RAJESH PRAVINCHANDRA RAJYAGURUversusGUJARAT WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD AND ORS.

846                       [2021]
               SUPREME COURT     9 S.C.R. 846
                              REPORTS                     [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A                RAJESH PRAVINCHANDRA RAJYAGURU
                                       v.
      GUJARAT WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD AND ORS.
                        (Civil Appeal No. 7578 of 2021)
B                            DECEMBER 17, 2021
                  [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD
                            AND M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
             Service Law – Grant of pay-scales – Autonomous body vis-à-
      vis State Government – Claim for parity – Appellants worked as
C     daily rated employees with the Respondent-Board – Respondent
      adopted a Resolution in 1988 (the Parent Resolution) passed by
      State Government granting benefits to the skilled daily wager
      workmen – Appellants were accordingly granted pay scale of Rs.750
      and other benefits flowing from the said Resolution – Subsequent
D     Resolutions issued by State Government in 1991 and 1992 modified
      the Parent Resolution, granting pay scale of Rs.950-1500 to a class
      of daily wagers as specified therein – Appellants claimed entitlement
      to the aforesaid pay scale – Writ petition allowed by Single Judge –
      Order set aside by Division Bench – On appeal, held: Board never
      adopted the subsequent Resolutions – Appellants working with the
E     respondent, an autonomous body cannot claim parity with the
      employees of the State Government – State Government and the
      autonomous bodies cannot be put at par – Appellants cannot claim
      the benefits flowing from the subsequent Government Resolutions
      as a matter of right – Further, benefits under the subsequent
F     resolutions were mistakenly given by some of the zonal offices, which
      subsequently came to be withdrawn and recovery was also sought
      – Appellants cannot claim parity with such other daily rated
      employees by invoking Article 14 if they otherwise are not entitled
      to such benefit – Constitution of India – Article 14 – Principle of
      equal pay for equal work.
G
             Service Law – Fixation of wage/pay-scale – Held: Economic
      viability or the financial capacity of the employer is an important
      factor while fixing the wage structure – Employees cannot claim
      that their pay-scales should necessarily be revised and/or they must
      be granted certain additional benefits/benefits – Granting of pay
H
                                      846
   RAJESH PRAVINCHANDRA RAJYAGURU v. GUJARAT                         847
         WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD

parity by Courts may result in a cascading effect having adverse     A
consequences.
      Constitution of India – Article 14 – Principle of positive
equality – Held: Article 14 embodies concept of positive equality
alone and not negative equality – It cannot be relied upon to
perpetuate illegality and irregularity.                              B
     Dismissing the appeals, the Court
       HELD: 1.1 The Board never adopted the subsequent
Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992. The parent
Resolution dated 17.10.1988 was specifically approved by the
Board vide communication dated 08.06.1989. On the contrary           C
the administrative instructions vide communication dated
29.08.1991 were issued to all the Chief Engineers of zonal offices
that benefits pursuant to Government Resolution of 1991 are
not to be granted to the daily rated employees of the Board. Right
from adopting the parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988, the            D
Respondent-Board granted benefits under the parent Resolution
to all the original writ petitioners-daily rated employees upon
their completion of 5 years and of 10 years. Therefore, as such
the Board which is an autonomous and statutory body created
under the Act never adopted the Government Resolutions dated
01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 and unless the said Resolutions are        E
adopted by the Respondent-Board, the daily rated employees
working with the Respondent-Board shall not be entitled to the
benefits flowing from the subsequent resolutions. There shall
not be automatic adoption and/or applicability of the subsequent
resolutions. Under the circumstances as rightly held by the          F
Division Bench, the daily rated employees of the Respondent –
Board cannot claim the benefits from the Resolutions of 1991
and 1992 as a matter of right. [Para 13.2][861-E-H; 862-A-B]
      1.2 Even being the daily rated employees working with the
Respondent-Board they cannot claim the parity with the               G
employees of the State Government. The Respondent-Board is
an autonomous and statutory body created under the Act. It is
ultimately for the Respondent-Board to take a conscious decision
which can be termed as a policy decision on the pay scales to be

                                                                     H
848           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A     adopted and/or certain benefits which would have financial
      implications. Everything depends upon its economic viability or
      the financial capacity. The economic viability or the financial
      capacity of the employer is an important factor while fixing the
      wage structure, otherwise the unit itself may not be able to
      function and may have to close down inevitably and have
B
      disastrous consequences for the employees themselves. The
      employees cannot legitimately claim that their pay-scales should
      necessarily be revised and/or they must be granted certain
      additional benefits/benefits. Equation of posts and salary is a
      complex matter which should be left to the expert body and
C     undertakings and the court cannot interfere lightly. Granting of
      pay parity by the court may result in a cascading effect having
      adverse consequences. There are limitations or qualifications to
      the applicability of the doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’.
      The Respondent-Board is an independent entity and it might have
      its own financial capacity and therefore its employees cannot claim
D
      parity with the employees of the State Government. The State
      Government and the autonomous Board/bodies cannot be put at
      par. The Board has to depend upon their own financial resources.
      Therefore, the daily rated employees of the Board cannot as a
      matter of right claim the parity of pay scales with the Government
E     employees. The Single Judge erred in directing the Board to
      grant the benefits flowing from the Government Resolutions dated
      01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 which is rightly set aside by
      the Division Bench of the High Court. [Paras 13.3-13.6, 14]
      [862-C-H; 863-C-D, F-G]
F            1.3 So far as the submission on behalf of the original writ
      petitioners which was accepted by the Single Judge that as number
      of other daily rated employees of the Board were granted the
      benefits flowing from the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992, not paying
      similar benefits to the remaining daily rated employees would be
      discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
G     India is concerned, it is required to be noted that as such right
      from the very beginning it was the case on behalf of the
      Respondent-Board that the benefits under the Resolutions of
      1991 and 1992 were inadvertently and mistakenly given by some
      of the zonal offices, which subsequently came to be withdrawn
H
   RAJESH PRAVINCHANDRA RAJYAGURU v. GUJARAT                           849
         WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD

and even the recovery is also sought. The original writ petitioners-   A
daily rated employees of the Board are not entitled to the benefits
flowing from the Government Resolutions of 1991 and 1992.
Therefore, they cannot invoke Article 14 of the Constitution to
claim benefit on the ground of parity if they otherwise are not
entitled to such benefit. As per the settled proposition of law
                                                                       B
Article 14 of the Constitution embodies concept of positive
equality alone and not negative equality. It cannot be relied upon
to perpetuate illegality and irregularity. Challenge to the
impugned judgment passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court fails. [Para 15][863-G-H; 864-A-C]
      State of Gujarat and Others v. PWD Employees Union               C
      and others, (2013) 12 SCC 417: [2013] 10 SCR 1091
      – held inapplicable.
      State of U.P. & Others v. Rajkumar Sharma & Others,
      (2006) 3 SCC 330 : [2006] 2 SCR 877; State of West
      Bengal & Others v. Debasish Mukherjee & Others,                  D
      (2011) 14 SCC 187 : [2011] 13 SCR 1077; Punjab
      State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited
      and Another v. Balbir Kumar Walia and Others, (2021)
      8 SCC, 784 2021 (7 ) JT 275 – relied on.
      P. Singaravelan & Others v. District Collector, Tiruppur         E
      and DT and Others, (2020) 3 SCC 133 : [2019] 15
      SCR 408; Secretary, Finance Department and Others
      v. West Bengal Registration Service Association &
      Others, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 153; State of Bihar and
      Others v. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee,           F
      Munger and Others, (2019) 18 SCC 301 – referred to.
                      Case Law Reference
[2013] 10 SCR 1091             held inapplicable       Para 7
[2006] 2 SCR 877               relied on               Para 9.8
                                                                       G
[2011] 13 SCR 1077             relied on               Para 9.8
[2019] 15 SCR 408              referred to             Para 9.8


                                                                       H
850            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.7578
      of 2021.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 24.07.2020 of the High Court
      of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Letters Patent Appeal No.82 of 2020.
            With
B
            Civil Appeal No.7579 of 2021.
            Sanjay Parikh, Sr. Adv., Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Satwik
      Parikh, Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Karun Sharma, Advs. for the Appellant.
            Ms. Aastha Mehta, Ms. Vishakha, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka,
C     Advs. for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            M. R. SHAH, J.
             1. As common question of law and facts arise in these two appeals
D     both these appeals are decided and disposed of together.
             2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
      and order passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Letters
      Patent Appeal No.82 of 2020 by which the High Court has allowed the
      said appeal preferred by Respondent no.1 herein – Gujarat Water Supply
E     and Sewerage Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) and has
      quashed and set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned
      Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application No.16470 of 2018 by
      which the learned Single Judge allowed the said writ petition preferred
      by the appellants herein and held that the appellants herein – original
      respondents are entitled to the pay scale of Rs.950-1500 with all
F     consequential benefits upon completion of 10 years of service and revised
      their pay scale as per 5th, 6th and 7th Pay Commission scales on such
      basis, the original writ petitioners have preferred the present appeal.
            3. In another Letters Patent Appeal No.179 of 2020, the Division
      Bench of the High Court has just followed its decision in Letters Patent
G     Appeal No.82 of 2020 which is the subject matter of another appeal.
      Therefore, for the sake of convenience the facts in Civil Appeal No.
      7578 of 2021 arising out of the impugned judgment and order passed by
      the High Court in Letters Appeal No.82 of 2020 are narrated and
      considered and the said appeal be treated as a lead appeal.
H
   RAJESH PRAVINCHANDRA RAJYAGURU v. GUJARAT                                 851
   WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD [M. R. SHAH, J.]

        4. That the Respondent – Board has been formed under the             A
Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act, 1978 (hereinafter
referred to as ‘the Act’) for rapid development and proper regulation of
the water supply and sewerage activities in the State of Gujarat. Till the
Board frames its own Rules and Regulations, the Board had, for better
administration, decided through a Resolution dated 06.08.1980 to follow
                                                                             B
the Rules, Regulations, Circulars, Policies, Instructions and all Schemes
of the State Government from the date of formation of the Board. It
appears that there were many daily wagers working under various
departments of the State Government for past several years. With a
view to resolve the issue relating to service condition of daily wagers
engaged in maintenance and repairing work a committee called ‘Shri           C
Daulatbhai Parmar Committee’ was constituted under the Chairmanship
of the then Minister of Roads and Building Department – Shri Daulatbhai
Parmar. On the basis of the recommendations made by the Committee,
Government of Gujarat passed a Resolution dated 17.10.1988 wherein
the Government and decided to give certain benefits to the skilled daily
                                                                             D
wager workmen depending upon the period of services undergone, i.e.
less than 5, 5 or more or 10 years.
        4.1 As per scheme contained in Resolution dated 17.10.1988 all
the daily wage workers were not entitled for regularization or permanency
in the services. As per the said Resolution the daily wagers are entitled
to the following benefits:                                                   E

      “(i) They are entitled to daily wages as per the prevailing Daily
      Wages. If there is presence of more than 240 days in first year,
      daily wagers are eligible for paid Sunday, medical allowance and
      national festival holidays.
                                                                             F
      (ii) Daily wagers and semi-skilled workers who has service of
      more than five years and less than 10 years are entitled for fixed
      monthly salary along with dearness allowance as per prevailing
      standard, for his working days. Such daily wagers will get two
      optional leave in addition to 14 misc. leave, Sunday leave and
      national festival holidays. Such daily wagers will also be eligible    G
      for getting medical allowance and deduction of provident fund.
      (iii) Daily wagers and semi-skilled workers who has service of
      more than ten years but less than 15 years are entitled to get
      minimum pay scale at par with skilled worker along with dearness
                                                                             H
852            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A           allowance as per prevailing standard, for his working days.
            Moreover, such daily wagers will get two optional leave in addition
            to 14 misc. leave, Sunday leave and national festival holidays.
            He/she will be eligible for getting medical allowance and deduction
            of provident fund.
B           (iv) Daily wagers and semi-skilled workers who has service of
            more than 15 years will be considered as permanent worker and
            such semi-skilled workers will get current pay scale of skilled
            worker along with dearness allowance, local city allowance and
            house rent allowance. They will get benefit as per the prevailing
            rules of gratuity, retired salary, general provident fund. Moreover,
C           they will get two optional leave in addition to 14 misc. leave, 30
            days earned leave, 20 days half pay leave, Sunday leave and
            national festival holidays. The daily wage workers and semi-skilled
            who have completed more than 15 years of their service will get
            one increment, two increments for 20 years service and three
D           increments for 25 years in the current pay scale of skilled workers
            and their salary will be fixed accordingly.”
             4.2 That the Respondent – Board adopted the Government
      Resolution dated 17.10.1988 by way of communication dated 08.06.1989.
      That the respective original petitioners are working as daily rated
E     employees with the Board. That on adoption of GR dated 17.10.1988
      (hereinafter referred to as the ‘parent Resolution’) by the Respondent -
      Board all the daily rated employees working with the Board including
      the original petitioners were granted the benefit of the pay scales of
      Rs.750 and other benefits upon their completion of 5 years services.

F            4.3 That thereafter vide Resolution dated 01.05.1991, the State
      Government modified the Resolution dated 17.10.1988. Under the
      modified GR dated 01.05.1991 it provided that all departments would
      assign administrative work of clerical cadre Class – III to those SCC
      pass daily wagers who have completed 7 years and it further provided
      that such daily wager should be paid pay scale of Rs.950-1500 from the
G     date of assignment of duty. Another Resolution dated 15.02.1992 was
      issued wherein it was stated that pay of Rs.950 would be granted in the
      pay scale of Rs.950-1500 w.e.f. 01.05.1991 to all SSC pass daily wagers
      who have completed 7 years of service. As observed hereinabove the
      Respondent – Board granted benefits under the parent Resolution to all
H     the writ petitioners and the daily rated employees working with the Board
   RAJESH PRAVINCHANDRA RAJYAGURU v. GUJARAT                                   853
   WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD [M. R. SHAH, J.]

upon their completion of five years and placed them at the basic pay of        A
Rs.2550. That the Respondent – Board also granted benefits under the
parent Resolution to all daily rated employees working with the Board
including the original writ petitioners upon their completion of 10 years
and placed them in the pay scale of Rs.2550-55-2600-60-3200.
       4.4 It appears that some of the zonal offices of the Board              B
erroneously and inadvertently extended the benefit of the modified
Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 to unskilled daily wagers.
That it came to notice of the Head Office of the Respondent – Board
that in absence of any policy decision to adopt the Resolutions dated
01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992, inadvertently benefit of pay scale of Rs.950-
1500 has been granted to certain daily wagers and therefore vide               C
instructions dated 05.06.2015, it was instructed that such benefits should
not be granted. In fact, the Respondent – Board withdrew the benefit of
pay scale of Rs.950-1500 granted inadvertently applying the Resolutions
dated 01.05.1991 & 15.02.1992 and even started recovery, which is the
subject matter before the High Court in some other proceedings.                D
       4.5 It appears that the respective original writ petitioners sent
various representations to the Board to place them in the pay scale of
Rs.950-1500 as per the Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 & 15.02.1992 and
further revision of pay to the extent of Rs.3050-4590. That thereafter
the original writ petitioners approached the High Court by way of SCA          E
No.16470 of 2018 to grant them the benefit of pay scale under the
Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 and to put
them in the pay scale of Rs.950-1500. The said writ petition was opposed
by the Board by filing a detailed reply. It was the specific case on behalf
of the Board that the modified Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991
and 15.02.1992 are never adopted by the Board like the parent Resolution       F
dated 17.10.1988. It was also the case on behalf of the Board that in
some zonal offices the benefit of Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and
15.02.1992 were inadvertently given which have been withdrawn. It
was the specific case on behalf of the Board that unless the Board
specifically adopts the Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and            G
15.02.1992, the original writ petitioners and other daily rated employees
are not entitled to the benefit under the said Resolutions. It was also
submitted that there is no automatic adoption of the subsequent resolutions.
It was also the case that as the others were given the benefit of the
Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 inadvertently
                                                                               H
854            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A     and by mistake and in fact the same are sought to be withdrawn/
      withdrawn, the writ petitioners cannot claim the parity. That by judgment
      and order dated 15.10.2019, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ
      petition and directed the Board to grant the benefits of pay scale of
      Rs.950-1500 to the original writ petitioners – daily rated employees with
      all consequential benefits upon completion of 10 years of service and
B
      revised their pay scales as per 5th, 6th and 7th Pay Commission scales on
      such basis. The learned Single Judge also directed to pay the arears.
             5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment
      and order passed by the learned Single Judge, the Board preferred the
      Letters Patent Appeal 16470 of 2018 before the Division Bench of the
C     High Court. By the impugned judgment and order the Division Bench of
      the High Court has allowed the Letters Patent Appeal and quashed and
      set aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge by
      holding that at the subsequent modified Government Resolutions dated
      01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 are not adopted by the Board, the daily rated
D     employees of the Board are not entitled to any benefit flowing from
      modified Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 which
      as such are not adopted by the Board.
            6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugnment and
      order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court holding that the
E     original writ petitioners are not entitled to pay scale of Rs.950-1500 and
      the benefits flowing from the modified Government Resolutions dated
      01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992, the original writ petitioners – daily rated
      employees of the Respondent – Board have preferred the present
      appeals.

F            7. Shri Sanjay Parikh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
      of the original writ petitioners has vehemently submitted that as such the
      Division Bench of the High Court has erred in quashing and setting
      aside the well-reasoned judgment and order passed by the learned Single
      Judge.

G            7.1 It is submitted that the learned Single Judge considered every
      aspect of the matter and considering the material on record has rightly
      held that the original writ petitioners are entitled to the benefit flowing
      from the Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992.
            7.2 It is further submitted by Shri Parikh, learned Senior Counsel
      that as such the Respondent – Board passed a Resolution dated
H
   RAJESH PRAVINCHANDRA RAJYAGURU v. GUJARAT                                   855
   WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD [M. R. SHAH, J.]

06.08.1990 that till the Board frames its own Rules and Regulations,           A
Board shall follow the Rules, Regulations, Circulars, Policies, Instructions
and all schemes of the State Government. It is submitted that till date no
Rules and Regulations are framed by the Board. It is submitted that
therefore the Board is bound to follow and/or act upon its own Board
Resolution dated 06.08.1990.
                                                                               B
      7.3 It is further submitted that even otherwise once the parent
Resolution dated 17.10.1988 came to be adopted by the Board, all
successive amended resolutions shall be applicable and shall have to be
implemented by the Board.
       7.4 It is further submitted that the Board being a statutory body,      C
has to adopt all subsequent policy decisions/resolutions in the same manner
in which the parent Resolution was adopted.
       7.5 It is further submitted by Shri Parikh, learned Senior Counsel
for the original writ petitioners that in fact there are several employees
who have been granted such benefits under the Government Resolutions           D
dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 and only few of the daily rated
employees like the original writ petitioners are denied the benefit under
the GRs of 1991 and 1992. It is submitted therefore as rightly observed
and held by learned Single Judge the action of the Respondent - Board
in denying the benefit of Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and
15.02.1992 to some of the daily wage employees would be discriminatory         E
and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted
that out of total 3348 daily rated employees, only 474 daily rated employees
like the original writ petitioners are denied the benefits of 1991 and 1992
Resolutions.
       7.6 It is further submitted by Shri Parikh, learned Senior Counsel      F
for the appellants that as such earlier the service of water supply and
sewerage was under the control of Government of Gujarat and only on
formation of the Board under the Act such activity was transferred to
the Board. It is submitted that therefore, the Board is undertaking the
activities which earlier the Government was performing. It is submitted        G
that therefore when the Board is the creation of the statute and is
undertaking the activities which earlier were carried out by the State
Government and the same is funded by the State Government, the daily
rated employees of the Board like the original writ petitioners are entitled
to the same benefits which are available to the daily rated employees of
the other departments of the State Government. Heavy reliance is placed        H
856             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A     on the decision of this Court in the case of State of Gujarat and Others
      versus PWD Employees Union and others, (2013) 12 SCC 417.
             8. Making above submissions and relying upon the above decision,
      it is prayed to allow the present appeals and quash and set aside the
      impugned judgment and orders passed by the Division Bench and restore
B     the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the
      benefits flowing from 1991 and 1992 Resolutions.
            9. Present appeals are vehemently opposed by Ms. Aastha Mehta,
      learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent – Board.
             9.1 It is vehemently submitted by Ms. Mehta, learned counsel
C     appearing for the Respondent – Board that in the facts and circumstances
      of the case the Division Bench of the High Court has not committed any
      error in allowing the appeals preferred by the Respondent – Board and
      quashed and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
             9.2 It is submitted that as such the original writ petitioners – daily
D     rated employees working with the Respondent – Board have been granted
      the benefit under the parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It is submitted
      that such benefits have been granted as the Board specifically adopted
      the parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988. It is submitted that however the
      subsequent modified Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 have never been
E     adopted by the Board. It is submitted that therefore the daily rated
      employees working with the Respondent - Board like the original writ
      petitioners are not entitled to any benefit flowing from the Resolutions of
      1991 and 1992. It is submitted that therefore the Division Bench of the
      High Court has rightly held that as the subsequent resolutions of 1991
      and 1992 are not adopted by the Respondent – Board, the original writ
F     petitioners – daily rated employees of the Respondent – Board are not
      entitled to any benefit under the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992.
             9.3 Ms. Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the
      Respondent – Board has further submitted that as such and despite the
      fact that the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 were never adopted by the
G     Board, in some of the zonal offices inadvertently and mistakenly the
      benefits under the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 were given. It is
      submitted that immediately when the Head Office came to know,
      instructions were issued to all the zonal offices to stop granting the benefit
      under the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 and to recover the amount
      mistakenly given. It is submitted that the subsequent decision in the year
H
   RAJESH PRAVINCHANDRA RAJYAGURU v. GUJARAT                                   857
   WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD [M. R. SHAH, J.]

2015 withdrawing the benefit under the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992            A
which are given mistakenly and inadvertently is never challenged by the
original writ petitioners. It is submitted that therefore the decision to
withdraw the benefit flowing from the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992
stands.
       9.4 It is submitted that the learned Single Judge allowed the writ      B
petitions and directed the Respondent – Board to grant the benefits
flowing from the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 solely and mainly on the
ground of discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India by observing that the other daily rated employees working with the
Respondent – Board are granted the benefit under the Resolutions of
1991 and 1992 and therefore not to pay similar benefits to the original        C
writ petitioners is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. It is submitted that however the learned Single
Judge failed to appreciate that as such the benefits which were given to
the other employees have been withdrawn and even the recovery is also
sought. It is submitted that thereafter it cannot be said that the action of   D
the Respondent – Board in not granting the benefit under the Resolutions
of 1991 and 1992 can be said to be discriminatory and/or in violation of
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
      9.5 Ms. Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent –
Board has requested to consider the following chronological list of dates      E
and events:




                                                                               F




                                                                               G




                                                                               H
858   SUPREME COURT REPORTS   [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A




B




C




D




E




F




G




H
   RAJESH PRAVINCHANDRA RAJYAGURU v. GUJARAT                                   859
   WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       9.6 It is submitted that as the Division Bench of the High Court        A
has rightly appreciated the fact and has rightly held that the original writ
petitioners and daily rated employees working with the Respondent –
Board are not entitled to the benefits flowing from the Government
Resolutions of 1991 and 1992.
      9.7 It is submitted that even subsequently the Government has            B
turned down the request for application of benefits under 1991 Resolution.
        9.8 It is submitted that as in some of the zonal offices though not
entitled, the daily rated employees were granted the benefits under the
Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 inadvertently and mistakenly, the same
came to be withdrawn and even recovery is sought. Thereafter there is          C
no question of granting any benefit to the remaining daily rated employees.
It is submitted that even otherwise the original writ petitioners have to
establish their right to get the benefit under the Government Resolutions
of 1991 and 1992 independently. It is submitted that concept of equality
cannot be allowed in the present case to perpetuate one mistake for
other daily wagers.                                                            D

      Reliance is placed in the decision of this Court in the case of
State of U.P. & Others versus Rajkumar Sharma & Others, (2006)
3 SCC 330 (para 15); State of West Bengal & Others versus
Debasish Mukherjee & Others, (2011) 14 SCC 187 and P.
Singaravelan & Others versus District Collector, Tiruppur and                  E
DT and Others, (2020) 3 SCC 133.
       9.9 It is further submitted by Ms. Mehta, learned counsel appearing
for the Respondent – Board that there cannot be any automatic application
of subsequent resolutions by the Board. It is submitted that the
Respondent – Board is an autonomous and statutory body and free to             F
take its own decision in regard to pay scales. It is submitted that being
the daily rated employees of the Respondent – Board, they are not entitled
to the benefits which are given to the State Government employees
automatically unless it is adopted by the Board.
        9.10 It is submitted that even otherwise as held by this Court in a    G
catena of decisions, issues of revision of pay scales and determination
of pay scales/post should be dealt with by the employer, which depend
upon the employers’ financial capacity. Reliance is placed on the decisions
of this Court in the case of Secretary, Finance Department and Others
versus West Bengal Registration Service Association & Others,
                                                                               H
860             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A     1993 Supp (1) SCC 153; State of Bihar and Others versus Bihar
      Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger and Others,
      (2019) 18 SCC 301 and Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers
      Federation Limited and Another versus Balbir Kumar Walia and
      Others, (2021) 8 SCC 784.
B            9.11 It is further submitted that in the present case if the Board is
      directed to grant the benefit flowing from Government Resolutions of
      1991 and 1992 to the daily rated employees working with the Respondent
      – Board in that case it would have a cascading effect and financial
      burden upon the Respondent – Board. It is submitted that there shall be
      additional financial liability on the Board. It is submitted that there are
C     3348 daily wager employees. Out of 3348 daily wage employees, 474
      are not granted the benefits of the 1991 and 1992 Resolutions. It is
      submitted that additional financial liability per daily wager would be Rs.5
      lakhs and therefore considering that 474 employees are not granted,
      multiplying Rs.5 lakhs into 474 employees, the overall financial liability
D     of the Board comes to Rs.23.7 crores. It is submitted that annually, the
      additional burden on the Respondent – Board even with respect to the
      remaining 474 daily rated employees like the original writ petitioners
      would be Rs.2 crores.
            10. Making above submissions it is prayed to dismiss the present
E     appeals.
             11. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at
      length.
             12. The short question which is posed for consideration before
      this Court is whether the original writ petitioners – daily rated employees
F     working with the Respondent - Board are entitled to the benefits flowing
      from subsequent Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992? Another
      question which is posed for consideration before this Court is whether
      the principle of negative equality shall be applicable in a case where the
      other employees were wrongly granted the benefits and/or the employees
G     who are claiming the parity shall have to establish their rights
      independently to get the particular benefits?
             13. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
      and considering the list of dates and events reproduced hereinabove it
      can be seen that the writ petitioners are working as daily rated employees
      with the Respondent – Board. The State of Gujarat passed a resolution
H
   RAJESH PRAVINCHANDRA RAJYAGURU v. GUJARAT                                861
   WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD [M. R. SHAH, J.]

dated 17.10.1988 wherein the Government decided to grant certain            A
benefits to skilled daily wager workmen. The Respondent – Board which
is an autonomous body constituted under the Act adopted the Resolution
dated 17.10.1988 and granted the benefits flowing from the GR dated
17.10.1988 which is the parent Resolution. It is not in dispute that the
respective original writ petitioners – daily rated employees are granted
                                                                            B
the benefits flowing from the parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988.
       13.1 However, subsequently the Government issued Resolutions
dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 by which certain modifications were
carried out in the parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988 and it was provided
that such daily wagers who are SSC passed and have completed 7 years,
the Department would assign administrative work of clerical cadre Class     C
III and they shall be paid pay scale of Rs.950-1500 from the date of
assignment of duty. The original writ petitioners – daily rated employees
are claiming the benefit flowing from the aforesaid subsequent
Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992 mainly on
the ground that other similar daily rated employees have been granted       D
the benefit under the aforesaid Government Resolutions of 1991 and
1992 and therefore not extending such benefits to other daily rated
employees – other writ petitioners which is discriminatory and violative
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
       13.2 However, it is required to be noted that as such the Board      E
never adopted the subsequent Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and
15.02.1992. It is required to be noted that the parent Resolution dated
17.10.1988 was specifically approved by the Board vide communication
dated 08.06.1989. On the contrary the administrative instructions vide
communication dated 29.08.1991 were issued to all the Chief Engineers
of zonal offices that benefits pursuant to Government Resolution of 1991    F
are not to be granted to the daily rated employees of the Board. It is to
be noted that right from adopting the parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988,
the Respondent - Board granted benefits under the parent Resolution to
all the original writ petitioners – daily rated employees upon their
completion of 5 years and of 10 years. Therefore, as such the Board         G
which is an autonomous and statutory body created under the Act never
adopted the Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992
and unless the said Resolutions are adopted by the Respondent – Board,
the daily rated employees working with the Respondent – Board shall
not be entitled to the benefits flowing from the subsequent resolutions.
                                                                            H
862             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A     There shall not be automatic adoption and/or applicability of the subsequent
      resolutions. Under the circumstances as rightly held by the Division
      Bench, the daily rated employees of the Respondent – Board cannot
      claim the benefits from the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 as a matter of
      right. As rightly observed and held they do no have any right to get the
      benefits flowing from the aforesaid Resolutions of 01.05.1991 and
B
      15.02.1992 till specifically adopted by the Respondent – Board like
      adoption of the parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988.
             13.3 Even being the daily rated employees working with the
      Respondent – Board they cannot claim the parity with the employees of
      the State Government. The Respondent – Board is an autonomous and
C     statutory body created under the Act. It is ultimately for the Respondent
      – Board to take a conscious decision which can be termed as a policy
      decision on the pay scales to be adopted and/or certain benefits which
      would have financial implications. Everything depends upon its economic
      viability or the financial capacity. As per the settled proposition of law
D     the economic viability or the financial capacity of the employer is an
      important factor while fixing the wage structure, otherwise the unit itself
      may not be able to function and may have to close down inevitably and
      have disastrous consequences for the employees themselves. As per
      the settled proposition of law the employees cannot legitimately claim
      that their pay-scales should necessarily be revised and/or they must be
E     granted certain additional benefits/benefits.
             13.4 As per the settled proposition of law equation of posts and
      salary is a complex matter which should be left to the expert body and
      undertakings and the court cannot interfere lightly. Granting of pay parity
      by the court may result in a cascading effect having adverse
F     consequences. There are limitations or qualifications to the applicability
      of the doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’.
             13.5 Being daily rated employees of the Respondent – Board,
      they cannot claim as of right similar treatment as Government employees.
      The Respondent – Board is an independent entity and it might have its
G     own financial capacity and therefore its employees cannot claim parity
      with the employees of the State Government.
            13.6 The State Government and the autonomous Board/bodies
      cannot be put at par. The Board has to depend upon their own financial
      resources. In the recent decision in the case of Punjab State
H
   RAJESH PRAVINCHANDRA RAJYAGURU v. GUJARAT                                     863
   WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD [M. R. SHAH, J.]

Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited and Another                        A
(Supra) it is observed in paragraph 32 as under:
       “32. The Central or State Government is empowered to levy taxes
       to meet out the expenses of the State. It is always a conscious
       decision of the Government as to how much taxes have to be
       levied so as to not cause excessive burden on the citizens. But the       B
       Boards and Corporations have to depend on either their own
       resources or seek grant from the Central/ State Government, as
       the case may be, for their expenditures. Therefore, the grant of
       benefits of higher pay scale to the Central/State Government
       employees stand on different footing than grant of pay scale by
       an instrumentality of the State.”                                         C

      Therefore, the daily rated employees of the Board cannot as a
matter of right claim the parity of pay scales with the Government
employees.
       13.7 In the present case a conscious decision has been taken by           D
the Board not to adopt the Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991
and 15.02.1992. Even the State Government has refused to extend the
benefits under the Government Resolutions of 1991 and 1992. The Board
has taken a conscious decision considering the additional financial burden
on the Board if the benefits under the Government Resolutions of 1991
and 1992 are allowed.                                                            E

       14. At the cost of repetition, it is observed that unless and until the
Board has specifically adopted the Government Resolutions of 1991 and
1992 like adopting the parent Resolution dated 17.10.1988, the daily rated
employees/employees of the Respondent – Board shall not be entitled to
any benefit flowing from the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992. Therefore,            F
the learned Single Judge erred in directing the Board to grant the benefits
flowing from the Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991 and
15.02.1992 which is rightly set aside by the Division Bench of the High
Court.
       15. So far as the submission on behalf of the original writ petitioners   G
which was accepted by the learned Single Judge that as number of
other daily rated employees of the Board were granted the benefits
flowing from the Resolutions of 1991 and 1992, not paying similar benefits
to the remaining daily rated employees would be discriminatory and
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is concerned, it is
                                                                                 H
864             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 9 S.C.R.


A     required to be noted that as such right from the very beginning it was the
      case on behalf of the Respondent – Board that the benefits under the
      Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 were inadvertently and mistakenly given
      by some of the zonal offices, which subsequently came to be withdrawn
      and even the recovery is also sought. As observed and held hereinabove
      the original writ petitioners – daily rated employees of the Board are not
B
      entitled to the benefits flowing from the Government Resolutions of 1991
      and 1992. Therefore, they cannot invoke Article 14 of the Constitution
      to claim benefit on the ground of parity if they otherwise are not entitled
      to such benefit. As per the settled proposition of law Article 14 of the
      Constitution embodies concept of positive equality alone and not negative
C     equality. It cannot be relied upon to perpetuate illegality and irregularity.
            15.1 As held by this Court in the case of Rajkumar Sharma
      (Supra) in a case of appointments or pay-scales, Article 14 of the
      Constitution does not envisage negative equality and if State has
      committed the mistake, it cannot be forced to perpetuate the same
D     mistake.
             15.2 In the case of Debasish Mukherjee (Supra) while dealing
      with the concept of equality it is observed in paragraph 26 as under:
            “26. It is now well settled that guarantee of equality before law is
            a positive concept and cannot be enforced in a negative manner.
E           If an illegality or an irregularity has been committed in favour of
            any individual or group of individuals, others cannot invoke the
            jurisdiction of Courts and Tribunals to require the state to commit
            the same irregularity or illegality in their favour on the reasoning
            that they have been denied the benefits which have been illegally
F           or arbitrarily extended to others. [See : Gursharan Singh vs. New
            Delhi Municipal Administration - 1996 (2) SCC 459, Union of India
            vs. Kirloskar Pneumatics Ltd. - 1996 (4) SCC 433, Union of India
            vs. International Trading Co. - 2003 (5) SCC 437, and State of
            Bihar vs. Kameshwar Prasad Singh - 2000 (9) SCC 94.]”

G            16. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid
      decisions to the facts of the case on hand and as observed hereinabove
      the daily rated employees of the Board cannot claim as a matter of right
      the benefits flowing from the Government Resolutions dated 01.05.1991
      and 15.02.1992 and as such they are not entitled to the benefits flowing
      from the said Resolutions of 1991 and 1992 automatically and considering
H
   RAJESH PRAVINCHANDRA RAJYAGURU v. GUJARAT                                     865
   WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD [M. R. SHAH, J.]

the fact that even subsequently the mistake committed by other zonal             A
offices have been corrected and the benefits mistakenly and/or
inadvertently have been withdrawn and even the recovery sought, the
learned Single Judge committed grave error in holding that the action of
the Respondent – Board in not granting benefit flowing from the
Government Resolution of 1991 and 1992 is discriminately and violative
                                                                                 B
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The same is rightly corrected
by the Division Bench of the High Court and the Division Bench of the
High Court has rightly set aside the order passed by the Single judge.
       17. Now so far as the reliance placed upon by learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the original writ petitioners in the decision of this
Court in PWD Employees Union (Supra) is concerned, the same shall                C
not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand and/or the same shall
not be of any assistance to the daily rated employees of the Respondent
– Board. In the case before this Court the dispute was with respect to
two different departments of the State Government.
      As observed hereinabove, the employees of the Government                   D
departments and the employees of the Board as such stand on different
footings. As observed hereinabove the employees of the Board cannot
claim the parity with that of the Government employees.
       18. In view of the above and for the reason stated above challenge
to the impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of               E
the High Court fails. For the reason stated above, it cannot be said that
the Division Bench of the High Court has committed grave error in
allowing the Letters Patent Appeals and quashing and setting aside the
judgment and orders passed by the High Court. It is held that the original
writ petitioners – daily rated employees of the Respondent – Board are           F
not entitled to the benefits flowing from the Government Resolutions
dated 01.05.1991 and 15.02.1992. However, they shall be continued to
pay or grant the benefits flowing from the parent Resolution dated
17.10.1988 which is reported to be implemented and paid. Both these
appeals deserve to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.
                                                                                 G
      However, in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall
be no order as to costs.

Divya Pandey                                                 Appeals dimissed.

                                                                                 H