Holding

The doctrine of equal pay for equal work does not extend to employees belonging to distinct classes differentiated by qualifications, recruitment mode, and gazetted status, so the Tribunal's order granting parity of pay to Deputy Agricultural Officers was invalid.

Summary

The respondents, promoted Deputy Agricultural Officers in Tamil Nadu's Agricultural Extension Subordinate Service, claimed parity in pay with directly recruited Agricultural Officers, arguing that they performed substantially the same duties. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal granted them equal pay under the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the principle under Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution applies when the two groups differ in recruitment mode, educational qualifications, gazetted status and special duties. Relying on earlier Constitution Bench decisions, the Court held that such differentiations are constitutionally permissible and that the two categories constitute distinct classes of employees. Consequently, the Tribunal’s order was set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

The applicability of the equal pay for equal work principle under Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) to Deputy Agricultural Officers and Agricultural Officers who perform similar duties but differ in qualifications and status.
Whether differentiation in pay scales based on educational qualifications, mode of recruitment, and gazetted versus non‑gazetted status violates constitutional equality provisions.
Whether the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal erred in applying the equal pay doctrine to the two categories of employees.
Whether the special duties exclusive to Agricultural Officers justify a separate pay scale.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Art.14, s. Art.16, s. Art.309, s. Art.39(d)

Subjects

equal pay for equal workarticles 14 and 16gazetted vs non‑gazettededucational qualificationpay scale differentiationagricultural serviceTamil Nadu Administrative Tribunalconstitutional lawservice law

Judgment

STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. A
v.
M.R. ALAGAPPAN AND ORS.

APRIL 8, 1997

[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] B

Se1Vice Law :

Equal pay for equal w01k-Principle-,,<_pplicability of-Two sets of
employees-Substalllially discharging same type of d11ties and the posts inter- C
ciumgeable--Held : Did not 11ecesswily attract the doc/line of "equal pay for
eq11al work" especially when there were disti11guishi11gfeat11res like ed11catio!lal
qualifications, mode of recmitme11t, status, special assig11111e11t, different
seniority lists, etc.-Constitlltion of India, 1950, Arts. 14 and 16.

Promotion-Chances of-Differentiation based 011 educational D
qualifications-Held : Pennissible.

The respondents were working as Deputy Agricultural Officers in the
State Agricultural Extension Subordinate Service under the Agriculture
Department of the appellant-State. The respondents who were promotee
Officers claimed parity in pay scales with directly recruited Agricultural E
Officers who belonged to the State Agricultural Extension Service.

There was a considerable similarity between the duties and respon-
sibilities of the respondents and the Agricultural Officers. There were also
substantial differences between these two categories. The respondents were F
non-gazetted Officers whereas the Agricultural Officers were gazetted
Officers. The respondents were promoted departmentally while the
Agricultural OfficL!'S were recruited directly. The minimum educational
qualification for being recruited as Agricultural Officer was B.Sc. (Agricul·
tnre) whereas for a promotee Deputy Agricultural Officer of minimum
educational quallfication was SSLC with requisite experience as laid down G
in the Rules. The Deputy Agricultural Officers performed the same duties
as performed by Agricultural Officers but important assignments like
drawing of samples were exclusively assigned to the Agricultural Officers.
,-p·· The State Administrative Tribunal held that the respondents were entitled
to get the same pay scale as available to the ar•ricultural Officers on the H
717
718 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) 3 S.C.R.

A princi pie of Equal pay for Equal Work. Being aggrieved the appellant- (
State preferred the present appeal.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : 1.1. It is clearly laid down in two Constitution Bench
B judgments in State of Mysore v. P. Narasing Rao and Mohamad Sl111jat Ali
v. Union of India, that any differentiation made in the matter of pay scales
or even for that matter with reference to further chances of promotion
between graduate and non-graduate employees would not fall foul on the
touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. [726-G]
c 1.2. In certain circumstances even the task of drawing samples is
also being entrusted to Deputy Agricultural Officers. But the special
c1uality of work, which the directly recruited Agricultural Officers have to
put in, substantially differs from the quality of work, which can be
entrusted to Deputy Agricultural Officers like the respondents. It is im-
D possible to hold that the Deputy Agricultural Officers like the respondents
are required to be given the same pay scale as Agricultural Officers. This
is because they do not form a similar class of employees even though they
may be substantially discharging the same type of duties and their place
of work may be interchangeable. In view of the distinguishing features
E between the two groups of employees and especially in the light of the
further fact that they form two separate cadres of gazetted and non-
gazetted officers governed by different sets of service rules which in turn
require maintenance of separate seniority lists, it is not possible to uphold
the contention of the respondents that only on the doctrine of Equal Pay
for Equal Work the pay scale available to gazetted employees like Agricul-
F tural Officers must of necessity be made available to non-gazetted
employees like Deputy Agricultural Officers on the pain of Articles 14 and
16 of the Constitution of India. [731-E-H]

State of Mysore v. P. Narasing Rao, [1968] 1 SCR 407 and Mohamad
G Shujat Ali & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., [1975] 1 SCR 449, followed.

V. Markendeya & Ors. v. State of A.P. & Ors., [1989) 3 SCC 191 and
Sita Devi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1996) 10 SCC 1, relied on.

Bhagwan Dass & Ors. v. State of Ha1yana & Ors., [1987) 4 SCC 634
H _andlaipal & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1988) Suppl. 1SCR411, held
STATE v. M.R. ALAGAPPAN (S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.] 719

inapplicable. A
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4684-85
of 1994 Etc.

From the Judgment and Order dated 19.10.92 of the Tamil Nadu
Administrative Tribunal, Madras in 0.A. Nos. 1488/89 and 3662 of 1990. B

A. Mariarputham and V. Krishnamurthy for the Appellant.

Jitendra Sharma, R. Mohan, Ms. Gunwant Dara, Ms. Minakshi Vij,
P. Gaur, R. Nedumaran, V.G. Pragasam, K.V. Vishwanathan, K. V. C
Venkatararnan and C.R. Iyer for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

S.B. MAJMUDAR, J .. The State of Tamil Nadu and Director of
Agriculture, Madras as common appellants have brought in challenge a D
common judgment rendered by Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in two
original Applications filed by the contesting respondents who are working
as Deputy Agricultural Officers in the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extension
Subordinate Service under the Agricultural Department of the said State.
The Tribunal by its impugned common judgment in these two original E
applications has taken the view that the contesting respondents are entitled
to get the same pay scale as available to Agricultural Officers working in
Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extension Service as according to the Tribunal
both these categories of employees perform the same type of work and
carry out the same type of duties. Consequently on the principle of Equal F
Pay for Equal Work the appellant-State must maintain parity of pay scales
between these two groups of employees working in its Agriculture Depart-
ment. The Tribunal has also directed that the contesting respondents be
paid all arrears with effect from 1st June 1988.

On grant of special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Con- G
stitution of India the appellants have preferred these appeals. During the
pendency of these appeals by an interim order of this Court the impugned
judgment and order of the Tribunal have remained stayed. In order to
appreciate the grievance of the respondents which appealed to the
Tribunal, it is necessary to note a few introductory facts leading to these H
720 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) 3 S.C.R.

A proceedings.

The respondents here{n were originally appointed in the Agriculture
Department of the State as Fieldman. They belonged to Tamil Nadu
Agricultural Subordinate Service. They were subsequently promoted to the
B posts of Deputy Agricultural Officers. These posts could be filled in by
promoting Assistant Agricultural Officers. There is no higher avenue of
promotion for the respondents beyond the promotional posts of Deputy .
1
Agricultural Officers.

On the other hand Agricultural Officers are being directly recruited
C from open market and they belong to Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extension
Service. The minimum educational qualification for being directly recruited
as Agricultural Officer is Bachelor of Science (Agriculture) while so far as
Deputy Agricultural Officers are concerned the minimum qualification for
being considered for promotion to the said post is passing of SSLC
D examination equivalent to 10th standard examination. The respondents
contended before the Tribunal that through they were discharging the same
type of duties as Agricultural Officers the pay scale available to them was
Rs. 1600-60-2300-60-2660 while the pay scale of Agricultural Officers which
was originally Rs. 1640-60-2600-75-2900 was further upward revised to Rs.
E 1820-60-2300-75-3200 and no such upward revisions and parity of revised
pay scale were offered to the Deputy Agricultural Officers like the respon-
dents. As noted earlier the said contention of the respondents appealed to
the Tribunal and on applying the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work
the impugned order was passed in favour of the respondents.

F In support of these appeals learned counsel for appellants submitted,
relying on a series of decisions of this Court to which we will make a
reference hereafter, that difference in educational qualifications can fur-
nish a rational criterion for classifying different categories of employees
and for offering them different pay scales. It was submitted that Agricul-
G tural Officers are directly recruited as gazetted officers in Tamil Nadu
Agricultural Extension Service while the respondents who were promotee-
Deputy Agricultural Officers were non-gazetted officers belonging to
Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extension Subordinate Service. That the methods
of recruitment to both these services were different. Agricultural Officers
H were directly recruited while Deputy Agricultural Officers were promotees.
STATE v. M.R. ALAGAPP AN (S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.) 721

Their educational qualifications were also different. Before a direct recruit A
can be considered for appointment as Agricultural Officer from open
market he has to possess the degree of Bachelor of Science (Agricul-
ture) in addition to other requisite qualifications as laid down by the •
statutory rules while so far as the Deputy Agricultural Officer is con-
cerned all that was required was passing of SSLC examination with the B
requisite experience as laid down in the Rules. That though they may
be discharging the same type of duties, the quality of work which they
were required to carry out was entirely different. That out of 2390 posts
of Agricultural Officers there were 1372 posts to which Deputy Agricul-
tural Officers could not be posted as they were of specialised type while
only for the rest of 1018 posts Deputy Agricultural Officers could also C
be posted to work and in that sense for these 1018 posts there was
interchangeability of assignment between these two groups of
employees. It was further· contended that even though the duty charts
of both these groups of employees were almost identical there were
certain special duties assigned to Agricultural Officers which could not D
be entrusted to Deputy Agricultural Officers. It was, therefore, sub-
mitted that these two classes of employees though working in the
Agriculture Department of the State form two distinct and separate
classes and there was no comparison between the two to enable them
to earn same pay scale and consequently the Tribunal had committed a E
patent error of law in passing the impugned order in their favour.

Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted
that once it is held that the respondents were doing same type of work
as their counterpart Agricultural Officers the source of recruitment of F
officers would become irrelevant and it is the nature of the work which
was almost similar that would entitle the respondents to claim equal pay
for equal work which they were doing. That even though some of the
work could not have been assigned to them as mentioned in paragraph
(5) of the Additional Affidavit filed by Shri V. Srinivasan, Deputy
Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department, there was material G
to point out that even the work of drawing samples could be entrusted

-- to the Deputy Agricultural Officers and consequently on the principle
of Equal Pay for Equal Work the Tribunal was justified in passing the
impugned order in their favour especially in the light of Articles 14 an
16 read with Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India. In support of H
722 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) 3 S.C.R.

A this contention he placed reliance on some of the decisions of this Court
to which we will make a reference hereafter.

Before dealing with the various decisions of this Court to which our
attention was invited by learned counsel for the respective contesting
parties we may mention that by I.A. Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 certain interested
B applicants representing Agricultural Officers seek to be impleaded in the
present proceedings as according to them they have direct interest in these
proceedings for justifying the separate pay scale available to them as
compared to the pay scale which was made available to the contesting
respondents by the State of Tamil Nadu. As these applicants represent the
C rival group of employees in the same Department we deem it fit to grant
these I.As. and permit joinder of these respondents who stated before us
that they are supporting the appellants and adopt arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellants. We may also state that certain I.As. have been
filed by the contesting respondents for vacating the interim stay granted by
D this Court against the implementation of the Tribunal's order pending
these appeals. As the appeals are being disposed of finally by the present
judgment these I.As for vacating the interim stay would naturally not
survive and will stand disposed of accordingly.

E So for as the merits of the contentions canvessed by the contesting
parties for our consideration go, it will be necessary to note certain well
established facts on record of these cases in the light of which the con-
troversy posed for our consideration will have to be resolved. In the
Agriculture Department of the appellant-State two types of services
manned by different employees are in vogue. The history of these services
F shows that upto 1961 the posts of Assistant Agricultural Offices were borne
on Tamil Nadu Agricultural Subordinate Service. These Assistant Agricul-
tural Officers could be promoted to the posts of Deputy Agricultural
Officers who were earlier known as Agricultural Demonstrators. These
posts could be filled up by direct recruitment as well as by promotion from
G the posts of Assistant Agricultural Officers. This practice was in vogue upto
1966. Out of the total cadre strength of Deputy Agricultural Officers 20
per cent was reserved for promotees from Assistant Agricultural Officers
·~
and the remaining 80 per cent could be filled up by direct recruitment.
Only B.Sc (Agriculture) graduates were directly recruited as Deputy 1
H Agricultural Officers. Upto 1961 there was no disparity in the scale of pay
1

I
STATEv. M.R.ALAGAPPAN(S.B. MAJMUDAR,J.] 723

for graduate or non-graduate Deputy Agricultural Officers. It was also a A
well established position in the Department that the promotee-Deputy
Agricultural Officers had no further chances of promotion while for direct-
ly recruited Deputy Agricultural Officers there were further chances of
promotion. It is also not in dispute between the parties that after 1962 the
pay scales of promotee-Deputy Agricultural Officers left company of the B
pay scales of directly recruited Deputy Agricultural Officers which were
made higher. That apart, from 12th December 1980 the graduate Deputy
Agricultural Officers were designated as Agricultural Officers and non-
graduates continued to be called Deputy Agricultural Officers. Thus froin
1962 onwards all throughout the pay scales of directly recruited Agricul-
tural Officers remained higher as compared to the pay scales of promotee- C
Deputy Agricultural Officers, though both these categories of employees
substantially carried out same type of work and discharged same type of
duties subject to the difference in the nature of specialised work which
could be assigned only to directly recruited Agricultural Officers as high-
lighted by learned counsel for the appellants and noted earlier. Sub- D
sequently by statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution
of India Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extension Service was constituted with
effect from year 1981. Category IV of the said Service consisted of Agricul-
tural Officers (Extension). Method of recruitment and qualification for the
posts of Agricultural Officers (Extension) were laid down as under : E
Class and Post Method of Qualifications
Recruitment
Class-IV Direct (i) A Bachelor degree in Agriculture;
Agricultural Recruitment and
Officer F
(ii) Must possess adequate knowledge
of Tamil as defined in the
Explanation to sub-Rule (a) of the
Rule 12(A) of the General Rules
in Part-II of the Tamil Nadu State G
and Sub-ordinate Service Rules.

In the year 1988 the State Government framed special rules for Tamil Nadu
Agricultural Extension Subordinate Service. In the said Subordinate Ser-
vice category I consisted of Deputy Agricultural Officers to which the H
724 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) 3 S.C.R.

A contesting respondents belong. Rule 2 of the said Subordinate Service laid
down the method of recruitment to the posts of Deputy Agricultural
Officers as under :

Category Post Method of appointment
Category I Deputy By promotion from among the holders of the
B Agricultural post of the Asst. Agricultural Officers in
Officer Category 3 including the Assistant Seed
Officers, in category 2 who is promoted from
the post of Asst. Agricultural Officer in
Category-3.
c Provided that the total number of Deputy
Agricultural Officers shall not exceed 10
percent of the total strength of the
Agricultural Officers borne in Class IV of
the Tamilnadu Agricultural Extension
D Service.

The qualifications prescribed for the post of Deputy Agricultural Officer
under the Rules read as under :

Post Qualification
E
Deputy 1. Must have passed SSLC
Agricultural Officer Examination.
2. Atleast ten years of service as A~sistant
Agricultural Officer including services
F rendered in the post of Asst. Seed
Officer.

It is true as pointed out by learned counsel for the contesting respondents
that as per the rules of recruitment for promotion to the post of Deputy
Agricultural Officer the concerned incumbent must have at least 10 years
G of service as Assistant Agricultural Officer including the service rendered
in the post of Assistant Seed Officer and for being an Assistant Seed
Officer he must have not only passed SSLC examination but must also have
put in not less than five years of service as Assistant Agricultural Officer
in Category 3. It is al~o true that under the same set of rules it is provided
H that an Assistant Agricultural Officer can be recruited by direct recruit-
STATE v. M.R.ALAGAPPAN (S.B. MAJMUDAR,J.] 725

ment and for that purpose the candidate must have passed SSLC examina- A
tion and must have passed either two years' diploma course or two years'
Agricultural Science Certificate course conducted by Sri Rama Krishna
Vidyalaya and other institutions mentioned in the concerned rules of
recruitment. Therefore, it is obvious that before a promotec can reach the
post of Deputy Agricultural Officer he must be equipped not only with the
passing certificate of SSLC examination but must have also obtained the B
requisite diploma as laid down in the rules of recruitment concerning
Assistant Agricultural Officer's post. But still the fact remains that a
Deputy Agricultural Officer is not required to have a degree of graduation
in Agricultural Science which is the basic requirement for a directly
recruited candidate from open market to the post of Agricultural Officer. C
It is no doubt true that most of the duties carried out by the Deputy
Agricultural Officers run parallel to those assigned to and carried out by
Agricultural Officers. It is also true that Deputy Agricultural Officers can
be asked to perform the duties of Agricultural Officers when they are
assigned that work and to that extent their assignment of duty can be held D
to be interchangeable. Still the fact remains that Deputy Agricultural
Officers belong to Subordinate Service which is non-gazetted service and
the mode of recruitment is promotion. Educational qualifications for them
are also lower while Agricultural Officers belong to gazetted service and
are directly recruited from open market and their minimum educational
qualification is B.Sc. (Agriculture), if not more. The question is with this E
basic difference in the two types of services whether the abstract doctrine
of Equal Pay for Equal Work can be pressed in service by the concerned
respondents.

In the light of the aforesaid service structure data of these two F
warring groups we may now look at the relevant decisions of this Court on

- the point.

A Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of State of Mysore v.
P. Narasing Rao, (1968] 1SCR407 speaking through Ramaswami, J. clearly
ruled that higher educational qualifications furnish a relevant consideration G
for fixing higher pay scales and consequently the classification of two
grades of tracers in two different pay scales by the new Mysore State was
not violative of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. In the said
case respondent Narasing Rao was employed as .a tracer in the Engineering
Department of the ex-Hyderabad State on the pay scale of R. 65-90. In the H
7'2£ SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 3 S.C.R.

A common cadre of tracers there were matriculates as well as non-matricu-
lates. The said situation continued till re-organisation of States in 1956.
After re~organisation a part of the area of Hyderabad State became part
of new Mysore State. After transfer of respondent to the new State, the
cadre of tracers into which tracers from Bombay State had also been
B absorbed, was re-organised into two grades, one consisting of matriculate
tracers whose scale of pay was fixed at Rs. 50-120 and the other of
non-matriculates at Rs. 40-80. It was this creation of two scales of traces
in the new Mysore State that was tried to be challenged on the anvil of
articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The non-matriculate tracers
like Narasing Rao were able to convince the High Court of Mysore that
C the said difference of pay scale was discriminatory and violative of Article
14. The said decision of the High Court was set aside by the Constitution
Bench in the aforesaid case and it was held that despite same type of work
being carried out by the tracers there was nothing wrong in awarding a
higher pay scale to matriculate tracers as compared to non-matriculates
D like respondent Narasing Rao. On the question whether there could be
differential treatment in the matter of promotion another Constitution
Bench of this Court in the case of Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. Etc. v.
Union of India & Ors. Etc., 1975) 1 SCR 449 speaking through Bhagwati,
J. held that Andhra Pradesh Rules in so far as they made differentiation
between graduate and non-graduate supervisors in the matter of promotion
E could not be held to be invalid. Historical background in which these rules
operated was also kept in view and it was observed that this differentiation
is not something brought about for the first time by the Andhra Pradesh
Rules. It had always been there in the Engineering Services of the
Hyderabad and the Andhra States. The graduate supervisors had always
F been treated as a distinct and separate class from non-graduate supervisors
both under the Hyderabad Rules as well as under the Andhra Rules and
they had never been integrated into one class.

The aforesaid two Constitution Bench judgments of this Court clearly
laid down that any differentiation made in the matter of pay scales or even
G for that matter with reference to further chances of promotion between
graduate and non-graduate employees would not fall foul on the
touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. We may also
in this connection refer to a latter decision of this Court in the case of V.
Markendeya & Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., (1989) 3 SCC 191.
H In that case the court had to consider the difference in pay scales made
STATEv. M.R.ALAGAPPAN[S.B. MAJMUDAR,J.) 727

available to two classes of employees, namely, graduate supervisors holding A
degree in Engineering and the other class of non-graduate supervisors
being diploma and licence holders. It was held that on the basis of dif-
ference in educational qualifications such difference in pay scales was
justified and could not offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India. In this connection Article 39 sub-Article ( d) was also considered and B
it was observed by K.N. Singh, J. speaking for the Court as under:

"The purpose of Article 39(d) is to fix certain social and
economic goals for avoiding any discrimination amongst the
citizens doing similar work in matters relating to pay. The principle
of 'equal pay for equal work' is not an abstract one; it is open to C
the State to prescribe different scales of pay for different cadres
having regard to nature of duties, responsibilities and educational
qualifications. Where two classes of employees perform identical
or similar duties and carry out the same functions with the same
measure of responsibility having same academic qualifications, D
they would be entitled to equal pay. If the State denies them
equality in pay, its action would be violative of Articles 14 and 16,
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 E
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 F
to be achieved, the classification must be upheld. Principle of equal
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 G
two classes of employees without there being any reasonable clas-
sification for the same."

On the same lines runs a latter decision of this Court in the case of Sita
Devi & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1996] 10 SCC 1 wherein a Bench H
728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) 3 S.C.R.

A of two learned Judges speaking through B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. laid down
that under-matriculate instructors in Adult Literacy Programme in the
Government of Haryana could not justifiably demand same pay scales as
were available to matriculate instructors and that person claiming parity in
pay on the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work must show that his
B qualification, duties and functions are similar to person with whom he
claims parity. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents however
submitted that in the case of Sita Devi (supra) there was no evidence
regarding similar nature of work as clearly indicated in paragraph (5) of
the judgment. That may be so. However the principle remains well estab-
lished in the light of the aforesaid series of decisions of this Court that
C before the abstract doctrine of Equal Pay for Equal Work is pressed in
service it must be shown that the concerned incumbents have parity of
qualifications, duties and functions and then only they can be treated at
par for the purpose of pay scales and the Court can interfere after reaching
a clear finding of fact that both the sets of employees stand completely at
D par on the basis of equality of work both qualitatively and quantitatively
and, therefore, denial of equal pay scales to them would offend Articles 14
and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Learned counsel for the r.:spondents in support of his contention
invited our attention to two decisions of this Court. Firstly he referred to
E the case of Bhagwan Dass & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1987] 4 SCC
634. In that decision Thakkar, J. speaking for the Bench of two learned
Judges observed that if duties and functions of temporary appointees and
employees of regular cadre in the same Government department are
similar, there cannot be discrimination in pay between them merely on
ground of difference in mode of their selection or that the appointment or
F scheme under which appointments were made was temporary. So far as
the aforesaid decision is concerned it has to be kept in view that difference
in pay scales was sought to be supported by the State of Haryana before
this Court only on four grounds as enumerated in para 9 of the Report.
They were as under :
G
"(i) that the petitioners are not full-time employees;

(ii) the mode of recruitment of the petitioners is different from
the mode of recruitment of respondents 2 to 6;

H (iii) the nature of the functions discharged by the petitioners are
STATE v. M.R. ALAGAPPAN (S.B. MAJMUDAR, J.] 729

not similar to the functions discharged by respondents 2 to A
6; and

(iv) appointments are made on six monthly basis and there is a
break in service having regard to the fact that the posts are
sanctioned on year to year basis in view of the temporary
nature of the scheme." B

It becomes at once clear that in that case this Court was not
concerned with a situation wherein there was dissimilarity of education-
al qualifications among the concerned groups of employees who were
not offered the same pay scale. On the contrary in para 12 of the C
Report it has been clearly observed that the petitioners before this
Court possessed the same qualifications, namely, B.A., B.Ed. as were
possessed by the employees in the regular cadre and some of the
petitioners before this Court were having even higher degrees like M.A.,
M.Ed. Under these circumstances when the State failed to establish D
different types of duties being discharged by these employees parity of
pay scales was ordered to be granted to the petitioners. However the
fact situation in the present case is entirely different. Hence no assis-
tance can be rendered by the aforesaid decision to the contesting
respondents. Our attention was then invited by learned counsel for the
respondents to a decision of this Court in the case of Jaipal & Ors. v. E
State of Haryana & Ors., [1988) Supp. 1 SCR 411. In this decision another
Division Bench of this Court speaking through K.N. Singh, J. had to
consider two identical schemes floated by the State of Haryana with the
object of imparting literacy (functional and awareness) to adult il-
literates and to provide literacy to children keeping away from schools. F
Even though the petitioners were discharging the same type of duties
as instructors they were being paid a fixed salary of Rs. 200 per month
while under the second scheme, employees discharging similar duties
were offered a running pay scale of Rs. 420-700. On facts it was found
that there was no difference in the nature of duties of the instructors
and squad teachers. Both of them carried out similar work under the G
same employer and only on the ground that the instructors were part
time employees they could not be offered a fixed salary of Rs. 200 per
month. It becomes at once clear that there was no difference of educa-
tional qualifications amongst these twin sets of employees and the only
ground on which difference of payment could be justified by the State H
730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 3 S.C.R.

A was that they were employed under a different scheme and were working
part time only for four hours. On these peculiar facts of the case, therefore,
it was held that instructors were entitled to same pay scale as sanctioned
to squad teachers on the principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work. As the
said decision also is rendered in the light of its peculiar facts it is not
possible to agree with the learned counsel for the contesting respondents
B that the ratio of the said decision also gets squarely attracted to the facts
of the present case. It is now time for us to take stock of the situation.

Keeping in view the afore~aid settled legal position, therefore, it
has to be seen whether the Deputy Agricultural Officers and the
C Agricultural Officers can be said to form an identical class of employees
who must be given the same pay scales and denial of which can be said
to offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the light of
the well established facts on the record of these cases, to which we have
made a reference earlier, it is impossible to hold that the Deputy
D Agricultural Officers like the contesting respondents are required to be
given the same pay scale as Agricultural Officers. Reasons are obvious.
They do not form a similar class of employees even though they may be
substantially discharging the same type of duties and their place of work
may be interchangeable. A glaring difference which results into making
E them fall in a distinct and separate category of employees deserves to
be kept in view. In the first place the contesting respondents are
recruited by promotion from the lower category of Assistant Agricul-
tural Officers. On promotion as Deputy Agricultural Officers they
remain non-gazetted employees in the subordinate service in the Tamil
Nadu Agricultural Extension Subordinate Service while the Agricultural
F Officers are directly recruited to a gazetted service called Tamil Nadu
Agricultural Extension Service. The contesting respondents are
promoted departmentally while the Agricultural Officers are directly
selected through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The minimum
educational qualification for being an Agricultural Officer (direct
G recruit) is B.Sc. (Agriculture) while for a promotee-Deputy Agricultural
Officer the minimum educational qualification is SSLC with suitable
diploma as laid down by the Rules. Though substantially they carry out
the same type of work and duties, important assignments are exclusively
entrusted to Agricultural Officers as seen from para 5 of the additional
H affidavit filed by Shri V. Srinivasan, Deputy Secretary to Government at c:
STATEv. M.R.ALAGAPPAN (S.B. MAJMUDAR,J.) 731

page 193 of the paper book, as noted earlier. The special duties which can A
be entrusted only to Agricultural Officers are listed as under :

(a) draw samples of Insecticides

(b) draw samples of fertilizers
B
(c) draw seed samples

(d) analyse the soil water samples

(e) work.in the Regional research Station
c
(t) work in the State Seed Farm

(g) work in the Laboratories

(h) do soil survey work
D
(i) can be appointed in delta areas."

Of course learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that
in certain circumstances even the task of drawing samples is also being
entrusted to Deputy Agricultural Officers. That may be so. But the special
quality of work which the directly recruited Agricultural Officers have to E
put in substantially differs from the quality of work which can be entrusted
to Deputy Agricultural Officers like the contesting respondents. As noted
earlier out of the total posts of Agricultural Officers under the Agriculture
Department of the appellant-State only 1018 posts can be made available
for Deputy Agricultural Officers on interchangeable basis. 1372 posts are p
exclusively meant to be manned by directly recruited Agricultural Officers.
In view of these distinguishing features between the two groups of
employees and especially in the light of the further fact that they form two
separate cadres of gazetted and non-gazetted officers governed by different
sets of service rules which in turn require maintenance of separate seniority
lists, and on which aspect also there was no dispute between the parties, it G
is not possible to agree with the contention of learned counsel for the
contesting respondents that only on the doctrine of Equal Pay for Equal
Work the .pay scale available to gazetted employees like Agricultural
Officers must of necessity be made available to non-gazetted employees
like Deputy Agricultural Officers on the pain of Articles 14 and 16 of the H
-<l -
732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) 3 S.C.R.

A Constitution of India. In our view the Tribunal had patently erred in
applying the said doctrine to the facts of the present cases. The decision
of the Tribunal amounts to giving equal treatment to totally distinct and
unequal categories of employees. The common judgment of the Tribunal,
therefore, cannot be sustained.

B In the result, the appeals succeed and are allowed. The impugned
common judgment of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is quashed
and set aside. The Original Applications Nos. 1488 of 1989 and 3662 of
1990 are dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will
be no order as to costs all throughout.
c v.s.s. Appeals allowed.