STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.versusTHE SENIOR VOCATIONAL STAFF MASTERS ASSOCIATION

                            [2017] 9 S.C.R. 650


A                     STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
                                      v.
    THE SENIOR VOCATIONAL STAFF MASTERS ASSOCIATION
                        &ORS.
B                        (Civil Appeal No. 632 of2008)
                              AUGUST 18,2017
                [DIPAK MISRA, R. K. AGRAWAL AND
                     PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.j
          Service Law:
c
         Parity of Posts - Post of Vocational Masters - Initially
  educational qualification was either degree in Engineering or B.A.
  with ITJ Diploma - Their pay-scale was higher than that of the
  Lecturers - In the year 1978 Vocational Masters and Lecturers were
  placed in the same scale - By Notification dated 31.3.1995 graduate
0
   Vocational Masters and post-graduate Vocational Masters were re-
  designated, qs Vocational Lecturers - However; responsibilities and
  financial implications were not affected - Notification dated
  31.3.1995 was challenged in High Court - During pendency of the
  petition, Service Rules were amended - Thereby pay scales of
E Lecturets were made higher than those of the Vocational Masters -
  The Vocational Masters approached the State Government claiming
  pay-scales at par with the Lecturers - The State Government by
  Notifications dated 7.11.2002 and 16.5.2003 granted the benefit
  of higher pay-scale only to those, who were iti service prior to
F 8. 7.1995 - State Government by Notification dated 16. 7.2003,
  canceled the Notifications dated 7.11.2002 and 16.5.2003 clarifying
  that only those Voc,ational Masters who were appointed prior to
  8. 7.1995 and those who acquired the qualification of post-graduate
  and or degree in engineering by 8. 7.1995 would be eligible for
  higher pay-scale - Vocational Masters challenged the Notification
G dated 16. 7. 2003 - Single Judge of High Cow·t quashed the
  Notification dated 16. 7.2003 and directed the State Government to
  give benefit of Notification dated 31.3.1995 - Division Bench of
  High Court dismissed the LPAs - On appeal, held: Since the very
  inception, the educational qualification for appointment as
  Vocational Masters had been a degree or diploma as both the
H
                                     650
 STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. SENIOR VOCATIONAL STAFF                    651
               MASTERS ASSOCIATION.

 qualifications were placed at par ..:. All were appointed by a common A
 process of selection and all we~e performing the same work .:... It
 was only"subsequently that the State Govern.ment designate_d some
'of the Vocational Masters as Vocational Lecturers and brought about.
 an artificial distinction between the two - Even after re-designation,
 there was no change in the re~ponsibilities and financial matters of .a·
 the Vocational Lecturers - There is no distinction between Vocational
 Lecturers and Vocational Masters -:-Any attempt to curtail the salary
 and allowances of Vocational Masters.·would amount io
                                             is
 arbitrariness, if no reasonable fustification     offered for the same
 - Therefore, High Court was justified in 'balding that VocationaF•
 Masters were entitled to higher pay-scale ~ Notification dated C
 16. 7.2003 is also liable to be quashed on the ground of violation of
 natural justice as it was passed without hearing the concerned
 employees - Constitution ofIndia -Art. 14 - Punjab State Education
 Class III (School Cadre) Service Rules, 1978. ·
       Constitution of India:                                          D
       Arts. 14 to 18 - Nature and Scope of -.Held: Doctrine of
equality is a dynamic and evolving concept having many dimensions
- Art. 14forbids class legislation, but does not forbid reasonable
class;fication - Classification should be based on intelligible
differentia and the diflerentia must have a reasonable nexus to o~ject E
sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory provisioi1 iri question
- The principle of equality is also fundamental in formulation of
any policy by the State ~s is evident from Articles 38, 39, 39A, 43
and 46 of the Constitution - If the State is giving some economic
benefits to one class while denying the same to other, then the onus
ofjustifying the same lies on the State, specially when both the F
classes were treated as same in the past by the State.
     . Dismissing the appeal, the Court
       HELD: 1.1 It is a cardinal principle of law that Government
 has to abide by rule oflaw and uphold the values and principles of G
 the Constitution of India. The doctrine of eqµality is a' dynamic
 and evolving concept having many dimensions. Articles 14-1.8 of
 the Constitution, besides assuring equality before the law and
 equal protection of the laws, also disallow discrimination which
 lacks tile -Object of achieving equality, in matters of employment.
                                                                     H
652           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2017] 9 S.C.R.


A  It is well settled that though Article 14 forbids class legislation
   but it does not forbid reasonable classification. When any rule of
   statutory provision providing classification is assailed on the
   ground that it is contrary to Article 14, its validity can be sustained
   if it satisfies two tests, namely, that the classification was to be
   based on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons
 B
   or things grouped together from the others left out of the group,
   and the differentia in question must have a reasonable nexus to
   object sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory provision in
   question. In other words, there must be some rational nexus
   between the basis of classification and the object intended to be
 C achieved by the Statute or the Rule. [Para 14] [666-D-G)
             1.2 The principle of equality, is also fundamental in
      formulation of any policy by the State and the glimpse of the same
      can be found in Articles 38, 39, 39A, 43 and 46 embodied in Part
      IV of the Constitution. These Articles of the Constitution
 D    mandate that the State is under a constitutional obligation to
      assure a social order providing justice- social, economic and
      political, by inter alia, minimizing monetary inequalities, and by
      securing the right to adequate means of livelihood and by
      providing for adequate wages so as to ensure, an appropriate
      standard of life, and by promoting economic interests of the
 E    weaker sections. Meaning thereby, if the State is giving some
      economic benefits to one class while denying the same to other,
      then the onus of justifying the same lies on the State specially in
      the circumstances when both the cll)sses or group of persons
      were treated as same in the past by the State. There cannot be
 F    any discrimination between similarly situated persons, whether
      by way of a Government Notification or any amendment in the
      Rules. [Paras 16 and 17) [667-F, H; 668-A-BJ
        1.3 In the present case, since the very inception, the
   educational 11ualification for appointment as Vocational Masters
 G had been a degree or a diploma with three years' experience as
   both the qualifications were placed at par. All persons were
   appointed by a common process of selection and they teach the
   same classes, performing the same work. No distinction can be
   brought about between the persons so appointed. It is only
   subsequently that the appellants designated some of the
 H
 STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. SENIOR VOCATIONAL STAFF                       653
               MASTERS ASSOCIATION

Vocational Masters as Vocational Lecturers and brought about A
an artificial distinction between the two. Even on account of re-
designation of the degree-holders and post-graduates as
Vocational Lecturers, there was no change in the responsibilities
and the financial matters as between the degree-holders and
diploma-holders before the alleged Notification, which 'ract is duly
                                                                     B
admitted by the State. There is no distinction between the
Vocational Lecturers and Vocational Masters and they form one
unified cadre and class. (Para 161 (667-C-El
      1.4 As far as nature of work is concerned, it is stated that
the Vocational Masters are discharging their duty in the Senior . C
Secondary Schools in the Engineering/non-Engineering trades
and have the technical qualifications, while the Vocational
Lecturers are also discharging the same duties in the same
schools. Both Vocational Masters and Lecturers are teaching
the same classes and hence the nature of work, responsibilities
and duties being identical and the pay scales were also kept D
identical since 1978 onwards. (Para 16) (667-F-G)
      1.5 Since Vocational Masters had been drawing same salary
as Vocational Lecturers were drawing before the application of
4'" Pay Commission, any attempt to curtail their salary and
allowances would amount to arbitrariness which cannot be                 E
~ustained in the eyes of law if no reasonable justification is offered
for the same. [Para 17) [668-C]                       ·
       1.6 A differential scale on the basis of educational
qualifications and the nature of duties is permissible; However,
it is equally clear that if two categories of employees are treated F
as equal initially, they should continue to be so treated unless a
different treatment is justified by some cogent reasons. In a case
where the nature of duties is drastically altered, a differential
scale of pay may be justified. Similarly, if a higher qualification is
prescribed for a particular post, a higher scale of pay may be
granted. However, if the basic qualifications and the job G
requirements continued to be identical as they were initially laid
down, then the Court shall be reluctant to accept the action of
the authority in according a differential treatment unless· some
good reasons are disclosed. (Para 18) (668-D-F]
                                                                         H
654            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2017] 9 S.C.R.


A           1. 7 The High Court was fully jt,1.stified in declaring that the
      vocational masters are entitled to pay scale of Rs.6,400-10,640/-
      on the ground that the nature of duties being discharged by the
      vocational masters are the same as vocational lecturers and that
      there was no rationale behind making a classification between
B     the two, especially when both the categories were ,treated as one
      and the same in all the previous pay revisions since 1978 onwards.
      Vide notification dated 31.03.1995, only the nomenclature of
      Vocational Masters was changed without changing their nature
      of duties and pay scales. [Para 19] [668-G-H)

c           V. Markendeya and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh
            and Others (1989) 3 SCC 191 : [19891 2 SCR 422 ;
            State of U.P. and Others v. J.P. Chaurasia and Others
            (1989) 1 SCC 121 : [1988) 3 Suppt;"SCR 288 ; Shyam
            Babu Verma and Others v. Union of India and Others
            (1994) 2 SCC 521 : [19941 1 SCR 700 ; Government
D           of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy and Others (2004) 1 SCC
            347 : [20031 5 Suppl. SCR 656 ; Indian Drugs &
            Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen, Indian Drugs &
            Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 408 : [20061 9
            Suppl. SCR 73 ; State Bank of India and Others v. K.P.
E           Subbaiah and Others (2003) 11 SCC 646 : [20031 1
            Suppl. SCR 545 - distinguished.

        2. Further, the impugned order dated 16.07.2003 deserves
  to be quashed on the short ground that it has been passed without
  complying the rules of natural justice. The same could not have
F been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing to the
  concerned employees. The respondents had been made to suffer
  huge financial loss without being heard. Fair play in action warrants
  that no such order which has the effect of an employee suffering
  civil consequences should be passed without putting the
G concerned to notice and giving him a hearing in the matter. [Paras
  19 and 21) [669-A, H; 670-AJ

            Bhagwan Shukla v. Union of India & Ors. AIR 1994
            SC 2480 : [19941 2 Suppl. SCR 419 - relied on.

H
 . STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. SENIOR VOCATIONAL STAFF                        655
                 MASTERS ASSOCIATION

                           Case Law Reference                               A
 (1989) 2 SCR 422                distinguished            Paras
 [1988) 3 Suppl. SCR 2S8         distinguished            Pa.ra 5
 [19941 1 SCR 700                distinguished            Para 8·
 [2003] 5 Suppl.· SCR 656        distinguished            Paras             B

 !20061 9 Suppl. SCR 73          distinguished            Par1,19 .
 .,
 (20031 1 Suppl. SCR 545          distinguished           Para 9 ·
 [1994] 2 Suppl. SCR 419          relied on               Para 20
                                                                            c
                                                          ""'
         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 632  of
 2008.
       From the final Judgment and Order dated 23.05.2006 of the High
 Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in L.P.A. Nos.66 and 67 of D
 2006 (0 & M).
       Karan Bharihoke, Ms. Anusha Nagarajan, Ajay Pal, Advs. for
 the Appellants.                         ·
        Nidhesh Gupta, Neeraj Kr. Jain, Sr. Advs, Tanm Gupta, Puneet
  Varshney, Ms. Vriti Gujaral, Varinder Kumar Sharma, Ms.Parul Sharma,      E
  Aditya Kr. Choudhary, Akhil A!'1and, Ms. Vaishali Dixit, Ashok K.
· Mahajan, Advs for the Respondents.
         The Judgment of the Coi1rt was delivered by
         R.K. AGRAWAL, J. 1. Theaboveappealhas,beenfiledagainst F
 the impugned common judgment and order dated 23.05.2006 passed by
 the High c.ourt of Punjab &  Hacyana   at Chandigarh in L.P.A. No. 66 of
 2006 in CWPNo. 10928 of2003 and L.P.A. No. 67 of2006 in CWPNo.
 7527 of1995 whereby the Division Bench while dismissing the appeals
 filed by the appellants herein upheld the order dated 27 .04.2005 passed
 by learned single Judge of the High Court in CWP Nos. 10928 of2003 G
 and 7527of1995.
         2. Brief facts:
       (a) The Senior Vocational Staff Masters Assoc.iation-the
 respondent Association represents the Vocational Master~ in the ..Sta.te
                                                                            H
656           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 9 S.C.R.


A of Punjab appointed during the years 1975, 1982, 1983 and thereafter.
  The respondents were appointed on their respective posts by the State
  of Punjab in the year 1975 on ad-hoc basis. In the year 1978, the
  Punjab Public Service Commission advertised 132 posts of Vocational
  Masters to be filled up by way of regular appointment. These posts
  were to be filled up under the Punjab School Education (PSE) Class Ill
B
  (School Cadre) Rules. The minimum educational qualification for the
  posts of Vocational Masters was degree or post graduation except very
  few courses where the educational qualification was Diploma under the
  advertisement.
         (b) In the year 1992-93, the State Government decided to revise
c the minimum qualification for being appointed as vocational masters and
  Diploma was provided as the minimum educational qualification in place
  of Degree for some courses. Due to revision, there were two classes of .
  Vocational Masters in the State, viz., Diploma holder vocational masters
  and degree holder vocational masters or post-graduate vocational masters.
D The State Government, taking note of the fact that the unequals are
  being treated as equals due to the revision in qualification, vide Notification
  dated 31.03 .1995, re-designated degree holder vocational masters and
  post-graduate vocational masters as vocational lecturers with the rider
  that their present responsibilities and financial matters will have no
  change. It. is also pertinent to mention here that Diploma holder vocational
E masters were also provided an opportunity to re-designate as vocational
  lecturers as and when they acquire the degree or post-graduate
  qualification.
        (c) The said notification dated 31.03 .1995 was challenged before
  the High Court in CWP No. 7527of1995 by the remaining Vocational
F Masters for a direction to the appellants to grant the designation of
  Vocational Lecturers to all the Vocational Masters in the State of Punjab.
  During the pendency of the said writ petition, the State Government
  made rnles to amend the Punjab State Education Class lll (School Cadre)
  Service Rules, 1978 prescribing separate qualification for vocational
G masters and vocational lecturers.
        (d) On the onset of 4•1t Punjab Pay Commission, the Commission
  had not treated Vocational Masters separate from Masters of General
  Studies and the Vocational Lecturers from the Lecturers of General
  Studies and merged the Vocational Masters with that of the School
H Masters and Vocational Lectmers with School Lecturers by amendment,
  STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. SENIOR VOCATIONAL STAFF                             657
        MASTERS ASSOCIATION [R.K. AGRAWAL, J.)

 viz., Punjab Civil Services (revised pay)(first amendment) Rules, 1998         A .
 wherein School Lecturers were granted the pay scale of Rs. 6,400-
 10,640/- and School Masters were given the pay scale of Rs. 5,800-
.9,200/-. It is pertinent to mention here that earlier the Vocational Masters
 and Vocational Lecturers were given the same pay scales.
          (e) The respondents herein, being aggrieved by the disparity in B
   pay scales granted by the 4'" Pay Commission, approached the State
   Government claiming that they should be granted pay scales at par with
   the Lecturers. Vi de Notification dated 07 .11.2002, the Government of
   Punjab, Department of Education clarified that "the Vocational Masters
   appointed on or after 08.07 .1995 neither can be designated as Vocational
·. Lecturers based upon the educational qualification nor the revised scale C
   of Rs. 6,400-10,640/- in place of Rs. 5,800-9,200/-. be granted to them
   with effect from 01.01.1996. In other words, the benefit of higher scale
   will be admissible to those who were in service prior to 08.07.1995''.
   Vide a subsequent notification dated 16.05.2003, the State Government
   reiterated the stand taken in the Notification dated 07 .11.2002 and also D
   sought for strict compliance ofthe sanie.
       (f) The Government of Punjab, Department of Education, vide
 Notification dated 16.07 .2003, cancelled the Notifications dated .
 07.11.2002 and 16.05.2003 clarifying the position that only those
 Vocational Masters who were appointed prior to 08.07.1995 and those E
 who acquired the qualification of post-graduate or degree in engineering
 by 08.07.1995 would be eligible for scale of pay of Rs. 6,400-10,640/-
 with effect from 01.01.1996 and also issued a direction to recover the
 excess amount being paid to any ineligible vocational master on the basis
 of the earlier Notifications.
                                                                           F
        (g) Being aggrieved by the Notification dated 16.07.2003, the
 respondents herein preferred CWP No. 10928 of 2003 before the High
 Court. Learned single Judge of the High Court, vide a common judgment
 and order dated 27.04.2005 in CWP Nos. 10928 of 2003 and 7527 of
 1995, quashed the Notification dated 16.07.2003 and directed the State
 Government to give the benefit of Notification dated 31.03. l 995 to all G
 the Vocational Masters recrnited prior to 08.07 .1995.
       (h) Aggrieved by the order dated 27 .04.2005, the State
 Government preferred LP.A. No. 66 of 2006 in CWP No. 1.0928 of
 2003 and L.P.A. No. 67 of 2006 in CWP No. 7527 of 1995 before the
                                                                                H
658            SU~REME COURT REPORTS                          (2017] 9 S.C.R.


A High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, vide common
  judgment and order dated 23.05.2006, dismissed the appeals filed by the
  appellants herein.
            (i)Aggrieved by the order dated 23,05.2006, the appellants have
      prefen·ed this appeal by way of special leave.
B           3. Heard the arguments advanced by l\1r. Karan Bharihoke,
      learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Neeraj Kun1a1· Jain and Mr.
      Nidhesh Gupta, learned senior counsel for the· respective respondents
      and perused the records.
            Point(s) for consideration:-
 c
             4. The only point for consideration before this Couti is whether in
      the present facts and circumstances of the case, the Notification dated
      16.07 .2003 is valid in the eyes of law or not?
            Rival submissions:
 D            5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended before this Court
      that the respondents do not fulfill the basic qualification of Lecturer. It
      was further contended that the High Court has not considered the fact
      that the respondents could not have challenged the Notification dated
      31.03.1995 as the said Notification has been superseded by the Statutory
 E    Rule dated 08.07.1995. He further contended that the High Court has
      recorded an erroneous finding of fact that the Notification dated
      16.07 .2003 is violative of principles of natural justice and there is 110
      question ofrecoveling the excess amount paid as salaries and allowances
      to the respondents. Learned counsel further contended that it is a well
      settled proposition oflaw that the pay scales ofa class of employees are
 F    determin.ed by .the State Government keeping in view the qualifications,
      responsibilities, nature of work and resources of the State and the High
      Court ought not have granted the pay scale of Rs. 6,400-10,640/- to the
      respondents herein-Vocational Staff Masters. Learned counsel further
      contended that in order to rectify the error committed earlier, the
      Notification dated 16.07.2003 was issued by the State Government
 0
       withdrawing the pay scale of Rs. 6,400-10,640/- to the vocational masters
       w.e.f. 01.01.1996 which was inadvertently given vide Notification dated
       07 .11.2002, and there is no foul play on the part of the State to hamper
       any legitimate right of the respondents as it is the prerogative of the
       State. Learned counsel finally contended that the orders passed by the
 H     High Court are erroneous and are in flagrant violation of the statutory
 STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. SENIOR VOCATIONAL STAFF                        659 '
       MASTERS ASSOCIATION [R.K. AGRAWAL, J.]

rules and be set aside by this Court. In support of his submissions, A
learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions. of this Court
which are as under:-
     (i) In V. Markendeya and Others vs. State ofAndhra Pradesh
and Others (1989) 3 SCC 191, it was held as under:-
      "10. In Randhir Singh case and later in Dhirendra Chamoli B
      case, Surinder Singh case, Bhagwan Dass case, Jaipa/ case
      and P. Savita case, this Court implemented the principle of" equal
      pay for equal work". The court granted relief on the principle of
      equal pay on the basis of same or similar work performed by two
      classes of employees under the same employer even though the c.
      two classes of employees did not constitute the same service.
      But in all the aforesaid cases relie.fwas granted only after it was
      found that discrimination was practised in giving different scales
      of pay in violation of the equality. clause enshrined in Articles 14
      and 16 of the Constitution. The principle of equal pay for equal
      work was enforced on the premise that discrimination was · D
      practised between the two sets of employees performing the same
      duties and functions, withoi1t there being any rational classification.
      The principle of "equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract
      one, it is open to the State to prescribe different scales of pay for
      different cadres having regard to nature, duties, re.sponsibilities .£
      and educational qualifications. Different grades ace laid down in
      service with varying qualifications for entry into particulat grade.
      Higher qualification and experience based on length of service
      are valid considerations for prescribing different pay scales for
      different cadres. The application of doctrine arises where
      employees are equal in every respect, in educational qualifications, F
      duties, functions al1d measure of responsibilities and yet they are
       denied equality in pay. Ifthe classification for prescribing different
       scales of pay is founded ort reasonable nexus the principle will not
       apply. But if the classification is founded on unreal and
     ·unreasonable basis it would violate Articles 14 and, 16 of the G
       Constitution and the principle of equal pay for equal work, must
       have its way. In the decisions reference to which have been made
       by the learned counsel for the appellants, this Court granted relief,
       after recording findings that the aggrieved employees were
       discriminated in violation of the equality clause under Articles 14
                                                                          H
660            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017] 9 S.C.R.


A           and 16 of the Constitution, without there being any rationale for
            the classification.
            11. ln a number of decisions of this Court the claim for equal pay
            for equal work has been negatived on the ground that the different
            pay scales prescribed for persons doing similar or same work is
B           permissible on the basis of classification founded on the measure
            of responsibilities, educational qualifications, experience and other
            allied matters. In Federation of All India Customs and Central
            Excise Stenographers (Recognised) v. Union of India, Justice
            Sabyasachi Mukhai:ii said:
c             " ... there may be qualitative differences as regards reliability
              and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the
              responsibilities make a difference. One cannot deny that often
              the difference is a matter of degree and that there is an element
              of value judgment by those who are charged with the
              administration in fixing the scales of pay and other conditions
D             of service. So long as such value judgment is made bona fide,
              reasonably on an intelligible criterion which has a rational nexus
              with the object of differentiation, such differentiation will not
              amount to discrimination. It is important to emphasise that equal
              pay for equal work is a concomitant of Article 14 of the
E             Constitution. But it follows naturally that equal pay for unequal
              work will be a negation of that right."
      The learned Judge further observed:
              "The same amount of physical work may entail different quality
              of work, some more sensitive, some requiring more tact, some
F             less - it varies from nature and culture of employment. The
              problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a
              mathematical formula. Ifit has a rational nexus with the object
              sought for, as reiterated before a certain amount of value
              judgment of the administrative authorities who are charged with
G
              fixing the pay scale has to be left with them and it cannot be
              interfered with by the court unless it is demonstrated that either
              it is irrational or based on no basis or arrived mala fide either in
              law or in fact."
            12. In State of UP v. J.P Chaurasia, this Court negatived the
            claim of Bench Secretaries for equal pay for equal work on the
H
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. SENIOR VOCATIONAL STAFF                          661
      MASTERS ASSOCIATION [R.K. AGRAWAL, J.]

   basis ofreasonable classification based on merit, experience and A
   seniority though both sets of employees were pe1fonning the similar
   duties and having similar responsibilities. In Mewa Ram Kanojia
   v. AIIMS this Court refused to grant relief to the petitioner for
   parity in pay on the application of the principle of"equal pay for
   equal work" on the ground of reasonable classification on the B
   basis of educational qualifications.
   13. In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that
   where two classes of employees perfom1 identical or similar duties
   and carrying out the same functions with the same measure of
   responsibility having same academic qualifications, they would be       C
   entitled to equal pay. If the State denies them equality in pay, its
   action would be violative ofArticles 14 and 16 of the Constitution,
   and the court will strike down the discrimination and grant relief
   to the aggrieved employees. But before such relief is granted the
   court must consider and analyse the rationale behind the State
   action in prescribing two different scales of pay. If on an analysis    D
   of the relevant rules, orders, nature of duties, functions, measure
   of responsibility, and educational qualifications required for the
   relevant posts, the court finds that the classification made by the
   State in giving different treatment to the two classes of employees
   is founded on rational basis having nexus with the objects sought
   to be achieved, the classification must be upheld. Principle of equal   E
   pay for equal work is applicable among equals, it cannot be applied
   to unequals. Relief to an aggrieved person seeking to enforce the
   principles of equal pay for equal work can be granted only after it
   is demonstrated before the court that invidious discrimination is
   practised by the State in prescribing two different scales for the      F
   two classes of employees without there being any reasonable
   classification for the same. If the aggrieved employees fai( to
   demonstrate discrimination, the principle of equal pay for equal
   work cannot be enforced by court in abstract. The question what
   scale should be provided to a particular class of service must be
   left to the executive and only when discrimination is practised         G
   amongst the equals, the court shouldintervene to undo the wrong,
   and to ensure equality among the similarly placed employees. The
   court however cannot prescribe equal scales of pay for differer!t
   class of employees."
                                                                           H
662            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 9 S.C.R.


A           (ii) In State of U.P. ttnd Others vs. J.P. Chaurasia and Others
      (1989) 1sec121, it was held as under:-
               "20. The second question formulated earlier needs careful
            examination. The question is not particular to the present case. It
            is pertinent to all such cases. It is a matter affecting the civil
B           services in general. The question is whether there could be two
            scales of pay in the same cadre of persons performing the same
            or similar work or duties. All Bench Secretaries in the High Court
            of Allahabad areundisputedly having same duties. But they have
            been bifurcated into two grades with different pay scales. The
            Bench Secretaries Grade I are in a higher pay scale than Bench
c           Secretaries Grade II. The entitlement to higher pay scale depends
            upon selection based on merit-cum-seniority. Can it b~ said that it
            would be violative of the right to equality guaranteed under the
            Constitution?
                 31. In the present case, all Bench Secretaries may do the
D           same work, but their quality of work may differ. Under the rules
            framed by the Chief Justice of the High Court, Bench Secretaries
            Grade I are selected by a Selection Committee. The selection is
            based on merit with due regards to seniority. They are selected
            among the lot of Bench Secretaries Grade IL When Bench
E           Secretaries Grade II acquire experience and also display more
            merit, they are appointed as Bench Secretaries Grade 1. The rules
            thus make a proper classification for the purpose of entitlement to
            higher pay scale. The High Court has completely overlooked the
            criterion provided under the Rules. The merit governs the grant
            of higher pay scale and that merit will be evaluated by a competent
 F          authority. The classification made under the Rules, therefore,
            cannot be said to be violative of the right to have equal pay for
            equal work."
          6. Per contra, learned senior counsel for the respondents-
   Vocational Staff Masters Association submitted that since beginning the
 G educational qualification for appointment as Vocational Masters had been
   a degree or a diploma with three years' experience as both the
   qualifications were placed at par. The process of selection as well as
   the nature of the job was same. There was no such diff~rence or
   distinction brought about between the persons so appointed. Learned
 H senior counsel further submitted that the State Government sought to
  STATE, OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. SENIOR VOCATIONAL STAFF                          663
         MASTERS ASSOCIATION. (R.K. AGRAWAL, J.]

 bring about an arbitrary distinction amongst people who had been A
 appointed to teach the same classes of 10+ 1 and 1O+2 !Ind such arbitrary
 action is contrary to law and has rightly been directed to be rectified by
 th.e High Court. Learned senior counsel further submitted that there
 cannot be any discrimination between similarly situated persons whether
 by way of a government notification or by any amendment in the Rules. B
 The plea that there was an inadvertent·mistake is contrary to the reconj
 and it is a deliberate distinction in law sought to be brought about by the·
 appellants. Learned senior counsel finally contended that the High Court
 was right in upholding the order passed by the learned single Judge and ,;
 the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.
        . 7. Learned senior counsel appearing for the vocational lecturers C
  (Respondent Nos. 5 and 7) submitted that the State Government, while
  exercising powers under Section 309 cif the Constitution, framed Punjab
  Civil Services (Revised Pay)· (First Amendment) Rules, 1998. As per
  the said Rules, different scales of pay have been prescribed for Vocational
  Lecturers and Vocational Masters. The government, after examining D
  various factors including different qualifications required for both the
  posts, has prescribed higher pay scale for Vocational Lecturers than the
  Vocational Masters. The said differentiation is made bona fide, reasonably
  on an intelligible criterion, which has a rational nexus with the object of
  differentiation. Notably, the said Rules were not assailed by the·
  Vocational Masters before the High Court. Thus, ~here are statutory E
  mies which hold the field and different pay scales for both the posts
  have been prescribed on the basis of the said Rules. However, the High ·
  Courtwithout even noticing the said rules, by way of order, erroneously
  strnck down the action of the government in not granting the pay scales
· of Vocational Lecturers to Vocational Masters.                .             F
         8. Learned senior counsel further submitted that it has been held
 in a catena of cases of this Court that the doctrine of 'equal pay for.
 equal work' has no mechanical application in every case and Article 14
 permits reasonable qualification based on qualities or characteristics of
 persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who are left G
 out. For claiming the.benefit of the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal
 work', the concerned employee has to establish that the qualification,
 eligibility, m_ode of selection/recruitment, nature and quality of work and
  duties and effort, reliability, confidentiality, dexterity, functional need and
  responsibilities and status of both the posts are identical. In support of
                                                                              H
664            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2017) 9 S.C.R.


A     this claim, learned senior counsel pointed out the judgments of this Court
      in Shyam Bab11 Verma and Others vs. Union of India and Others
      ( 1994) 2 SCC 521 and Government of W.B. vs. Tart111 K. Roy and
      Others (2004) 1 SCC 347.
         9. Learned senior counsel further stressed upon the point that the
B matters concerning pay fixation etc. exclusively falls within the domain
  of Expert Committees constituted by the government and court should
  refrain from interfering with the decisions regarding fixation of pay arrived
  at by such Committees. So long as the decision of those who are charged
  with the administration in fixing the scales of pay and other service
C conditions etc. is made bona fide, reasonably on an intelligible criterion,
  which has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation, such
  differentiation will not amount to discrimination. The determination as
  to whether two posts are equal or not is the job of Expe11 Committee
  and the Court should not interfere with the same. In support of this
  submission, learned senior counsel point out the followingjudgment of
D this Court, viz., Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Workmen,
  Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007) I SCC 408 and State
  Bank of India and Others vs. K.P. Subbaiah and Others (2003) 11
  SCC646.
          l 0. Learned senior counsel finally submitted that in the absence
E of wholesome identity between the Vocational Masters and the Vocational
  Lecturers, the High Court erred in quashing the order dated 16.07.2003
  passed by the State Government whereby it has decided not to extend
  the benefit of higher pay scales to those Vocational Masters who did not
  acquire the qualification of post graduate or degree in engineering by
  08.07.1995. The said decision of the Government was in consonance
F with the statutory rules and had been made bona fide, reasonably on an
  intelligible criterion which has a rational nexus with the object of
  differentiation. Hence, the High Court erred in quashing the same and
  that too without even noticing much less adverting to the statutory rules
  which govern the field.
G           Discussion:
          11. The respondents herein are claiming the pay scale of Rs. 6,400-
  10,640/- with effect from 01.01.1996 which would be at par with the
  scale granted to the lecturers. It is their claim that when they were
  initially appointed as Vocational Masters on ad-hoc basi? and were placed
H in the pay scale of Rs. 300-600/- a degree in Engineering was the
 STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. SENIOR VOCATIONAL STAFF                          665
       MASTERS ASSOCIATION [R.K. AGRAWAL, J.]

necessary qualification for teaching students in the Engineering trade A
and for non-engineering trade, a candidate was required to have the
qualification of B.A. with IT! Diploma. These qualifications were at
par with Lecturers under the PES Class III Rules. It is also on record
that at the relevant time, the posts of Lecturers were in the lower scale
of Rs. 250-550/-. The scale which had been given to Vocational Masters B
was equivalent to the scale which had been enjoyed by the Head Masters.
In the year 1978, the Pay Commission recommended the pay scale of
Rs. 700-1300/-both for lecturers as well as for vocational masters. Thus,
the vocational masters and lecturers were placed in the same scale.
The parity in pay continued even in the subsequent pay revision and both
the categories were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 1,800-3,200/-. Jn this C
view of the matter, the nature of duties of the Lecturers and Vocational
Masters has not undergone any change.
       12. However, when the pay scales were revised in the year 1998
with effect from 01.01.1996, a disparity was created between the pay
scales of Lectw·ers and Vocational Masters. Whilst the Lecturers were       D
granted the pay scale of Rs. 6,400-10,640/-, the respondents herein-
Vocational Masters were fixed in the converted pay scale of Rs. 5,800-
9,200/-. It is also on record that the Vocational Masters, who were
appointed earlier to 08.07.1995 claimed that they cannot be granted a
pay scale lesser than the Lecturers. Vide Notification dated 07 .11.2002,
the State Government issued a clarification that the Vocational Masters     E
appointed on or after 08.07 .1995 neither can be designated as Vocational
Lecturers based upon the educational qualification nor can be granted
the revised scale of Rs. 6,400-10,640/- to them with effect from
01.01.1996 stating that the higher scale will be admissible to those who
were in service prior to 08.07.1995. In view of the Notification dated      F
07 .11.2002, the higher scale was given to the Vocational Masters. On
21.05.2003, the State Government granted a quota of 15% to the
Vocational Masters for being considered for promotion to PES Class II.
In the meantime, on 16.07.2003, the State Government, by way of
subsequent Notification, superseding earlier Notifications dated
07.11.2002 and 16.05.2003, directed that the designations and pay scale     G
of Rs. 6,400-10,640/- with effect from 01.01.1996 will be admissible to
only those Vocational Masters who have been appointed prior to
08.07 .1995 and had the qualification of post-graduate or degree in
engineering by 08.07.1995. On the basis of the said Notification, the
 State Government passed orders to recover the excess amount paid to        H
666            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2017) 9 S.C.R.


A Vocational Masters after following the due procedure under the Rules.
  However, the claim of the respondents herein to re-designate all the
  Vocational Masters as Vocational Lecturers was still pending.
          13. As the name suggests, vocational courses are those courses
  in which teaching is not.on regular basis. Vocational courses play a very
B important role in the grooming of students in. different fields. It trains
  young people for various jobs and helps them acquire specialized skills.
  Vocational education can also be termed as job-oriented education. It
  helps a person in becoming skilled in a particular filed at a comparatively
  lower age. In the present case, the State Government, in the year 1975,
C felt the need of Vocational courses and accordingly made the suitable
  provi~ions for the regulation of these courses. As per the government
  orders, initially, except very few subjects, the minimum educational
  qualification for the appointment to the post of "Vocational Masters"
  was Degree or Post Graduation.
           14. It is a cardinal principle of law that government has to abide
D by rnle oflaw and uphold the values and principles of the Constitution.
  Respondents herein alleged that creating an aitificial distinction between
  the persons in the same cadre would amount to violation of Article 14
  i.e. equality before law and hence, such an act cannot be sustained.
  The doctrine of equality is a dynamic and evolving concept having many
E dimensions. Articles 14-18 of the Constitution, besides assuring equality
  before the law and equal protection of the laws, also disallow
  discrimination which lacks the object of achieving equality, in matters of
  employment. It is well settled that though Article 14 forbids class
  legislation but it does not forbid reasonable classification. When any rnle
  of statutory provision providing classification is assailed on the ground
F that it is contrary to Article 14, its validity can be sustained if it satisfies
  two tests, namely, that the classification was to be based on an intelligible
  differentia which distinguishes persons or things grouped together from
  the others left out of the group, and the differentia in question must have
  a reasonable nexus to object sought to be achieved by the rule or statutory
G provision in question. In other words, there must be some rational nexus
  between the basis of classification and the object intended to be achieved
  by the Statute or the Rule.
        15. It is evident that at the time of initial appointment, both the
  degree holders and the Diploma holders were appointed by a common
H process of selection where for the engfoeering trade a degree was
   STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.
                       . v. SENIOR VOCATIONAL
                                       .        STAFF
                                                    .                 '
                                                                                667
         MASTERS ASSOCIATION [R.K. AGRAWAL, J.]
                         '          .


                                               a
 · required and for the non-engineering trade diploma was considered as A ·
   the appropriate qualification. A common advertisement was issued and
   a common process of selection led to the. appointllJ_ent of all persons
   who were designated as Vocational Masters. They were appointed on . ·
   a pay scale higher than the general lecturers. They continued to .draw a
   higher scale till the year 1978 when the pay scale o( the general lecturers
   was br6tight at par with the pay scale of the Vocational Masters. It is B
   onlyin the year 1995 that a~ effort was made by the State Government
   to create a distinction between the degree holders as voc.ational lecturers .
- and diploma holders as vocational masters.
          16. Further, since the very inception, the. educational qualification
   for appointment as Vocational Masters had been.a degree or a diploma·.· C
   with three years' experience as both the qualifications were placed at
   par. All persons were appointed by a common process of selection and
   they teach the same classes, perfoqning the same work. No distinction
   can be brought· about between the persons so. appointed. It is only
 . subsequently that the appella.nts designated some of the Vocational D
   Masters as Vocational Lecturers and brought about an artificial distinction
   between the two. Even on account of r!'!-designation of the degree
   holders arid post graduates as vocational lecturers, there was no change
   in the responsibilities and the financial matters as be~en the degree
   holders and diploma holders before the alleged Notification which factis" ·
   duly admitted by the State .. There is no distinction between the vocational E
   lecturers and vocational masters and. they form one unified cadre and
   class. There cannot be any discrimination between similarly situated
   persons, whether by way of a government notification or any amendment
   in the Rules. As far as nature of work is concerned, it is stated that the ·
  vocational masters are discharging their duty in the Senior Secondary F
   Schools in the Engineering/non-Engineering trades and have the technical
   qualifications while the vocational lecturers are also discharging the same
   duties in the same schools. Both vocational masters and lecturers are
  teaching the same classes, i.e., 1O+1 and 10+4 and hence the nature of
  work, responsibilities and duties being identical and the pay scales were ·
. also kept identical since 1978 onwards.                                       G
         17. The principle of equality, is also fundamental in formulation of
  any policy by the State and the glimpse of the same can be found in
  Articles 38, 39, 39A, 43 ana 46 embodied in Part IY of the
  Constitution of India. These Articles of the Constitution of India mandate
                                                                                H
668            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             (2017] 9 S.C.R.


· A that the State is under a constitutional obligation to assure a social order
     providing justice- social, economic and political, by inter alia, minimizing
     monetary inequalities, and by securing the right to adequate means of
     livelihood and by providing for adequate wages so as to ensure, an
     appropriate standard oflife, and by promoting economic interests of the
     weaker sections. Meaning thereby, ifthe State is giving some economic
  B
     benefits to one class while denying the same to other then the onus of
     justifying the same lies on the State specially in the circumstances when
     both the classes or group of persons were treated as same in the past by
     the State. Since Vocational Masters had been drawing same salaty as
     Vocational Lecturers were drawing before the application of 41h pay
  c commission, any attempt to curtail their salary and allowances would
     amount to arbitrariness which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law if
    ·no reasonable justification is offered for the same.
           18. Weare conscious of the fact that a differential scale on the
   basis of educational qualifications and the nature of duties is permissible.
 D However, it is equally clear to us that if two categories of employees are
   treated as equal initially, they .should continue to be so treated. unless a
   different treatment is justified by some coge11neasons. In a case where
   the nature of duties is drastically altered, a differential scale of pay may
   be justified. Similar! y, ifa higher qualification is prescribed for a particular
   post, a higher scale of pay may be granted. However, if the basic
 E qualifications and the job requirements continued to be identical as they
   were initially laid dowrt, then the Court shall be reluctant to accept the
   action of the authority in according a differential treatment unless some
   good reasons are disclosed. Thus, the decisions relied upon by learned
   senior coilnsel are clearly distinguishable and are not applicable to the
 F facts of the present case.
             Conclusion:
           19. ln view of the forgoing discussion, we are of the considered
    opinion that the High Court was fully justified in declaring that the
    vocational masters are entitled to pay scale of Rs. 6,400-10,640/- on the
  G ground that the nature of duties being discharged by the vocational
    masters are the same as vocational lecturers and that there was no
    iatiOnale behind making a classification between the two especially when
    bot~ the categories were treated as one and the same in all the previous
    pay revisions since 1978 onwards. Vide notification dated 31.03.1 <fc15,
  H only the no.menclature of'vocational masters was changed without
 STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. v. SENIOR VOCATIONAL STAFF                           669
       MASTERS ASSOCIATION [R.K. AGRAWAL; J.]

changing their nature. of duties a_nd pay scales. Further, the impugned A
order d.ated 16.07 .2003 deserves to be quashed on the. short ground that
it has been passed without complying the rules of natural justice. The
same could not have been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing
to the concerned employees.                               -    ·
                                               no
     · 2(}. It is by now well settled that orders causing civil . B
consequences can be passed, without observing rules of natural justice
as it was held in Bhagwan Shukla vs. Union of India & Ors.AIR
1994 SC 2480wherein it was held as under:            .·
        "3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. That the
        petitioner's basic pay had been fixed since 1970 at Rs, 190 p.m. is c
        not.disputed. There is also no dispute that the basic pay of the
        appellant was reduced to Rs. 181 p.m. froin Rs. 190 pari. in 1991
        retrospectively w.e.f. 1812.1970.The appellant has obviously been
      . visit~d with civil consequences but he had been granted no
        opportunitY to show cause against the reductiqn of his basic pay.
        He was not, even put on notice before his pay was reduced by . · D
        tije department and the_ order came to be made behind his back
        without following any procedure known to law. There, has, thus,
        been a flagrant violation of the principles ofnatural justice andthe
        appellant has been made to suffer hu.ge financial loss \vithout being --
        heard. Fair play in action warrant~ that rio such order which has . E
        the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should be
        passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a
        hearing in the matter .Since, that was not done, the order
        (memorandum) dated 2_5. 7.1991. which was impugned before the
        Tribunal could not certainly be sustained and the Central
        Administrative Tribunal fell in error in dismissing the petition of F
        the appellant. The order of the-Tribunal deserves to be set as_ide.
        We, accor.dingly, accept this appeal and set aside the order of the
    , --Central Administrative Tribunal d~ted 17.9,1993 as well as the
        order (memorandum) impugned before the Tribunal dated·
         25.7.1991 reducing the basic pay ofthb appellant From Rs. 190 to G
        Rs. 181 w.e.f.18.12,1970.''                             ·          -
                          -
       21. The order dated 16.07.2003 came to be made behind the back
of vocational mast~rs without following any procedure known t<rlaw.
Thus; there has beeri a flagrant violation of the principles of natural ..
justice and the respondents had been made to stiffer huge financial loss H
                                                    \.
670             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2017] 9 S.C.R.


A without being heard. Fair play in action warrants that no such order
  which has the effect of an employee suffering civil consequences should
  be passed without putting the concerned to notice and giving him a hearing
  in the matter.
         22. In our considered view, the High court while dealing with the
B matter on merits, has rightly quashed the letter dated 16.07.2003 and
  directed the State government to give benefits of the Notification dated
  31.03 .1995 to all the Vocational Masters.
             23. In view .of above discussion, we are not inclined to interfere
      in the decision passed by' the High Court. Accordingly, the appeal is
c     dismissed with no order as to costs.


      Kalpana K. Tripathy                                       Appeal dismissed.