Supreme Court of India

SATISH KUMARversusTHE JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST, JALANDHAR AND ANR.

Citation: 1996 INSC 140
Decided: 29 January 1996
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYG B PATTANAIK

Holding

A person not possessing the minimum qualification for a post cannot claim equal pay for equal work under Article 39(d) and Article 14.

Summary

The petitioner, Satish Kumar, challenged his appointment as Pumpset Operator by the Jalandhar Improvement Trust, claiming entitlement to equal pay under Article 39(d) and Article 14 of the Constitution. He argued that despite lacking the minimum qualification prescribed for the post, he performed the same duties as qualified employees and therefore should receive equal remuneration. The Supreme Court examined sections 17 and 18 of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1923, which empower the Trust to appoint staff but do not allow appointments that disregard the statutory qualification criteria. The Court held that the doctrine of equal pay applies only when persons performing the same work are equally qualified; an unqualified employee cannot be treated as an equal for pay purposes. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Article 39(d) and Article 14 guarantee equal pay for a person appointed without the minimum qualification for the post.
Whether sections 17 and 18 of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1923 permit the appointment of a person lacking the prescribed qualifications.
Whether the doctrine of equal pay for equal work applies when the employee is not an equal in terms of qualifications.

Subjects

equal payArticle 39(d)Article 14minimum qualificationpublic trustemployment lawdiscriminationspecial leave petition

Judgment

A                         SATISH KUMAR
                                v.
                THE JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST,
                       JALANDHAR AND ANR.

                               JANUARY 29, 1996
B
               [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.]

          Constitution of India, 1950 :

                39(d) & 14-Equal pay for equal work-Applicable only when a
c personArt.discharges same duties but not paid same pay-Unequals cannot be
    treated as equals for paying equal pay for equal work-Person appointed
    without the minimum basic qualificatiol!--Not entitled to equal pay 011 par
    with persons appointed with the minimum qualificatio11-Service Law-Equal
    pay for equal work.
D
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C)                    '
    No. 0807 of 1996.

         From the Jildgment and Order dated 5.9.95 of the Punjab & Haryana
    High Court in R.S.A. No. 691 of 1995.
E
          Puneet Bali and M.T. George for the Petitioner.

          The following Order of the Court was delivered :
                                                                                    •,
          Though the learned counsel has tried his best to persuade us to
F   disagree with the impugned order of the High Court, we think that the
    High Court is right in its conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to
    the equal pay as Pumpset Operator. The learned counsel sought to rely
    upon section 18 of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act, 1923 (for
    short the Act). Section 18 envisages power of the Trust to fix number M
    employees, their salaries etc. Section 17 envisages constitution of the trust
G   and subject to the constitution section 18 says that the Trust may from time
    to time employ such other servants on such terms and conditions as it may
    deem, necessary and proper for carrying out its functions under the Act.         •
    Sub-section (2) gives controlling power of appointment, promotion, grant-
    ing leave, suspension of the servants, reducing them into their hierarchy of
H   position reinoving them from service, dismissing them from service for
                                          1020
    (

    ~


                SATISH KUMAR v. JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENT TRUST                    1021

        misconduct for reasons other than misconduct Chairman also has power           A
        under the Act.

               It is stated that in exercising this power, the Chairman being the
        controlling authority had releaxed the service conditions of the petitioner
        and also appointed him as Pumpset Operator though he was not possessed
        of the minimum qualification prescribed under the Act. It is not in dispute    B
        that for the said post Matriculation with LT.I. are qualifications which the
        petitioner admittedly has not possessed of. General power of supervision
        and control does not include the power to appoint any person of his choice
        without basic qualification. Therefore, the exercise of the power by the
        Chairman would obviously be illegal. Under those circumstances, the            C
        doctrine of equal pay for equal work envisaged in Article 39 (a) of the
        Constitution has no application. It would apply only when a person is
        discharging the same duties but not being paid the same pay for the same
        work. In this case since the petitioner is not possessed of minimum basic
        qualification to the post to which he was appointed, unequals cannot be
        made equals for paying equal pay for equal work. Therefore, he is not          D
        entitled to equal pay.

               The Petition is accordingly dismissed.

        G.N.                                                     Petition dismissed.



,

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "equal pay"Sign in to search