Holding

The doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is not absolute; a reasonable classification based on intelligible criteria with a rational nexus to the statutory purpose permits a junior to receive higher pay, and senior employees cannot claim parity where such justification exists.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined a series of appeals concerning senior government employees who were paid less than their juniors in the same cadre after promotions under Andhra Pradesh Fundamental Rules. The seniors argued that this violated the constitutional principle of "equal pay for equal work" under Articles 39(d), 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court held that the doctrine is not absolute; a reasonable classification based on intelligible criteria with a rational nexus to the object of the rule is permissible. It observed that differences in pay may be justified by factors such as source of recruitment, pay protection, selection grades, efficiency bars, or incentives, and therefore do not amount to unlawful discrimination. Consequently, the High Court and Tribunal orders directing parity of pay were set aside and the appeals of the State were allowed. The Court also directed that any additional salary already paid under the lower court orders not be recovered.

Issues considered

Whether paying a lower salary to a senior employee than to a junior in the same cadre violates the principle of "equal pay for equal work" under Articles 39(d), 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Whether the doctrine of equal pay for equal work can be overridden by reasonable classification under the Andhra Pradesh Fundamental Rules.
Whether the High Court and Administrative Tribunal erred in directing pay parity without considering the statutory justification for the pay differentials.

Legislation cited

Andhra Pradesh Fundamental Ruless. Rule 22(a)(1), s. Rule 27
Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16, s. Article 39(d)

Subjects

equal pay for equal workArticle 14Article 16Article 39(d)reasonable classificationfundamental rulespay fixationsenioritydiscriminationpublic service

Judgment

A
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ORS. ETC. ETC.
v.
•
G. SREENIVASA RAO & ORS. ETC. ETC.

MARCH 13, 1989

Ll [K.N. SINGH AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ:] )

Andhra Pradesh Fundamental Rules-Rule 22(a)(1)-Higher
Salary-Grant of-To a Junior Person-Whether Violative of "Equal
Pay for Equal Work"-Principle-Articles 14, 16 and 39(d)-"Equal
Pay For Equal Work"-Doctrine-Applicability of-Reasonable Clas-
sification based in intelligible criteria having nexus to object sought
c to be achieved-Permissibility---{)f.

The common question that arose for decision by this Court in
these groups of matters is whether payment of less salary to a senior
than his junior in the same cadre having the same scale of pay is viola-
D live of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" enshrined in Article
39(d) read with Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The said question
in each group of matters arises thus:

The first batch in this bunch of appeals (CAs 317-30/87 etc.)
relate to the case of Assistant Section Officers of Andhra Pradesh High
E Court. It may be pointed out that copyists and Assistants are the two
feeder-channels to the post of assistant Section Officers. Prior to 1974
the Copyists were in the pay scale of Rs. 70-130 and were entitled to
additional payment at Rs. 7.SP every 100 words they copy in excess of
42,000 words. Consequent upon pay revision, they were given the pay
scale of Rs.250-430 w.e.f. l. l.1974 without entitlement of remuneration
F in addition to pay. The Copyists represented that while revising their
grade, Ow udditional emoluments, which they were getting prior to
revision of pay, has not been taken into consideration. On recom-
mendation of the High Court, the State Government agreed to fix the
pay of the Copyists in the revised grade by adding lo their basic pay
Rs.83.34P, that being the average remuneration that each Copyist was
G earning prior to l. l.74 and the Dearness Allowance admissible thereon.

The pre-revised scale of pay of Assistants was Rs.90-192 which
was revised to Rs.250-430 from I.l.1974. Even though the Scale of Pay
of Copyists and Assistants was the same, Copyists started drawing more r
salary on account of addition of Rs.83.34P aforesaid. Consequently on
H promotion to the Post of Assistant Section Officer, the salaries of those
1000
STATE OF A.P. v. G.S. RAO 1001

promoted from the cadre of Copyists were fixed higher than those who
A
were promoted from the cadre of Assistants. One Janakirama Rao, a
Copyist was promoted to the cadre of AssistanfSection Officer in 1984.
On the basis of his last pay drawn as Copyist, his pay as Assistant
Section Officer was fixed higher than those who were promoted to the
said post from the cadre of Assistants during the period 1982-84, under
F.R. 22(a)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Fundamental Rules. The Seniors filed 8
writ petitions in the High Court contending that the grant of higher pay
to juniors in the same cadre is violative of the principle "Equal pay for
equal work". The High Court allowed the Writ Petitions and directed
that the Assistant Section Officers seniors to Janakirama Rao be paid
the same salary as he was drawing. Division Bench held that grant of
higher pay packet to junior person than his seniors under any circums-
tances is discriminatory. Hence these appeals by the State of Andhra
c
Pradesh.

Another batch of appeals is filed by Tirumala Tirupathi Devas-
thanam. One B.V. Krisljnamurthy and 62 others working as Upper
Division Clerks in the Devasthanam had filed writ petition in the High D
Court praying that the Devasthanam be directed to pay salary to them
at par with one D. Gopaliah, U.D.C. who was junior to them. Particu-
lars of D. Gopaliah and one of the petitioners may only be stated.
Gopaliah joined as Lower Division Clerk in 1967 and was given Selec-
tion Grade in 1974. Family Planning incentive of Rs.II was added to his
salary in 1977. He was promoted as U.D.C. in 1979 but was reverted E
in 1981. He was given further increase in pay as L.D.C. on completion
of 15 years service, as provided in the Rules and in June 1987, he was
drawing basic pay of Rs.811. He was again promoted as U.D.C. on
l.7.1983 and in that cadre, on the basis of his pay in the lower grade,
his salary as per Rules was fixed at Rs.861. On the other hand Krish-
namurthi who joined as Lower Division Clerk in 1970, and promoted as F
U.D.C. on 3.11.1981, his salary was fixed at Rs.615. On lst July 1983
Krishnamurthy was drawing Rs.635. In these circumstances Gopaliah
though junior to Krishnamurthy started drawing more salary. Follow-
ing his earlier decision, the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Peti-
tions filed by Krishnamurthy and others similarly placed. Their Writ
Appeals were dismissed. Hence these appeals by Devasthanam. G

~ The third group of appeals by the State of Andhra Pradesh (CAs
299/88 & 300-301/88) are directed against the order of the Andhra
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The Writ Petitioners therein were
Assistants working in different departments of the State. They were all
absorbed in the Pay & Accounts Office, Hyderabad w.e.f. 12th July H
1002 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989) 1 S.C.R.

1978. One Swaminathan was also absorbed as Assistant in the said
A office w.e.f. 4th September 1978. In view of his length of service and
grant of Selection grade, he had been drawing higher salary in his
parent Department. Accordingly on his joining Pay & Accounts Office,
his salary, as per Rules, was protected and he was fixed at higher basic
pay than the Writ Petitioners.
B )
The Seniors raised contention before the Tribunal on the basis of
"Equal pay for equal Work". The Tribunal allowed the Writ Petitions,
holding that for whatever reason a junior is paid higher pay packet than
his senior, the principle of "Equal pay for equal work" is violated and
the senior is entitled to the same pay.

c In other cases, also, the same question junior drawing more
salary than senior and the seniors claiming parity of pay is involved.

Before this Court it was contended by the appellants employers
that so long as there is rational basis for giving higher pay to junior in
D the same cadre, the seniors can have no grievance. The last pay drawn
in the lower cadre has to be the basis for fixation of salaries under the
Fundamental Rules and following that basis, the salaries have been
rightly fixed.

According to some appellants if all the consideration, factors and
E incidents of service are identical then only the principle of "Equal pay
for equal work" is attracted. If there is justification under the Rules or
otherwise for giving a higher pay to the junior then the principle in the
abstract sense is not attracted.

Allowing the appeals, this Court,
F
HELD: Doctrine of "Equal pay for equal work" cannot be put in
a straight jacket. Although the doctrine finds its place in the Directive
Principles, this Court, in various judgments, has authoritatively pro-
nounced that right to "equal pay for equal work" is an accompaniment
of the equality Clause enshrined in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution
G oflndia. [IOOSH; 1009A)

Reasonable classification, based on intelligible criteria having ·i
nexus with the object sought to be achieved, is permissible. [I009B]

"Equal pay for equal work" does not mean that all the members
H of the cadre must· receive the same pay packet irrespective of their
STATE OF A.P. v. G.S. RAO [SINGH, J.] 1003

seniority, source of recruitment, educational qnalilications and various
A
other incidents of service, When a single running pay-scale is provided
for a post in a cadre, the Constitutional mandate of equal pay for equal
work is satisfied. Ordinarily grant of higher pay to a junior would
ex-facie be arbitrary but ifthere are justifiable grounds in doing so, the
seniors cannot invoke the equality doctrine. [1009B-C]
B
The differentia on grounds such as, when persons recruited from
different services are given pay protection, when promoters from lower
cadre or a transferee from another cadre is given any pay protection, when a
senior is stepped at efficiency bar, when advance increments are given
for experience/passing a test/acquiring higher qualifications or as
incentive for efficiency, would be based on intelligible criteria which
has rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, and which c
does not violate the mandate of equal pay for equal work. The orders
appealed against were therefore reversed. [1009D-E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 307-
316 of 1988 Etc. Etc. D

From the Judgment and Order dated 8.6.1987 and 9.6.1987 of
the Andhra Pradesh High Court in W.P. Nos. 1370/87, 15090/85, 3418/
86. 911/87, 3186/87, 3435/87, 3748/87, 4356/87, 5006/87° and 5379 of
1987.
E
P.A. Choudhary, Shanti Bhushan, Badrinath, T.V.S.N. Chari,
Mrs. Sunita Rao and A. Subba Rao for the Appellants.

· A.S. Nambiar, T.S. Krishnamoorty, C. Sitaramayya, R.N.
Keshwani, B. _Kanta Rao, Ms. K. Sarda Devi, G.N. Rao and B.
Parthasarthi, for the Respondents. F

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KULDIP SINGH, J, The question for decision in these appeals is
whether payment of less salary to a senior than his junior in the same
cadre having the. same pay scale is violative of the Principle of "equal G
pay for equal work" enshrined in Article 39(d) read with Articles 14
and 16 of Constitution of India.

Though the respondents belong to different. departments and
service but since, the question of" law is same we are disposing these
appeals by a common order. Necessary facts relating to each batch of H
1004 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

appeals for appreciating the controversy are as under:
A
Civil Appeal Nos. 317-30/87, 2998/87, 294-298/88, 307 to .315/88, 305/
88 & 316/88.

The first batch in this bunch of appeals is concerning the em-
B ployees of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The main judgment ),
under appeal relates to the cadre of Assistant Section Officers working
in the High Court. Copyists and Assistants are the two feeder cadres to
the post of Assistant Section Officer. Prior to 1974 copyists were in the
pay scale of Rs. 70-130 and were entitled to additional payment at \>
Re.7.5p. per every 100 words they copy in excess of 42,000 words. As a
result of pay revision they were given the pay scale of Rs.250-430
c w.e.f. 1.1.1974 without entitlement of remuneration in addition to
pay. The copyists represented that in the revised pay scale, the addi- Y;
tional emoluments which were being earned by them had not been
taken into account. On the recommendation of the High Court the
State Government agreed to fix the pay of the copyists in the revised
D pay scale by adding into their basic pay the average remuneration of
Rs.83.34 and the Dearness Allowance admissible thereon. The
amount of Rs.83.34 was taken as average remuneration which each of
the copyist was earning prior to 1.1.1974 in addition to the pay. The
pre-revised pay scale of Assistants was Rs.90-192 which was revised to
'>·
Rs.250-430 from 1st of January, 1974. Although the revised pay scale
E of copyists and assistants was identical but because of addition of
Rs.83-34 in the pay fixation, the copyists started drawing more salary
than the assistants. Promotion to the cadre of Assistant Section Offic-
ers in the pay scale of Rs.340-640 is from the two cadres of copyists and
.
assistants. One Janikirama Rao, a copyist, was promoted to the said I
':-~
post in the year 1984. On the basis of his last pay drawn as copyist his
F basic pay fixed as Assistant Section Officer, was higher than those who
were promoted to the said post from the cadre of assistants during the
r
period 1982-84. The pay-fixation was done under Fundamental Rule
22(a)(i) of Andhra Pradesh Fundamental Rules (hereinafter called
'Fundamental Rules'.) Though junior Shri Janikirama Rao was thus
drawing more salary than his seniors in the same cadre. Those seniors
G filed Writ Petition 2135/83 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh pray-
ing that the grant of higher salary to a junior person is violative of the
Principle of "equal pay for equal work". The learned Single Judge
...
allowed the writ petition and directed that the Assistant Section Offic-
ers senior to Shri Janikirama Rao be paid the same salary as he was
drawing. Writ Appeal filed by the State of Andhra Pradesh against the
H judgment was dismissed by the Division Beach holding that grant of
STATE OF A.P. v. G.S. RAb [SINGH, J.] 1005

~. higher pay-packet to a junior person that the senior under' any
A
circumstances is discriminatory. Connected writ petitions were
allowed by the High Court being covered by the judgments in Writ
Petition 2135/83 and writ appeal. No -counter was filed by State of
Andhra Pradesh in these writ petitions and on the basis of the aver-
ment in the petitions that j1,miors were getting higher salary than the
,( seniors, the writ petitions were allowed. Civil. appeals are directed B
against the orders of the High Cbiirt.

Civil Appeal Nos. 1071-73/87, 1149-1150/86.

In this batch of civil appeals Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam is
the appellac11t and these appeals are directed against the High Court
order. B.V. Krishnamurthy and 62 others working as Upper Division
c
'>l Clerks in the Devasthanam filed Writ Petition No. 12337 of 1984 be-
fore the High Court of Andhra Pradesh praying that the Devasthanam
be directed to pay salary to them at par with one D. Gopaliah, Upper
Division Clerk who was junior to them. Service particulars of
Gopaliah and one of the petitioners Krishnamurthy only need men- D
tion. Gopaliah joined as Lower Division Clerk in 1967 and was given
Selection Grade in 1974. Family Planning Incentive Increment of
Rs.11 was added to his pay in 1977. He was promoted as Upper Divi-
_., sion Clerk in 1979 but was reverted in 1981 as he could not pass the
accounts test. He was given further increase in pay as a result of
Government Order which provided higher pay to those Lower Divi- E
sion Clerks who completed 15 years service as such. In June, 1983
l Gopaliah was drawing Rs.811 as his basic pay in the cadre of Lower
Division Clerks. He was again promoted as Upper Division Clerk in
pay scale 575-950 on 1. 7 .1983 and in that cadre his basic pay was fixed
"--< at Rs.861. On the other hand, Krishnamurthy joined as Lower Divi-
--'i sion Clerk in 1970. He was promoted as Upper Division Clerk on 3rd F
of November, 1981 and Rs.615 was fixed as his basic pay in that cadre.
On 1st of July, i983 Krishnamurthy was drawing Rs.635 as his basic
pay. It is under these circumstances that G6paliah though junior to
. Krishnamurthy started drawing higher pa_y. as Upper Division Clerk.
The writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge by one line
order following his decision in another writ petition concerning the G
\.. employees of the Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board. Neither the
facts nor the distinctive features of the present case were noticed. Writ
Appeal No. 504 of 1985 was dismissed in limine by the Division Bench
of the Andhra Pradesh High Court. In three connected petitions pay-
parity was sought with the same junior Gopaliah .. In the fourth petition
one Gangiah was the named junior for claiming pay:hike. All these H
1006 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11989] 1 S.C.R.

A
petitions were allowed following the earlier decision. Hence these •,
appeals.

Civil Appeal Nos. 299/88 and 300 to 301/88.

These appeals are directed against the judgment of the Andhra
B Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in Petition No. 1531 of 1985 and
connected petitions. The petitioners before the Tribunal were junior
assistants working in different departments. They were promoted as
senior assistants on various dates between 1976 and 1978. They opted \
to be absorbed as auditors in the Pay and Accounts Office, Hydera- .~
bad, where they were finally absorbed with effect from 12th of July, "
1978. One Swaminathan who was recruited as typist, was promoted a·s
c senior assistant on 11th of January 1978. He also opted to work as
auditor in the Pay and Accounts Office, Hyderabad. He was finally ;i
absorbed in the said department with effect from 4th of September,
1978. The writ petitioners and Swaminathan came to the Pay and
Accounts Office, Hyderabad from different departments. Since
D Swaminathan was absorbed as auditor in the pay and accounts depart-
ment later in time than the petitioners, he ranked junior to them. But
in view of his length of service and grant of selection grade, he had
been drawing higher pay in his parent department. On his joining the
Pay and Accounts Office his pay was fixed on a higher basic pay as ~
compared to the petitioners as the last pay drawn by him had to be
E protected under the Fundamental Rules. Thus though he was junior to
the petitioners, he started drawing higher pay than them. The seniors
raised contention before the Tribunal that on the basis of "equal pay J
for equal work" they were entitled to the same pay as given to their
junior. The Tribunal allowed the petitions holding that for whatever \.
reasons a junior is paid higher pay-packet than his senior the principle · ,·
F of "equal pay for equal work" is violated and the senior is entitled to r
the Sal)1e pay. Following its judgment the Tribunal allowed two
connected petitions. Hence these appeals by the State of Andhra
Pradesh.

Civil Appeal No. 317 of 1988.
G
This appeal also relates to Pay and Accounts Office. In this case -•
the petitioners before the Tribunal were Lower Division Clerks senior
to one P. Arunachala Prasad who was initially'a typist but was pro-
moted as Lower Division Clerk subsequent to the petitioners. Since he
was drawing more pay as typist, on his promotion to the post qf Lower
H Division Clerk his pay fixed was higher than the petitioners. The claim
STATE OF A.P. v. G.S. RAO [SINGH, J.] 1007

of the petitioners for same pay as paid to Arunachala Prasad was
A
allowed. •.(/

Civil Appeal Nos. 200 to 203 of 1988.

These appeals relate to Animal Husbandry Department of the
Ji Andhra Pradesh Government. Some live stock assistants filed a peti- B
tion before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal claiming
higher pay which was being drawn by their respective juniors in the
(same cadre. In the reply filed on behalf of State before the Tribunal it
c·-i' was explained that junior live stock assistants were senior in the lower
· cadre but could not be promoted earlier due to their failure to undergo
the prescribed training and they had earned selection grade on the C
basis of length of service. On promotion their basic pay was fixed
1; under Fundamental Rules which came to be higher than their seniors.
Without considering the reasons for the disparity in pay the Tribunal
allowed the petitions holding that the senior must be paid the same
·salary as his junior, in the cadre, was drawing.
D
Civil Appeal Nos. 2453, 2454 and 2476 to 2479 of 1988.

These appeals concern the office of Registrar Co-operative
~ Societies Andhra Pradesh. Respondents inspectors filed a petition be-
fore the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal saying that one
Jagmohan was junior to them .but was drawing higher salary. The E
Tribunal allowed the petition in the following words:

"It may be true that· in certain circumstances within the
framework of the rule, Shri Jagmohan came to receive
higher pay than his seniors ....... what will be done in
such a case is to bring the pay of the senior on par with the F
junior. It is how the 'principle of equity' in pay is to be
met."

Five connected petitions were also allowed by the Tribunal.

Mr. Shanti Bhushan appearing for the appellants in the first G
batch has argued that so long as there is rational basis for giving higher
I.· pay to a junior in the same cadre, the seniors can have no grievance.
According to him copyists and assistants being two feeder cadres to the
post of Assistant Section Officer, the last pay drawn in the lower cadre
has to be the basis under the Fundamental Ruic for fixation of pay _in
the cadre of Assistant Section Officers. Since the copyists were draw- H
--- . ~- - ...

1oos· ·. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.
'-...... \ "
A . ing higher pay than the assistants, they were rightly fixed at a higher
pay than the assistants who were promoted earlier. He says pay earned
by the copyists before joining as Assistant Section Officer is a legiti-
mate incident of service which entitles them higher pay than their
seniors.

B Mr. P.A. Choudhary appearing for some of the appellants con-
tended that if all the considerations, factors and incidents of service
are identical then only the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is
attracted. But if there is a justification under the Rules or otherwise
for giving a higher pay to the junior then ·the principle in the abstract
sense is not attracted.

C / Mr. T.S. Krishnamoorthy, Mr. A.S. Nambiar and Mr. Kanta ~
./Rao appearing for the respondents supported the judgments under
appeals and contended that grant of higher pay to a junior in the same
cadre,"doing same work and shouldering same responsibilities, is per se
discriminatory and violative of the principle of equal pay for equal
D work. Our attention was invited to Rule 27 of the Fundamental Rules
which permits the competent authority to grant pre-mature increment
to a Government servant on a time-scale of pay. They further con-
tended that juniors getting higher pay than a senior in the same cadre
is an anomaly causing heart-bum which can be removed by directing
the authorities to fix the seniors at par with the juniors by exercising J
E power under Rule 27 of the Fundamental Rules.

<· ' The factual basis in all these appeals is identical. The facts clearly
show that in every case the pay-fixation of the junior was done under
..the :u~damental. Rules and there. were _iusti_fiable reasons .for fixing t ..
the 1umor at a higher pay than his seniors m the cadre. It was not ,.-
F disputed that the said pay fixation was in confirmity with the Funda-
mental Rules. Neither before us nor before the courts below the vali-
dity of Fundamental Rules was challenged by any of the parties. With-
out considering the scope of these Rules and without adverting to the
reasons for fixing the juniors at a higher pay' the High Court and the
Tribunal have in an omnibus manner come to the conclusion that
G whenever and for whatever reasons a junior is given higher pay the
doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' is violated and the seniors are \,..
entitled to the same pay. f

We do not agree with the High Court!Iribunal. Doctrine of
'equal pay for equal work' cannot be put in a straight-jacket. Although
H the doctrine finds its place in the Directive Principles but this Court, in
\ \'
STATE OF A.P. v. G.S. RAO (SINGH, J.( 1009

various judgments, has authoritatively pronounced that right to 'equal
A
pay for equal work' is an accompaniment of equality clause enshrined
in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Nevertheless the
abstract doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' cannot be read in Ar-
ticle 14. Reasonable classification, based on intelligible criteria having
nexus with the object sought to be achieved, is permissible.
B
"Equal pay for equal work" does not mean that all the members
of a cadre must receive the same pay-packet irrespective of their
seniority, source of recruitment, educational qualifications and
various other incidents of service. When a single running pay-scale is
provided in a cadre the constitutional mandate of equal pay for equal
work is satisfied. Ordinarily grant of higher pay to a junior would
ex-facie be arbitrary but if there are justifiable grounds in doing so the
c
seniors cannot iIJvoke the equality doctrine. To illustrate, when Pay-
fixation is dOl)~":linder valid statutory rules/executive instructions,
when persons ·recruited from different sources are given pay protec-
tion, when promotee from lower cadre or a transferee from another
cadre is given pay protection, when a senior is stopped_at Efficiency D
Bar, when advance increments are given for experience/passing a test/
acquiring higher qualifications or as incentive for efficiency; are some
of the eventualities when a junior may be drawing higher pay than his
seniors without violating the mandate of equal pay for equal' work. The
differentia on these grounds would be based on intelligible criteria
which has rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. We do E
not therefore find any good ground to sustain the judgments of the
High Court/Tribunal.

In Federation of All India Customs & Central Excise Steno-
graphers (Recognised) and others v .' The Union of India and others, JT
1988 2 S.C. 519, Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. considered earlier judgments F
of this Court on the point and observed:

"Equal pay for equal work is a fundamental right. But
equal pay must depend upon the nature of the work done,
it cannot be judged by the mere volume of work, there may
be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsi- G
bility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities
make a difference. One cannot deny that often the differ-
ence is a matter of degree and that there is an element of
value judgment by those who are charged with the ad-
ministration in fixing the scales of pay and other conditions
of service. So long as such value judgment is made bona H
1010. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 1 S.C.R.

fide, :reasonably on ~n intelligible criteria which has a
\<. rationale nexus with the object of differentiation such dif-
ferentiation will not amount· to discrimination. It ·is
important to emphasise that equal pay for equal work is a
· concomitant of Article 14 of the Constitution. But it fol-
lows naturally that equal pay for unequal work will be a
B ._negation of that right."

In State of U.P. & Ors. v. Shri J.P. Chaurasia & Ors., JT 1988 4
S.C. 53 th.e question for consideration was as to whether it is permissi-
. ble. to have two pay scales in the same cadre for persons having same
duties and h~ving same responsibilites. Jagannatha Shelly, J. speaking
C for this Court observed: .. ,

"It is against this background that the principle of 'equal
·. pay for equal work' has to be construed in the first place.
· Second,: this principle has no mechanical application in
··· .. every case of similar work. It has to be read into Art. 14 of
D : the Constitution. Article 14 permits reasonable classifica-
.· tion founded on different basis. It is now well established
that the classification can be based on some qualities or
_characteristics of persons.grouped together and not in
others wbo are left out. Those qualities or characteristics
: must, of course, have a reasonable relation to the object 1
E sought to be achieved. In service matters, merit or experi-
•. ence could be the proper basis for classification to promote
efficiency in_ administration~ He or she learns also by ex-
perience as much as by other means. It cannot be denied
that the quality of work performed by persons of longer
experience is superior than the work of newcomers. Even
F in Randhir Singh's case, this principle has been recognised.
0. Chinnappa Reddy, J. observed that the classification of
officers into two grades with different scales of pay based
either on academic qualifications or experience on length
of service is sustainable. Apart from that, higher pay scale
to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of
G promotional avenues is very common in career service.
There is selection grade for District Judges. There is senior
time scale in Indian Administrative Service. There is super
time scale in other like services. The entitlement to these
higher pay scales depends upon seniority-cum-merit or
merit-cum-seniority. The differentiation so made in the
H same cadre will not amount to discrimination. The classifi-
STATE OF A.P. v. G.S. RAO [SINGH, J.] 1011

cation based on experience is a reasonable classifi~ation. It A
has a rationale nexus with the object thereof. To hold
otherwise, it would be detrimental to the interest of the
service itself."

The argument based on Rule 27 was never ra;sed before the High · B
Court/Tribunal. There is neither any material on the record nor any
justification before us to direct the appellant authorities to act under
Rule 27 of the Fundamental Rules. The respondents may if so advised
approach the appropriate authorities for any such relief.

The appeals are accepted. Judg!llents of the Andhra Pradesh
High Court and the Andhra Pradesh Tribunal are set aside and the C.
writ petitions/petitions/appUcations of the respondents before the
High Court/Tribunal are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

The respondents are white-collared salaried persons and it may
be too harsh for them to refund the salary already paid to them. D
Therefore, in the interest of justice, we direct that the additional salary
paid to them as a result of High Courtffribunal judgments upto
31-3-1989 shall not be recovered from them.

Y.L. Appeals allowed.

,/

+·