SITA DEVI & ORS. ETC. ETC.versusSTATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

                     SITA DEVI & ORS. ETC. ETC.                                  A
                                      v.
                    STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

                            AUGUST 23, 1996
                                                                                 B
      (B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.)

         Constitution of India, Art. 14-Equal pay for equal work-Educational
  qualifications as basis for equal pay for equal work-State of Haryana Under-
. matricuiate instrnctors in "Adult Literacy Programme"~eld, not similarly
 placed as matriculate instructorHfeld, State Govt's. refusal to extend C
  matriculate instructors' scale of pay to non-matriculate instructors, valid.

      Service Law-Equal pay for Equal work-Parity in employment-Educa-
tional qualifications-Basis and Extent,of
                                                                                 D
      The writ petitioners were working as "under matriculate instructors
in the Adult Literacy Programme" of Govt. of Haryana on a consolidated
salary of Rs. 200 per month. They had been working as such for 5 to 6 years
to the satisfaction of all concerned. They had in their writ petition, sought
the following reliefs viz. (1) that the petitioners be treated to be in the
serviee of the respondents from the date of their initial appointment ir-        E
respective of there being artificial breaks, (2) issuance of directions to the
respondents to put the petitioners on regular pay scales applicable to the
primary school teachers in the education department of Haryana with
other consequential benefits, and (3) issuance of directions to the respon·
dents to declare the petitioners as regular teachers in the department of        F
Adult Education and non-formal Education.

      Dismissing the writ petition, this Court

       HELD : 1. The Doctrine of "Equal work for equal pay" is recognised
 by this court as a facet of the equality cause contained in Art. 14 of the      G
·Constitution and has been dealt with by this Court is several decisions.
                                                                 [176-D-E]
       Randhir Singh v. Union of India, [1982) 3 SCR 298; Dhirendra
Chamoli v. State of U.P., [1986] 1 SCC 637 and Surinder Singh v. Engineer
i11 Chief, CPWD, [1986) 1 SCC 639,.referred to.                           H
                                     173
    174                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A         2~. Where the petitioners complain of unlawful discrimination offend-
    ing Art. 14, it is for them t:o satisfy the Court that the distinction made is
    irrational and baseless aml that it really amounts to unlawful discrimina-
    tion prohibited by Art, 14. [177-A-B]

          21. The question is whether the Govt. of Haryana is guilty of unlawful
B   discrimination in refusing to extend to non-matriculate instructors the pay
    scale which has been extended to matriculate instructors pursuant to the
    judgm1mt of this court in Jaipal. It is is not so. Classification on the basis
    of educational qualifications has always been upheld by this court as
    reasonable and permissible under Art. 14. [177-C-D]
c        Jaipal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR (1988) SC 1504 = [1988]
    3 SCC 354; State of J & K v. Triloki Nath Khosa, AIR (1974) S.C.I.; P.
    Murgesan & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1993] 2 SCC 340 and The State
    of Mysore & Anr. v. P. Narasinga Rao, AIR (1968) SC 349, relied on.

D         4. Apart from relyin1~ upon the decision of this court in Jaipal and
    cl~iming that the benefit given to matriculate teachers should also be given
    to them, no attempt has been made in the writ petition to alleged and
    establish that their qualifications, duties and functions are similar to those
    of squad teachers. Hence the claim is unacceptable. [178-B]

E        Jaipal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR (1988) SC 1504   = (1988]
    3 sec 354, referred to.

         CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 584 of
    1989 Etc.

F         Under Article 32 of lthe Constitution of India.

          S.K. Dhaen, Ms. Rekha Pandey, Subhash Sharma and M.R. Vij for
    the Petitioners.

          Prem Malhotra and Ms. A. Subhashini for the Respondents.
G
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Writ Petition (C) No. 584 OF 1989

          In this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of
H India, three reliefs are asked for by as many as 748 petitioners. The reliefs
              SlTADEVIv. STAIB [B.P.JEEVAN REDDY,J.]                     175

sought for are :                                                                A

        "(a) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any appropriate writ,
        order or direction· that the petitioners be treated to be in the
        service of the respondents from the date of their initial appoint-
        ment irrespective of there bdng artificial break in their services
        during the period.
                                                                                B

        (b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents
        to put the petitioners on regular pay scale to that of primary school
        teachers in the Education Department of Haryana Plus other
        consequential benefits from the date of their initial appointment       C
        and further direct the respondents to pay the petitioners the
        difference in arrears of salary accrued to them from the date of
        their initial appointment.

        (c) Issue by appropriate writ, order or direction that the depart-
        ment of Audit Education and Non-formal Education is a per-              D
        manent department of the State and the petitioners are regular
        teachers in the department appointed against sanctioned posts of
        Instructors."

       On the date of the filing of the writ petition (March 1989) the · E
petitioners were working as "under matriculate instructors in the Adult
Literacy Programme" devised by the Government of Haryana. They were
being paid a lump sum amount of Rs. 200 per month as salary. They had
put in 5 to 6 years service and have been performing their duties to the
satisfaction of all concerned. Their submission is that when matriculate
instructors approached this Court for similar reliefs, they were granted
                                                                              F
certain reliefs though not all the reliefs asked for by them. The reference
is to the judgment of the Court in Jaipal a11d Others v. State of Harya11a
a11d Others, A.LR. (1988) S.C. 1504 = [1988] 3 S.C.C. 354 wherein this
Court directed, that the "matriculate instructors are entitled to the same
pay scale as sanctioned to squad teachers." This court had also directed G
that the salary of the said petitioners shall be fixed in the same scale as
that of the squad teachers, having regard to the length of their service with
effect from their dated of initial appointment by ignoring the break in
service on account of six months fresh appointments. It was further
directed by this Court that the said petitioners will be entitled to the said H
    176                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A pay scales in accordance with law notwithstanding the break in service that
    might have taken place. The said directions were made effective with effect
    from September 1, 1985. However, the clai.m for regularisation of their
    services put forward by the said petitioners was rejected, since the very
    project was likely to last only till 1990. The present petitioners' case is that
B   though they are non-matriculates they too have been performing the very
    same duties as were being performed by matriculate teachers (petitioners
    in Jaipal). The petitioners invoke the principle of 'equal pay for equal
    work'. According to them, except the difference in the matter of educa-
    tional qualifications their is no other distinction between the post held and
C   the duties and functions performed by the petitioners in Jaipal and the
    petitioners herein. They have ~et out in the writ petition the several duties
    performed by them. Reliance is also placed upon certain other decisions
    of this Court viz., Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 3 S.C.R. 298;
    Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P., (1986) 1 S.C.C. 637 and Surinder Singh
    v. Engineer-in-Chief, CPWD, (1986) 1 S.C.C. 639.
D
           The doctrine of 'equal work for equal pay' is recognised by this Court
    as a facet of the equality clause contained in Article 14 of the Constitution.
    The first of the several decisions on the subject is Randhir Singh v. Union
    of India, [1982] 1 S.C.C. 618. The said doctrine has been dealt with by this
E   Court in several later decisions including State of Madhya Pradesh and
    Another v. Pramod Bhartiya and Others, (1993) 1 S.C.C. 539 decided by a
    three member Bench of which one of which one of us (B.P. Jeevan Reddy,
    J.) was a member. This decision dealt mainly with the manner in which the
    claim of equal work has to be Judged. It was held, after referring to the
    definition of "same work or work of a similar nature" in Section 2(h) of
F
    Equal Remuneration Act 1976, that :

               "the stress is upon the similarity of skill, effort and responsibility
               when performed under similar conditions. Further, as pointed out
               by Mukherji, J. (as he then was) in Federation of All India Customs
G              and Excise Stenographers, (1988) 3 S.C.C. 91 : [1988) SCC (L&S)
               673: (1988) 7 ATC 591 the quality of work may vary from post to
               post. It may very from institution to institution. We cannot ignore
               or overlook this reality. It is not a matter of assumption but one
               of proof........... It must be remembered that since the plea of equal
H              pay for equal work has to be examined with reference to Article
           I
              SffA DEVI v. STATE [B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, J.]                  177

         14, the burden is upon the petitioners to establish their right to · A
         equal pay, or the plea of discrimination, as the case may be."

       It was observed in the said decision, on the basis of the earlier
decisions of this Court, that where the petitioners complain of unlawful
discrimination offending Article 14, it is for them to satisfy the Court that
 the distinction made is irrational and baseless and that it really amounts to B
 unlawful discrimination prohibited by Article 14. Applying the principle of
 the said decision to this case, can it be said that the petitioners herein who
 are non-matriculate instructors are similarly placed to that of the matricu-
late instructors or that the distinction made between both the categories is
irrational or baseless. In other words, the question is whether the Govern- · C
ment of Haryana is guilty of unlawful discrimination in refusing to extend
to non-matriculate instructors the pay-scale which has been extended to
matriculate instructors pursuant to the judgment of this Court in Jaipal.
We do not think so. Classification on the basis of educational qualifications
has always been upheld by this Court as reasonable and permissible under D
Article 14. In The State of Mysore and Another v. P. Narasinga Rao, A.I.R.
(1968) S.C. 349, the Government of Karnataka had prescribed two different
scales for tracers - one for matriculate tracers with higher scale and
another for non-matriculate tracers with lower pay scale. The non-matricu-
late tracers complained of discrimination. The said• plea was negatived E
holding that prescribing two different scales· for matriculates and non-
matriculates is not violative of Article 14 and 16. It was held that distinction
made on the basis of technical qualifications or for that matter even on the
basis of general educational qualifications relevant to the suitability of the
candidate for public service is permissible under the said articles Indeed,
in that case both the matriculate and non-matriculate tracers formed one F
single category with one single pay scale earlier. It was only at a later stage
that a distinction was made between matriculates and non-matriculates
                                                                                '
which led to the said proceedings. This Court proceeded on the assumption
that both matriculates and non-matriculate tracers "were doing the same
kind of work"; yet the classification made was upheld as permissible under G
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Distinction on the basis of educa-
tional qualifications has been upheld as valid by this Court in a large
number of cases since, By way of illustration, in State of Jammu and
Kashmir v. T1iloki Nath Khosa, A.LR. (1974) S.C. 1 the classification of
Assistant Engineers as diploma holders and degree holders and providing H
    178                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A more promotional avenues to degree holders was upheld as reasonable.
    The later decision in P. Mumgesan & Others v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1993)
    2 S.C.C. 340 is also to the same effect. In this decision, all the decisions on
    the subject of classification on the basis of educational qualifications have
    been fully discussed.

B          We are, therefore, of the opinion that the grievance made by the
    petitioners is unacceptable. We may also mention that apart from relying
    upon the decision of this Court infaipal and claiming that the benefit given
    to matriculate teachers should also be given to them, no attempt has been
    made in the writ petition to allege and establish that their qualifications,
c   duties and functions are similar to those of squad teachers.

          For the above reasons, the writ petition fails and is accordingly
    dismissed. No costs.

           W.P. (C) Nos. 1008/88, 815/88 and 545/93
D         No separate. arguments are addressed in these writ petitioners. They
    too are accordingly dismissed for the very same reasons. No costs.

    J.B.                                                       Petition dismissed.