Holding

Classification of Inspectors into Grade‑I and Grade‑II based on merit and promotion does not violate the principle of equal pay for equal work, and the inspectors are not entitled to the pay‑scale of the Animal Husbandry department.

Summary

The Government of West Bengal, by an order dated 4 June 1965, bifurcated the cadre of Inspectors in the Housing Department into Grade‑I and Grade‑II, upgrading 20 % of the posts and providing for promotion from Grade‑II. The three Pay Commissions (1971, 1981, 1990) examined the pay‑scale revisions and recommended retaining the two‑grade structure. A group of Inspectors filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court contending that the classification violated the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ and that they were entitled to the higher pay‑scale of Inspectors in the Animal Husbandry Department, whose duties were allegedly similar. The High Court struck down the classification and directed parity with the Animal Husbandry pay‑scale. The State appealed, and this Court held that the classification based on merit and promotion is permissible, that the Pay Commission findings are binding, and that there is no factual basis to equate the duties of the two departments. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court judgment set aside, and the writ petition dismissed.

Issues considered

The classification of Housing Department Inspectors into Grade‑I and Grade‑II violates the principle of equal pay for equal work.
The Inspectors of the Housing Department are entitled to the same pay‑scale as Inspectors of the Animal Husbandry Department because they perform similar duties.
Whether the High Court can override the recommendations of the Pay Commissions in a writ jurisdiction.

Subjects

service lawequal pay for equal workclassificationpay commissionpromotionparity of payadministrative law

Judgment

\
A STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS.
v.
SRI DEB KUMAR MUKHERJEE AND ORS.

MARCH 27, 1995
B
[KULDIP SINGH AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]

Service Law

State of West Benga"}-Jfousing Department-Inspectors-Bifurcation of
C cadre into Grade-I given higher scales and to be filled by promotion from
amongst Grade-II posts-Categorisation of Inspectors held valicf-/nspectors
of Housing Department-Claim for parity in pay scales with Inspectors of
Animal Husbandry Department-Held not maintainable.

D Principle of 'equal pay for equal work'-Applicability of.

By an order dated June 4, 1965 the appellant-State bifurcated that
cadre of Inspectors in the Housing Department into two grades i.e. Inspec-
tors Grade-I and Grade-II. Under the order, 20% of the posts in the cadre
were converted into grade-I posts which were to be filled up by promotions
E .from amongst grade·II Inspectors. The Three Pay Commissions examined
tbe revision of pay-scales of various cadres in the State of West Bengal
·and keeping in view the recommendations of these Pay Commissions the
appellant-State decided to maintain the two grades in the Cadre of Inspec·
tors. The respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court challeng-
F ing the decision of the State Govt. contending that(i) maintenance of two
grades in the cadre of Inspectors was violative of equal pay for equal work;
and (ii) they were entitled to the pay scale of Rs~5-1050 drawn by
Inspectors in the Animal Husbandry Department b cause Inspectors in
both the Departments were performing almost iden ical duties.

G The High Court struck down the categoris 'ion of Inspectors hold·
ing that the categorisation of Inspectors violate the principle of 'equal
pay for equal work' and further directed that spectors in the Housing
Department be given the pay scales drawn b Inspectors in the Animal
Husbandry. Department. Against the judgment of the High Court, State
H preferred an appeal before this Court.
1122
f

STATE v. DX MUKHERJEE tKULDIP SINGH, J.) 1123
Allowing the aiJpeal and setting aside the judgment of the High A
Court, this Court

HELD : 1. The High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, was not justified
in reaching the findings different than that of the Pay Commissions.
[1126-F]
B
2. The High Court fell into patent error in setting aside the classifica-
tion on the ground of discrimination. There is no infirmity in up-grading
20% of the posts in the cadre to be filled up from amongst the senior and
meritorious members of the cadre. The duties performed by the Inspectors
in the two grades may be the same, but no fault can be found with the
classification. Classification in the cadre on the ground of selection based C
on merit is permissible. (1126-.\ 1125-G]

3. There is nothing common in the Housing Department and the
Animal Husbandry Department. The two departments stand apart. Neither
the judgment of the single Judge nor that of the Divisions Bench indicates D
any factual material to show that the duties of the Inspectors in the two
departments are similar. The reasoning and the findings of the High Court,
on the face ofit, are untenable and cannot be sustained. (1126-D]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5304 of
1993.
E
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.7.92 of the Calcutta High
Court in A. No. 16A of 1991.

Tapas Ray, Dilip Sinha and J.R. Das, with him for the App~llant.

A_ _Dr. Shankar Ghosh, S.K. Banerjee and P.K. Chakraborty with them F
~r the Respondents.
'T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KULDIP SINGH J. The Calcutta High Court, in the impugned
judgment, has struck down the categorisation of Inspectors in the Housing G
Department as Grade-I and Grade-II, on the ground that it violated the
principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. The High Court further directed
that the Inspectors in the Housing Department be given the pay-scale
which was being drawn by the Inspectors in the Animal Husbandry Depart-
ment of the Government of West Bengal. This appeal by the State of West H
1124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 2 S.C.R.

A Bengal is against the judgment of the High Court.
We may briefly state the necessary facts. The Government of West i1
Bengal by order dated June 4, 1965 bifurcated the cadre of Inspectors in
the Housing Department into two grades. The said order is reproduced
hereunder:
B
"I am directed to say that the question of improvement in the
prospects of promotion of the Inspector employed under 24-
Parganas, in connection with implementation of Housing Schemes f
had been under consideration of Government for some time past:-T'
After considering the question in all its aspects, the Government
c has pleased to sanction formation, with effect from 10.8.1964, of
cadre of these Inspectors under the Housing Department with the
following two grades :

Inspector Grade I... Rs. 175-7-245-8-325
D
Inspector Grade II .. Rs. 150-5-250

2. Of the total number of posts in this Cadre of Inspectors 20%
were converted into Grade I posts. As there are 9 (nine) posts in
the cadre, 2 posts belong to Grade I and the others to Grade II.
E The two posts of Inspectors on Grade I should be filled up by
promotion of Grade II Inspectors according to the usual rules
gover~g promotion of candidates from lowers to higher Grade."

Accord~g to the Government, the Inspectors in the Housing Depart-
F ment prior to bifurcation, were equated with the Clerks. The bifurcati:~ _A
was done with a view to remove stagnation and provide a channel ~ ,
promotion in the same line. As a result of the report of the First Pay
Commission in the year 1971, the pay- scale of Rs. 300-600 was given to
Inspectors qra:de I and the pay- scale of Rs. 230-425 to the Inspectors \
Grade II. It is no doubt correct that the Chairman of the First Pay
G Commission recommended a unified cadre of the Inspectors, but the
Government accepted the report of the majority of the members and
maintained the two Grades in the cadre of Inspectors. The Second Pay _,,.,..
CommissiOn in the year 1981 examined the question thoroughly and on the
basis of the material placed byfore it recommended the continuance of the
H two Grades in the cadre of Inspectors. The Second Pay Commission
(
'.
STATE v. D.K. MUKHERJEE (KULDIP SINGH, J.] 1125
recommended Rs. 380-910 for Grade I Inspectors and Rs. 340-750 for A
) Grade II Inspectors. The Third Pay Commission in the year 1990 further
maintained the status quo regarding the Inspectors. Keeping in view the
recommendation of various Pay Commissions constituted from time to
time, the State Government came to the conclusion that the two Grades in
the cadre of Inspectors were to be maintained.
B
It has been further averred by the State Government that the Pay
Commission recommended different pay-scales for Inspectors in different
t
departments. The pay-scale 9f Inspectors in the Food and Civil Supplies
r"' Department was Rs. 175-325 which was revised in the year 1981 to that of
Rs. 350-600. The pay-scale of Inspectors in the Co-operative Department c
was Rs. 200-400, which was revised to that of Rs. 425-1050. Similarly the
Inspectors in the Bureau of Applied Economics and Statistics were in the
pay- scale of Rs. 300-600 which was revised to Rs. 380-910.

The main contention of the respondents before the High Court was
D
that the maintenance of two Grades in the Cadre of Inspector was violative
of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' as th~ Inspectors Grade I
and Grade II were performing similar duties and their posts were inter-
changeable. The other contention raised before the High Court that the
Inspectors in the Housing Department are entitled to the pay-scale of Rs.
425-1050 which was being drawn by the, Inspectors in the Animal Hus- E
bandry Department on the ground that the Inspectors in both the depart-
ments were performing almost identical duties. The same contentions have
been raised before us.

The Government Order dated June 4, 1965, reproduced above, F
y >- makes it clear that the higher grade in the cadre of inspectors was created
with a view to provide a channel of promotion and to remove stagnation
in the said cadre. 20% of the posts in the cadre were upgraded and given
T higher pay-scale. The higher grade posts were to be filled by way of
promotion from amongst the Inspectors holding the lower grade. We see
no infirmity in up-grading 20% of the posts in the cadre to be filled-up G
from amongst the senior and meritorious members of the cadre. The duties
performed by the Inspectors in the two grades may be the same, but no
fault can be found with the classification. It is settled by string of authorities
of this Court that classification in the cadre on the ground of selection
based on merit is permissible. It is well-known in serviee jurisprudence that H
1126 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] 2 S.C.R. ·'

A selection grade and super time-scale based on seniority or seniority-cum-
merit are permissible. The High Court fell into patent error in setting aside
the classification on the ground of discrimination.

The High Court was equally unjustified in accepting the second
contention of the respondents. The State Government has categorically
B stated.that the pay-scales of Inspectors in different departments of the state
are not u11iform. We have noted some of the instances in the earlier part
of the judgment. The High Court has held that since the Inspectors in the
1
Animal Husbandry Department were given the pay-scale of Rs. 425-1050, ~I
the Inspectors in the Housing Department are also entitled to the same.
C There is patent fallacy in the reasoning. There is nothing common in the
Housing Department and the Animal Husbandry Department. The two
departments stand apart Neither the judgment of the learned single judge
nor that of the Division Bench indicates any factual material to show that
the duties of the Inspectors in the two departments are similar. The
reasoning and the findings of the High Court, on the face of it, are
D untenable and cannot be sustained.

As mentioned above, the three Pay Commissions during the last
three decades examined the revision of pay-scales of various cadres in the
State of West Bengal. On the basis of the material placed before the
E Pay-Commissions the two grades in respect of Inspectors in the Housing
pepartment were maintained. Similarly the Pay-Commissions recom-
- mended different pay-scales for· Inspectors ill different Departments of the
State Government. The High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, was not justified
in reaching the findings different than that of the Pay-Commissions.

F We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the
learned single Judge and of the Division Bench of the High Court and
dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondents before the High Court.
We, however, direct that while implementing this judgment, the appellants
shall not recover any amount of money already paid to the respondents in
G terms of the impugned judgments of the High Court. No costs.

T.N.A. Appeal allowed.