. 298, followed.

In the instant case the group of Draughtsmen entitled to the higher
scale of pay is not selected by any process nor is it based on any merit-cum-
c seniority basis, but is based only on seniority-cum-fitness. Moreover, the
Senior Draughtsmen divided into two groups are in the same Department
doing idential and same work. Jt is not a case of different grades created on
the ground of higher qualification either academic or otherwise or an entitle-
ment by any other criteria. Thus the classification between the two groups
of Senior Draughtsmen is without any basis. In view of the total absence of
any plea on the side of the respondents that the Senior Draughtsmen who are
D placed in the advantageous group, do not perform work and duties more
onerous Or different from the work performed by the appellants group, it
will have to be held that this grouping violates Artie!' 14 of the Constitution.
[107 E-F]

Kishori Mohan/a/ Bakshi v. Union of India, A.I R. 1962 S.C. 1139; State
of Punjab v. Joginder Singh, A.1.R. 1963 S.C. 913; Unikat Sankunni Menon v.
E State of Rajasthan, A.l.R. 1968 S.C. 81; State of Mysore and Anr. v. P. Narsingh
Rao, A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 349, distinguished.

C1VIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3121 of
1981.

F From the Judgment and Order dated 28-9-1979 of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Misc. Petition No. 408 of 1978.

M.K. Ramamurthi and H.S. Parihar for the Appellants.

G S.C. Maheshwari T. V.S.N. Chari and R.N. Poddar for the
-
Respondents. •

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KHALID, J.' The question involved in this appeal brings to
H fore how the equality doctrine embodied in the Constitution of India
is attempted to be flouted by some authorities under cover of
artificial divisions, dividing persons doing the same work into two
P. SAVITA v. UNION (Kha/id, I.) 103

groups without any justification and denying to one group by way of
pay and emoluments what the other group gets. We do not propose A
to examine the width of the quality provisions contained in Art. 39(d)
in all its manifold aspects but would like to restrict it in its application
to the facts of this case, in our attempt to see whether the High
Court was justified or not, in declining relief to the petitioners. Now
the facts : 8
This appeal by special leave is directed against the Judgment of
a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur
in Miscellaneous Petition No. 408 of 1978, dismissing the petition
challenging the Order of the Government of India accepting the
recommendations of the Third Pay Commission dividing Senior c
Draughtsmen into two groups with different pay scales, which
according to the appeilants violated Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. The Appellants Nos. 1 to 8 are Senior Draughtsmen
in the Ordnance Factories under the Ministry of Defence, Department
of Defence Production and the Director General of Ordnance
Factories. Appellants Nos. 1 to 5 were promoted on different dates D
-I to the post of senior Draughtsman when they were working as
Draughtsmen. Appellants Nos. 6, 7 & 8 were directly recruited as
Senior Draughtsmen in the Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur on different
dates. Appellant No. 9 is a registered Association of the Employees
working in the Design/Drawing Office of the Defence Establish· E
ments under the Ministry of Defence, etc.

There are 33 establishments under the Ministry of Defence
Production and Director General of Ordnance Factories, Calcutta.
In these establishments, there are two categories of Drawing Office F
Staff; (I) Senior Draughtsman and (2) Draughtsman. Senior
Draughtsmen are either directly recruited or promoted from the post
of Draughtsmen. At all relevant times, all the Senior Draughtsmen
throughout the above establishments, were drawing the same pay·
.. scale. The first and the second Pay Commission set up by the
Government of India, recommended same scales of pay for all the G
Senior Draughtsmen.

A Third Pay Commission was set up by the Government of
India under the Chairmanship of Shri Ragbubar Dayal, a retired H
Judge of the Supreme Court of India and consisting of three other
members. One of the recommendations of this Pay Commission,
related to the scales of pay of Draugbtmen and Senior Draughtsmen,
104 SUPREME COURT REPoRTS [198SJ ~UPPL. s.c.i.

Draughtsmen were to be in the scale of Rs. 330-560 while the Senior
A Draughtsmen were divided into two groups with two scales of pay,
Rs. 330-560 and Rs. 425-700. It is this division of Senior Draughts-
men that was under challenge before the High Court.

Representations were made by the Petitioner against this
B grouping by the Third Pay Commission, and they pleaded that there
should not be any discrimination in the pay-scales of Senior
Draughtsmen as was recommended by the Third Pay Commission.
Similar representations were made by others also like Senior Rate
Estimator, Senior Rate Fixer, Senior Planner and Supervisor etc.
Some representations were accepted by the Government but not the
c representations made by the appellants' Association. Aggrieved by
this unhelpful attitude of the Government in not accepting their
representation, the appellants moved the High Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution, Their case before the High Court
was that Senior Draughtsmen discharged identical duties and
performed similar work. That being so there was little or no
D justification in putting 50% of them in a higher scale of pay and
50% others in a lower scale of pay. This grouping was without any
intelligible differentia.

The High Court referred to a decision of this Court in Kishori
E Mohan/al Bakshi v. Union of India(') and sought support from it to
deny relief to the petitioners. That was a case where the grouping of
Income-tax Officers as Class I and class If with different scales of
pay and different channel of promotion was questioned. This Court
observed in that Judgment as follows :

F "It might very well be that "matters relating to
employment or appointment to any office" in Art. 16(1)
are wide enough to include the matter of promotion.
Inequality of apportunity for promotion as between
citizens holding different posts in the same grade may,
therefore, be an infrigement of Art. 16. Thus, if of the
G
Income-tax Officers of the same grade, some are eligible
for promotion to a superior grade, and others are not,
the question of contravention of Art. 16(1) may well
arise. But no such question can arise at all when the
H rules make Income-tax Officers of Class I, eligible for
appointment as Assistant Commissioner, but make
----- ----- -
(I) A.J.R. 1962 S.C. 1139.
P. SAVITA v. UNION (Khaiid, J.) - 10s

Income-tax Officers of Class II eligible for promotion as
Incom~tax Officers of Class I but not for promotion to A
the post of Assistant Commissioners.. -There is no denial
in such a case of equality of opportunity as among
citizens holding posts of the same grade. As between
citizens holding posts in different grades in Government
service there can be no question of equality of opportu- ;B
nity. Art, 16 does not forbid the creation of different -
__.grades in the Government service. The abstract doctrine
of equal pay for equal work has -nothing tci do with
Art. 14. Art. 14, therefore, cannot be said to' be violated
whese the pay scales of Class I and Class II Income-tax
Officers are different though they do .the same kind of c
work. Incremental scales of pay can be validly fixed
dependent on the duration of an Officer's service."··

The High Court also referred to the decisions of this Court in
State of Punjab v. Jogindet Singh('), Unikat Saakunni Menon v. State D
of Rajasthan('J and State of Mysore_ & Anr. 'v. P. Narsingh Rao(')
in which cases also certain grouping of employees were challenged as
violative cf Art. 14 & 16, which challenge was repelled by the
Supreme Court. The High Court relied upon these decisions and
held that ''It is therefore evident that it was open to the Government
to fix two . different pay-scales for Senior Draughtsmen,'' and that E
"It was for the Government to decide what._pay·scale should be
provided to the different classes of employees and simply because
they have been provided different pay-scales that would not amount
to discriminations.'_' ·
F
The High Court was told that all the Senior Draughtsmen did
the same kind of work and discharged sall)e or similar duties and
that therefore there was no justification for- a distinction being made
between-_ the 'two - classes of Senior Draughtsmen, providing two
different pay-scales on the basis of seniority. Denial of the higher
scale of pay to one class of Senior Draughtsmen, only on the ground ;G
of length of service - was, according to the appellants, wrong.
The Government brought in this classification, _by its Order
dated 1-7-1978,, directing that only Senior Draughtsmen, holding
that post on 31-12-1972, would be given the - Senior scale and not
H
(1) A.l.R. 1963 S.C. 913.
•' ~ 1
(2)" A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 81.
(3) A.I.R. 1968 S.C. 349.
io6 SUPREr.iE COURT REPORTS [198S] SUPPL. s.c.a.
those who did not hold that post on 31-12-1972. This basis, the
A appellants, contended was unsupportable. These contentions did
not appeal to the High Court. While repelling the arguments of the
Petitioners, the High Court observed that "The petitioners are unable
to show a single authority in support of their contention that all the
' It
persons doing the same work are entitled to same scale of pay."
B is the correctness of this decision that falls to be decided in this
appeal.

Before discussing the factual matrix of the case, we will refer to
the Order passed by the Government of India on 27th January, 1978,
-
which brought into effect this difference in the pay-scale. The said
c Order reads as follows :

"The undersigned is directed to refer to SI. No. 32 of
Part·D, Section I, in the First Schedule to the Civilians in
Defence Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 19'i3 and to say
that the President is pleased to decide that, as recommen-
D
ded by the Third Pay Commission in para 81, Chapter 14,
of their report, half the number of posts of Draughtsman
in the DGOF Organisation on the present pay scale of
Rs. 205-7-240-8-280 will be placed in the revised scale of
Rs. 425-l 5·500-EB-15-560-20-700 and the remaining half
E in the revised scale of Rs. 330-10-380-EB-12-500-
EB-15-560 ............................................. ~· ..... .
... On their allocation to the revised scale of Rs. 425-700
and Rs. 350-560, the existing Draughtsman in the present
pay-scale of Rs. 205-280 who are brought on to the
F revised scale of Rs 330-560 would continue to retain their
present designation as a personal to them. The placement
-
of the existing Draughtsman in the higher revised pay
scale of Rs. 425-700 will be on the basis of seniority,
subject to the rejection of the unfit.

G Any administrative instruction that may be considered
necessary may be issued by you.

These orders will take effect from 1·1-73."
H It is pursuant to this Order that tbe change in the emoluments
of the petitioners' group of Draughtsmen was effected.
P. sAViTA v. UNION (khai1J, J.) io'i
It has to be borne in mind that this differentiation is not based
on any intelligible_ ground. The group of Draughtsmen entitled to A
the higher scale of pay, is not selected by any process nor is it based
on any merit-cum-seniority basis. but is based only on seniority·cum-
fitness. There is no denial anywhere that both - these types of
Draughtsmen do the same work and discharge the same functions
and duties. According to the recommendations of the Third Pay
Commission,, a Draughtsman has to get Rs. 330-10:.380-EB-12-500- n
EB-15-560, while Senior Draughtsman, like ihe appellants, who have
become so on promotion, will continue to get the same scale of pay
and -not the higher scale of pay. ro- other words, the promoted
persons like the appellants, are without any monetary benefit to them. _
The pay that they would get as Senior Draughtsman, would be the - c
'
same as a Draugh:sman would get under the Third Pay Commission.
That'is, for the same work and same functions, the -appellants would
get less pay than the -other - g;Dup of Senior Draughtsmen. The
explanation is that this division is based on seniority. This cannot
be accepted as sufficient to meet the requirements of law. By senio-
rity, a Senior Draughtsman will get higher pay witli the increments D
that he earns proportionate to the number of years he is in service.
Here that is not the case. It is the classification of tile Senior
Draughtsmen into two groups, that is responsible' for the higher pay.
For this classification, the Government must be able io satisfy the
Court of certain other tests which are non-existent, in this case, since E
it is not in dispute that Senior Draughtsmen, belonging to the two
Divisions, do equal and same work.- In view of the total absence of
any plea on the side of the respondents, that the Senior Draughtsmen
who are placed in the advantageous group, do not perform work and
duties more onerous or different from the work performed by the
appellants group, it will have to be held that this grouping violates F
Article 14 of the Constitution.

The High Court did not have the advantage of a decision of
this Court in Randhi' Singh v. Union of India & o,s.('), to which one
of us was a party, whicli evolved the equality doctrine embodied in 'G
Article 39(d) and read Article 14 into it; while considering the com;
plaint of a driver who was originally in the Army but later employed-
as a driver constable in Delhi Police Force under tha Delhi Adminis-
tration and who was denied -the same pay as was available to the
other drivers in the service of the Delhi Administration. This Court H

(I) (1982) 3 S.C.R. 298,

•
io8 SUPREME COURT REPORTs [1984i SUPPL. s.c.k.
allowed the Writ Petition and directed the concerned authorities to
A pay the petitioners in that case, salary at least equal to the Drivers of
the Railway Protection Force. Disagreeing with the plea, put forward
by the Union of India this Court observed as follows :

"The Counter Affidavit does not explain how the case
of the drivers in the police force is different from that of
B the drivers in other departments and what special factors
weighed in fixing a lower scale of pay for them. Appa-
rently in the view of the respondents, the circumstance
that persons belong to different departments of the
Government is itself a sufficient circumstance to justify
c different scales of pay irrespective of their identity of their
powers, duties and responsibilities. We cannot accept
this view. If this view is to be stretched to its logical con-
clusion; the scales of pay of officers of the same rank in
the Governmeut of India may vary from department to
department notwithstanding that their powers duties and
D responsibilities are identical. We concede that equation
of posts and equation of pay are matters, primarily for
the Executive Government and expert bodies like the Pay
Commission and not for Courts but we must hasten to
say that where all things are equal, that is where all rele-
E vant considerations are the same, persons holding identical
posts may not be treated differentially in the matter of
their pay merely because they belong to different depart-
ments. Of course, if officers of the same rank perform
dissimilar functions and the powers, duties and responsi-
bilities of the posts held by them vary, such officers may
F not be heard to complain of dissimilar pay merely
because the posts are of the same rank and the nomen-
clature is the same."

G
This Court however observed that a differential treatment in
appropriate cases can be justified, when there are two grades based on
reasonable grounds, and stated as follows :
-
"It is well known that there can be and there are
different grades in a service, with varying qualification for
H entry into a particular grade, the higher grade often being
a promotional avenue for officers of the lower grade. The
Wgher qualifications for the higher grade, which may be
(P. SAVITAV • UNION Kha/id, J.) 109

either academic qualifications or experience based on
length of service reasonably sustain the classification of A
the officers into two grades with different scales of pay.
The principle of equal pay for equal work would be an
abstract doctrine not attracting Art. 14 if sought to be
applied to them."
B
- With respect we agree with the conclusion arrived at in the
above Judgment, that where all relevant considerations are the same,
persons holding identical posts and discharging similar duties should
not be treated differently.

The case on hand is mnch stronger than the facts of the
c
· Randhir Singh's case. In that case, the drivers belonged to two
different departments. In this case, the Senior Draughtsmen, divided
into two groups are in the same department doing identical and same
work. It is not a case of different grades created on the ground of
higher qualification either academic or otherwise or an entitlement D
by any other criteria laid down. The justification for this classifi-
cation is by the mere accident of an earlier entry into service. This
cannot be justified.

The above decision of this Court has enlarged the doctrine of E
equal pay for equal work, envisaged in Article 39( d) of the Constitu-
tion of India and has exalted it to the position of a fundamental
right by reading it alongwith Article 14. This exposition of law had
given rise to some whispering dissent in that the doctrine had been
extended beyond permissible limits. The observations that the
abstract doctrine of equal pay for equal work has nothing to do with F
Art. 14, in the Judgment in Kishori Mohan/a/ Bakshi v. Union of
India (supra), rendered bY. a Constitution Bench of this Court it is
contended, may perhaps run counter to the observations in the deci-

-
sion referred above. We do not think it necessary on the facts of this
case to dwelve at length upon the effect of this observation on a G
wider campus of service jurisprudence in the context of equal pay
for equal work which will have to be attempted in an appropriate
case.

H
For the purposes of the case on hand, it is sufficient to note that
the classification between two groups of Senior Drau~tsmen js
110 SUPRBMB COURT REPORTS [1985) SUPPL. S.C.R.

without any basis. They do the same work, they perform the same
A duties, and as such the ratio of the decision in Randhir Singh's case
applies to this case with greater force. The Order passed by the
G 0vemment of India on 27th January, 1978, implementing this
classification violates Art. 14 of the Constitution and has to be struck
down and we do so. In our opinion, it would be a great injustice to
continue the appellants on the scales of pay of Draughtsmen even
B
after promotion as Senior Draughtsmen, which is destructive of all
incentive and initiative in the service. In our Judgment, the High
Court was in error in declining relief to the appellants. We accord·
ingly, set aside the Judgment of the High Court and allow this appeal
and direct the Union of India to fix the scale of pay of appellants at
c Rs. 425·15·500-EB-15-560-20-640-EB-20-700. The appellants will be
entitled to costs from the respondent No. I.

M.L.A. Appeal allowed.

-