Holding

A departmental recommendation does not confer a right to mandamus; the principle of "equal pay for equal work" cannot be applied without detailed comparative data, and courts should not interfere with pay‑scale decisions of the executive absent proof of hostile discrimination.

Summary

Pradip Kumar Dey, a Naik (Radio Operator) in the CRPF, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the Union of India to implement the CRPF's recommendation to the Fourth Pay Commission for a higher pay scale, invoking the principle of "equal pay for equal work". The Single Judge dismissed the petition for lack of comparative material, but the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court allowed it, directing the government to grant the pay scale of an Assistant Sub‑Inspector. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that a departmental recommendation does not create a legally enforceable right and that, without detailed data on qualifications, recruitment, skill, responsibility and other factors of comparable employees, the principle of equal pay cannot be invoked to compel the government to alter pay scales. The Court restored the Single Judge’s order, set aside the High Court judgment, and emphasized that pay‑scale decisions are within the domain of the executive and the Pay Commission unless there is proof of hostile discrimination.

Issues considered

The recommendation of the CRPF to the Fourth Pay Commission creates a enforceable right for the employee to seek a writ of mandamus.
Whether the principle of "equal pay for equal work" under Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution can be used to compel the Government to grant a higher pay scale to the respondent.
Whether the courts may interfere with the Government's pay‑scale determinations in the absence of detailed comparative material on comparable posts.
Whether a Naik (Radio Operator) is entitled to the pay scale of the promotional post of Assistant Sub‑Inspector.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16, s. Article 226, s. Article 39(d)

Subjects

equal pay for equal workpay commissionmandamusconstitutional lawservice lawgovernment pay scaleshierarchycomparative employment

Judgment

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. A
v.
PRADIP KUMAR DEY

NOVEMBER 9, 2000

[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] B

Service Law :

"Equal pay for equal work" Recommendation of Directorate of CRPF
to Pay Commission for grant of higher pay-scales to Radio Operators in C
CRPF as applicable to Radio Operators of other Governmental agencies to
remove disparity-Pay Commission rejected the recommendation-Whether
employee has a right to seek direction from Court for implementation of the
recommendation-Held, No, in the absence of material relating to other
comparable employees, mere recommendation does not confer right to seek D
writ of mandamus-Constitution of India-Articles 39(d) and 226.

Respondent filed Writ Petition in the High Court seeking a writ of
mandamus directing appellants to implement recommendations made to the
Fourth Pay Commission by the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) to remove
disparity in pay-scales of Naik (Radio Operator) and Radio operators E
discharging similar nature of duties in other Central Government agencies,
which was rejected by the Pay Commission. The respondent made this claim
·on the principle of "equal pay for equal work". Single Judge dismissed the
Writ Petition stating that relief cannot be granted in the absence of material
relating to other comparable employees. Division Bench of the High Court, F
however, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent stating that the respondent
was performing technic~I duties and was performing more hazardous job than
others and directed the appellants to remove the disparity applying the principle
of"equal pay for equal work".

In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the recommendations of G
the Fourth Pay Commission had been implemented in full by the CRPF and
that the respondent was not discriminated. The report of the Pay Commission
shows that all Naiks of all Central Police Establishments including CRPF
has been given the same pay scale. The claim of the respondent on the
principle of "equal pay for equal work" was not tenable having regard to H
465
466 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A various distinguishable factors. The appellants further contended that the
respondent, being in the rank of Naik, is claiming the benefits and pay-scale
available to the promotional post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, with

B
the direction given by the Division Bench of the High Court and that there
was no material from which definite conclusion could be reached regarding
essential qualification, method of recruitment and other relevant factors for
-
comparison between similarly placed employees of different organizations so
as to apply the principle of"equal pay for equal work".

The respondent contended that the appellants themselves had
recommended to the Fourth Pay Commission for grant of pay scale to remove
C disparity and they cannot now take conflicting positions - one before the Pay
Commission and the other before the Court.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. The Division Bench of the High Court was not right and
D justified in straightaway giving direction to grant pay-scale to the respondent
when there was no material placed before the Court for comparison in order
to apply the principle of "equal pay for equal work" between the Radio
Operators of CRPF and the Radio Operators working in civil side in other
Government agencies. In the absence of material relating to other comparable
employees as to the qualifications, method of recruitment, degree of skill,
E experience involved in performance of job, training required, responsibilities
undertaken and other facilities in addition to pay scales, the Single Judge
was right that in absence of such material it was not possible to grant relief
to the respondent. The Directorate of CRPF made recommendations to the
Pay Commission for giving higher pay scales on the basis of.which claim is
made by the respondent for grant of pay~scale. The factual statements contained
F in the recommendations of a particular department alone cannot be considered
per se proof of such things or they cannot by themselves vouch for the
correctness of the same. The said recommendation could not be taken as a
recommendation made by the Government. Even otherwise, mere
recommendation did not confer any right on the respondent to make such a
G claim for writ of mandamus. (470-C-FJ

1.2. It is an indisputable fact that the pay-scales claimed by the
respondent are those prescribed for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector which
is a promotional post for Naik. Acceding to the claim made by the respondent
would not merely result in change in the pay-scales but may also lead to
H alteration of the pattern of hierarchy requiring re-orientation and

•
U.0.1. v. PRADIP KUMAR DEY [SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J.] 467
restructuring of the other posts above and below the post of res~ndent Added A
to this, such consequences are likely to be felt in the various other Central
Police Establishments as well. All these which are likely to have a chain
reaction, may require further consideration afresh by expert body like the
Pay Commission or the Government itself at an appropriate time in an
appropriate manner. Courts should normally leave such matters for the B
wisdom of administration except the proven cases of hostile discrimination.
The Division Bench of the High Court was not right in granting the relief
without examining the implications and impact of giving such directions on
other cadres. However, it is open to the respondent to make further and detailed
representation. It is always open to the Government to consider the issue
either by making reference to the Pay Commission or consider itself once C
again as to the grant of pay-scales to the respondent. 1473-H; 474-A-DI

S.L. Ahmed & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1198212SCC458; State of
U.P. & Ors. v. J.P. Chaurasia & Ors., 1198911SCC121; State of Haryana &
Ors. v. Jasmer Singh & Ors., 11996111 SCC 77; Union of India & Anr. v. P. V.
Hariharan & Anr., (199713 SCC 568 and Randhir Singh v. Union of India & D
Ors., 1198211SCC618, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 153of1994.

From the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.92 of the Calcutta High Court
in C.A: No. 659 of 1989. E
P.P. Malhotra, A.K. Srivastava and P. Parmeswaran for the Appellants.

P.P. Rao, Rana Mukherjee, Ms. Sumita Mukherjee, K.P. Singh and Jaideep
Gupta for the Respondent.
F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SHIV ARAJ V. PATIL, J. This appeal is filed assailing the judgment and
~.

order dated 23. 12.1992, passed by the High Court of Calcutta in Civil Appeal
No. 659of1989. G

The respondent herein filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandawus
directing the appellants to proceed on the basis of the recommendations
presented to the Fourth Pay Commission by Central Reserve Police Force
(CRPF) in order to remove disparity in the pay scales of Naik (Radio Operator)
and an employee discharging similar nature of duties in Directorate of H
468 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Coordination Police Wireless and other Central Government agencies on the
ground that the duties performed by the respondent as Naik (Radio Operator)
were more hazardous than the duties performed by personnel with similar
qualifications and experience in State services and other organizations. The
respondent made his claim on the principle of "equal pay for equal work". The
B appellants contested the writ petition by filing a detailed counter contending
that the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission had been implemented
by the CRPF in all respects and that the respondent was not discriminated;
the Fourth Pay Commission had gone deep into various aspects of the pay
structure of various categories of the employees of the Central Government
and the claim of the respondent on the principle of "equal pay for equal work"
C was not tenable having regard to various distinguishable factors.

The learned single Judge by his order dated 28.9.1989 dismissed the writ
petition stating that the respondent was appointed as a constable and was
promoted as Naik and he could not equate himself with the pay scale of
Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police; the Pay Commission Report shows that all
D Naiks of all Central police establishments including CRPF have been given the
same pay scale. The respondent took up the matter in appeal before the
Division Bench of the High Court in C.A. No. 659 of 1989. The said appeal
was allowed directing the appellants to fix up the pay of the respondent at
Rs. 1320-2040 and to revise the same if the same pay scale has since been
-
E revised in order to remove the disparity. Hence this appeal.

The learned senior counsel for the appellants urged (I) Fourth Pay
Commission recommendation had been implemented in letter and spirit and
the respondent was not at all discriminated; (2) the job of radio operator in
CRPF could not be compared with the other civil radio operators of other
F departments; the Fourth Pay Commission, having gone deep into the various
aspects of the pay structure of various categories of the employees of the
Central Government, had made the recommendation; (3) even to apply the

G
principle· of "equal pay for equal work" details and particulars relating to
comparable employees were not made available so as to give direction as is
done in the impugned judgment; (4) apart from the difference in pay scales
the Radio Operators in CRPF have various other facilities, which are not
-
available-to the other Radio Operators in civil departments and other Central
Government agencies; and (5) the respondent being in the rank of Naik in fact
is claiming the benefits and pay scale available to the promotional post of
Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police; the direction given in the impugned
H judgment leads to grant of pay scale of the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police
U.0.1. v. PRADIP KUMAR DEY [SHJVARAJ V. PATIL, J.] 469

·to the respondent, who is in the rank of Naik only; there was no material from A
which definite conclusion regarding essential qualification, method of
recruitment and other relevant factors for comparison between the different
organizations to apply the principle of "equal pay for equal work".

The learned senior counsel for the respondent made submissions
supporting the impugned judgment. He urged that the appellants themselves B
having made recommendations for grant of pay scale, which supported the
claim of the respondent, could not go back; the appellants could not take
conflicting positions - one before the Pay Commission and the other before
the court. According to the learned counsel when all the facts are stated in
the recommendations submitted to the Pay Commission as to the nature of C
the duties and other relevant factors, nothing more was required to be done
in order to grant pay scale as demanded by the respondent; in this view no
fault can be found with the judgment under appeal.

We have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the parties. The learned single Judge noticed that ( l) the respondent D
was originally appointed as a Constable and had been promoted to the rank
of Naik; he was given the necessary training departmentally and had been
appointed as Naik (Radio Operator); his substantive post is that of Naik and
his promotional post is that of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police; the post
of Naik is junior to that of Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police; as such E
respondent could not claim the pay scale of Assistant Sub-Inspector of
Police, which is his promotional post. (2) There was no material before the
c01.1•• to come to a definite conclusion as to what are the essential qualifications
and method of recruitment for the post of Radio Operator in Central Water
Commission or Directorate of Police Wireless; the respondent being Naik
working as a Radio Operator, is getting a special pay of Rs. 80 per month; F
there was nothing on record to show that the Radio Operator of the Central
Water Commission and the Directorate of Police Wireless belong to the same
rank of Naik of the CRPF. (3) It is clear from the Pay Commission Report that
all Naiks of central police establishments including CRPF have been given the
same scale of pay; therefore for the Naik Radio Operator there cannot be G
different scale of pay. In this view the writ petition was dismissed.

The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the· appeal filed by the
respondent stating that admittedly the respondent was performing technical
duties and was performing more hazardous job; the Radio Operators in CRPF
were not only performing similar nature of duties as that of Radio Operators H
470 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A of Central Water Commission or the Directorate of Police Wireless but they
were also performing more hazardous duties. The appellants appreciating the
nature of work made recommendations before the Pay Commission for higher
pay scale but after the Pay Commission turned down the same, they have
come forward with a different stand; the appellants cannot take conflicting
stands - one before the Pay Commission and the other before the court. The
B Pay Commission recommendations were not binding on the Government.
They ought to have taken a decision on merits. On this basis the Division
Bench gave directions as already stated above.

In our considered view, the Division Bench of the High Court was not
C right and justified in straight away giving direction to grant pay scale to the
respondent when there was no material placed before the court for comparison
in order to apply the principle of "equal pay for equal work" between the
Radio Operators of CRPF and the Radio Operators working in civil side in
Central Water Commission and Directorate of Police Wireless. In the absence
of material relating to other comparable employees as to the qualifications,
D method of recruitment, degree of skill, experience involved in performance of
job, training required, responsibilities undertaken and other facilities in addition
to pay scales, the learned single Judge was right when he stated in.the order
that in absence of such material it was not possible to grant relief to the
respondent. No doubt, the Directorate of CRPF made recommendations to the
E Pay Commission for giving higher pay scales on the basis of which claim is
made by the respondent for grant of pay scale. The factual statements contained
in the recommendation of a particular department alone cannot be considered
per se proof of such things or they cannot by themselves vouch for the

F
correctness of the same. The said recommendation could not be taken as a
recommendation made by the Government. Even otherwise mere
recommendation did not confer any right on the respondent to make such a
claim for writ of mandamus.

The learned counsel for the respondent strongly relied on the judgment
-
of this Court in Randhir Singh v. Union of India and Ors. 1 and added that
this decision has been followed in various subsequent decisions of this
G Court. According to him when the appellants have supported the claim of the
respondent before the Pay Commission having regard to the nature of his
duties, the Division Bench of the High Court was right in granting relief to
him. There is no difficulty in accepting the principle stated in the said decision
and which, in fact, has been reiterated in subsequent decisions of this Court.
H (1982) 1 sec 618
1
U.0.1. v. PRADIP KUMAR DEY [SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, .I.] 471
But as stated in the said decision the principle of "equal pay for equal work" A
is not an abstract doctrine but one of substance. In para 8 of the said
judgment it is stated thus: -

"Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Article
39(d), we are of the view that the principle 'equal pay for equal work'
is deducible from those Articles and may be properly applied to B
cases of unequal scales ofpay based on no classification or irrational
classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do
identical work under the same employer. "

(emphasis supplied)
c
Few decisions were cited by the learned counsel for the appellants in
support of his submissions that the courts may not interfere in the matter of
fixation of pay scales when the Government fixes or grants pay scales on the
basis of various factors including the Pay Commission recommendations that
too in the absence of relevant details and particulars of comparable employees.
This Court in S.l. Ahmed and others v. Union of India and others 2 has held D
thus: -

"It is not for this Court, we think, to examine how far below should
be the revised pay scale of the Radio Operators Grade III (Naik). If the
Government has prescribed a particular pay scale in respect ofthem,
all that the court can do is to merely pronounce on the validity of E
the fu:ation. In the event that the court finds that the prescription is
contrary to law it will strike it down and direct the Government to
take a fresh decision in the matter. It is a very different case from one
where this Court has sought to prescribe pay scales in appeals directly
preferred from an award of the Labour Court dealing with such a F
matter. In the latter case, this Court in its appellate jurisdiction can
be regarded as enjoying all the jurisdiction which the labour Court
enjoys. That is not so in the present case." (emphasis supplied)

Para 18 of the judgment of this Court in State of U.P. and others v. J.P.
Chaurasia and others; reads: G
"18. The first question regarding entitlement to the pay scale
admissible to Section Officers should not detain us longer. The answer
to. the question depends upon several factors. It does not just depend
- ----
2( 1982) 2 sec 458
1(1989) 1 sec 121 H
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2900] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A upon either the nature of work or volume of work done by Bench
Secretaries. Primarily it requires among others, evaluation of duties
and responsibilities of the respective posts. More often functions of
two posts may appear to be the same or similar, but t.here may be
difference in degrees in the performance. The quantity of work may
be the same, but quality may be different that cannot be determined
B by relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parties. The
equation of posts of equation of pay must be left to the Executive
Government. It must be determined by expert bodies like Pay
Commission. They would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of
duties and responsibilities of posts. If there is any such determination
c by a Commission or Committee, the court should normally accept it.
The court should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it
is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration. "

(emphasis supplied)

Yet, again this Court, having referred to its earlier decisions including
D
of Randhir Singh and J.P. Chaurasia aforementioned, in para 5 of its judgment
in State of Ha1yana and others v. Jasmer Singh and others4 has stated thus:-

E
"5. The principle of"equal pay for equal work" is not always easy to
apply. There are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating
work done by different persons in different organizations, or even in
-
the same organization. The principle was originally enunciated as a
part of the Directive Principles of State Policy in Article 39(d) of the
Constitution. In the case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India, however,
this Court said that this was a constitutional goal capable of being
achieved through constitutional remedies and held that the principle
F had to be read into Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In that case
a Driver~constable in the Delhi Police Force under the Delhi
Administration claimed equal salary as oth~r Drivers and this prayer
was granted. The same principle was subsequently followed for the
purpose of granting relief in Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P. [1986]
G I SCC 637 and Jaipal v. State of Haryana, [ 1988] 3 SCC 354. In the
case of Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise
Stenographers (Recognised) v. Union of India, [ 1988] 3 SCC 91,
however, this Court explained the principle of "equal pay for equal
work" by holding that differentiation in pay scales among government
servants holding same posts and performing similar work on the basis
H -.(-19_9_6_)-ll_S_C_C_77.
U.0.1. v. PRADIP KUMAR DEY [SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, J.] · 473

of difference in the degree of responsibility, reliability and A
confidentiality would be a valid differentiation. In that case different
pay scales fixed for Stenographers (Grade I) working in the Central
Secretariat and those attached to the heads of subordinate offices on
the basis of a recommendation of the Pay Commission was held as not
violating Article 14 and as not being contrary to the principle of B
"equal pay for equal work"~ This Court also said that the judgment
of administrative authorities concerning the responsibilities which
attach to the post, and the degree of reliability expected of an
incumbent, would be a value judgment of the authorities concerned
which, if arrived at bona fide, reasonably and rationally, was not
open to interference by the court." (emphasis supplied) C
In Union of India and another v. P. V. flariharan and another this
Court observed, "It ic; the function of the Government which normally acts
on the recommendations of a Pay Commission. Change of pay scale of a
category has a cascading effect. Several other categories similarly situated,
as well as those situated above and below, put forward their claims on the D
. basis of such change. The Tribunal should realize that interfering with the
prescribed pay scales is a serious matter. The Pay Commission, which goes
into the problem at great depth and happens to have a full picture before
it, is the proper authority to decide upon this issue. Very often, the doctrine
of "equal pay for equal work" is also being misunderstood and misapplied, E
freely revising and enhancing the pay scales across the board."

In this background as to the position of law touching the controversy
raised in this appeal, we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned
judgment and order are unsustainable. The learned counsel for the appellants
placed before us a chart showing difference in pay scales, facilities, other F
allowances, leave period, providing accommodation, etc. for the purpose of
comparison between the pay scales and other facilities of the respondent and
similar other employees working in Directorate of Coordination Police Wireless
and other Central Government agencies. The learned counsel for the respondent
reiterated that the nature of duties and responsibilities of the respondent are G
not only similar when compared to other employees similarly placed, but on
the other hand they are more hazardous. It is an indisputable fact that the
pay-scales now claimed by the respondent are those prescribed for the post
of Assistant Sub-Inspector. As already noticed above, it is once again a
promotional post for a Naik. Acceding to the claim made by the respondent
\ t 997) 3 sec 568 H
474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A would not merely result in change in the pay-scales but may also lead to
alteration of the pattern of hierarchy requiring re-orientation and restructuring
of the other posts above and below the post of respondent. Added to this,
such consequences are likely to be felt in the various other Central Police
Establishments as well. All these which are likely to have a chain-reaction,
B may require further consideration afresh by expert body like the Pay
Commission or the Government itself at an appropriate time in an appropriate
manner. Courts should normally leave such matters for the wisdom of
administration except the proven cases of hostile discrimination. But in the
case on hand, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
the position of law stated above, the Division Bench of the High Court was
C not right in granting the relief itself, straightaway to the respondent; that too,
without examining the implications and impact of giving such directions on
other cadres. However, we make it clear that the rejection of the claim of the
respondent need not be taken as an issue closed once and for all. It is always
open to the Government to consider the issue either by making reference to
the Pay Commission or itself once again as to the grant of pay-scales to the
D respondent. It is open to the respondent to make further and detailed
representation.

In the result, for the reasons stated above, this appeal is entitled to
succeed. Accordingly, it is allowed. The judgment and order under appeal are "•
E set aside and the judgment of the learned Single Judge is restored.

No costs.

B.S. Appeal allowed.

~.