UNION TERRITORY ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH & ORS.versusMRS. MANJU MATHUR & ANR.

                     [2011] 1 S.C.R. 883


 UNION TERRITORY ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH &                      A
                     ORS.
                               v.
              MRS. MANJU MATHUR & ANR.
              (Civil Appeal No. 2823 of 2009)
                     JANUARY 14, 2011                              8

      [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

     Service Law - Payscale - Dietician and Senior Dietician
under the Director Health Services, Chandigarh                     C
Administration - Claim of, for pay scales at par with their
counterparts under the Government of Punjab - Held: Claim
not justified - The nature and quantum of duties and
responsibilities of the Dietician and Senior Dietician under the
Director Health Services, Chandigarh Administration were not       D
comparable or equivalent in any way with their counterparts
under the Government of Punjab - Doctrine of equal pay for
equal work could not be invoked since the two sets of
employees were not similarly situated - Doctrines - Doctrine
of equal pay for equal work - Inapplicability of.                  E

    The President of lndla in exercise of the powers
conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution
made the Conditions of Service of Union Territory of
Chandigarh Employees Rules, 1992 with retrospective
effect from 01.04.1991. The proviso to Rule 2 of these F
Rules empowered the Administrator to revise the scales
of pay of persons appointed to the services and posts
under the administrative control of the Administrator,
Chandigarh, so as to bring them at par with the scales
of pay which may be sanctioned by the Government of G
Punjab from time to time to the corresponding categories .
of employees.
    The Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh,
                              883                                  H
    884    SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 1 S.C.R.


A notified the revised scales for the posts carrying existing
  scales in all classes of service by notification dated
  03.01.1992 and soon thereafter, the Finance and Planning
  Officer, Chandigarh Administration, issued a Circular
  dated 08.01.1992 to all the Heads of Departments/Officers
B in Chandigarh Administration informing them that the
  revised pay scales of various posts of their respective
  departments mentioned in the notification have been
  revised on the basis of corresponding posts which also
  exist in the State of Punjab.
c     Respondent nos. 1 and 2, who Were then working as
  Senior Dietician and Dietician posted in the General
  Hospital, Chandigarh under the Union Territory
  Administration, Chandigarh, made a representation to the
  Finance Secretary of the Union Territory Administration,
D Chandigarh, that the pay scales of Senior Dietician and
  Dietician have been revised to Rs.1500 - Rs.2540 and
  Rs.1350 - Rs.2400 respectively which were not at par with
  the revised pay scales of Rs.2200-Rs.4000 and Rs.1500-
  Rs.2640 of the corresponding posts of Dietician and
E Assistant Dietician respectively under the Government of
  Punjab. Respondents, however, were informed that they
  have been allowed revised pay scales as per the
  conversion technique.                        \

F      Aggrieved, the respondents filed O.A. before the
  Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed
  the O.A. holding that the claim on the basis of equal pay
  for equal work is not all pervasive as distinctions have
  to be made on the basis of number of factors as per the
  law laid down by this Court and if these factors are taken
G into consideration, the claim of the respondents for parity
  in pay scales with their counterparts in the State of
  Punjab was not justified.

      The respondents then challenged the order of the
H Tribunal before the High Court in a petition under Articles
                                              -         -
         U.T. ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH & ORS. v.         885
                    MANJU MATHUR & ANR.

       226/227or   the Constitution. The High Court held in the A
       impugnefi judgment that the Dietician and Senior
       Dietician ,working in the Union Territory Administration,
       Chandigarh, were entitled to pay scales at par with their
       counterp'arts in the State of Punjab and accordingly
      .issued a fTlandamus to the appellants to grant pay scales B
       of Dietician (Gazetted) of the Directorate of Research and
       Medical Education, Punjab, to the Senior Dietician in the
       Union Tenitory Administration, Chandigarh, and to give
       pay scal$s of Dieti.cian (Non-Gazetted) of the Directorate
       of Rese~rch and Medical Education, P1.:njab, to the       c
       Dietician in the Union Territory Administration, ·
      Chandig~rh.

          Alloiing the appeal, the Court
              I         .       .
           HEL[D:1.1. When the matter was listed l;>efore this D
      Court, t~is Court granted leave and pending hearing and
      final disposal of the Civil Appeal directed the Union
              1

      Territory Administration, Chandigarh, to appoint a High
      Level Equivalence Committee to examine the nature of
      duties ahd responsibilities of Senior Dietician working E
      under th' Union Territory Adm,inistration, Chandigarh vis·
      a-vis Dietician (Gazetted) under .the State of Punjab and
---   also to examine the nature of duties and responsibilities
      of. Dieti1cian working unde_r the Union Territory
      Administration, Chandigarh, vis-a-vis the Dietician (Non- F
      Gazetted) working under the State of Punjab and to
      submit a report to the Court. Pursuant to these-directions,
      a High Level Equivalence Committee comprising the
      Director,: Health·· and Family Welfare, Finance_ and
      Planning Officer, Joint Secretary (Finance) and Joint G
      Secretary ,(Personnel) met and after examining the nature
      and quantµm of duties and responsibilities of the posts
      of Senior Dietician and Dietician in the Health Department
      of the Uni~n Territory, Chandigarh~ vis-a-vis posts of
      Senior Dieti~ian and Dietician (Non-Gazetted) in the State 'H
    886     SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2011) 1 S.C.R.


A of Punjab and submitted a report. [Paras 4, 5] [890-B-H;
  891-A]
         1.2. From the report of the High Level Equivalence
    Committee, it is clear that the Directorate of Research and
8   Medical Education, Punjab, is a teaching institution in
    which the Dietician has to perform multifarious duties
    such as teaching the probationary nurses in subjects of
    nutrition dietaries, control and management of the
    kitchen, etc., whereas, the main duties of the Dietician
C   and Senior Dietician in the Government multi specialty
    hospital in the Union Territory Chandigarh are only to
    check the quality of food being provided to the patients
    and to manage the kitchen. Also from the report of the
    High Level Equivalence Committee it is found that after
    considering all aspects of the matter, the High Level
D   Equivalence Committee was of the opinion that th.e
    nature and quantum of duties and responsibilities of the
    post of Senior Dietician in the Health Department of
    Union Territory Chandigarh are not comparable or
    equivalent in any way with the post of Dietician (Gazetted)
E   in the Directorate of Research and Medical Education,
    Punjab and similarly the nature and quantum of duties
    and responsibilities of the post of Dietician in the Health
    Department of Union Territory Chandigarh are not
    comparable or equivalent in any way with the post of
F   Dietician (Non-Gazetted) in the Directorate of Research
    and Medical Education; Punjab. Considering this report
    of the Equivalence Committee, the respondents are not
    entitled to the same pay scale as that of Dietician
    (Gazetted) and Dietician (Non-Gazetted) in the Directorate
G   of Research and Medical Education, Punjab, as held by
    the High Court in the impugned judgment. [Paras 6, 7)
    [892-C-H]
      2. In a recent case, the Supreme Court has held that
H the doctrine of equal pay for equal work can be invoked
        U.T. ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH & ORS. v.          887
                   MANJU MATHUR & ANR.
      only when the employees are similarly situated and that A
      similarity of the designation or nature or quantum of work
      is not determinative of equality in the matter of pay scales
      and that the Court has to consider several factors and
      only if there was wholesale identity between the holders
      of the two posts, equality clause can be invoked, not B
      otherwise. In another case, this Court has held that
      normally the applicability of principle of equal pay for
  ~   equal work must be left to be evaluated and determined
      by an expert body and these are not matters where a writ
      court can lightly interfere. This Court has further held in c
      this decision that it is only when the High Court is
      convinced on the basis of material placed before it that
      there was equal work and of equal quality and that all
      other relevant factors were fulfilled, it may direct payment
      of equal pay from the date of filing of the respective writ D
      P!,~ition. In the present case, the appellants had seriously
      disputed the equivalence between the posts held by the
      respondents and those held by the Dietician (Gazetted)
      and Dietician (Non-Gazetted) under the Government of
      Punjab and the High Court instead of referring this E
      dispute regarding parity of posts under the Union
      Territory Administration, Chandigarh, with the posts
      under the Government of Punjab to an expert body has
      erroneously equated the posts under the Union Territory
      Administration, Chandigarh, with the posts under the
      Government of Punjab on the basis of the pleadings of F
      the respondents· and issued the direction to grant pay
      scales to the respondents equal to pay scales of Dietician
      (Gazetted) and Dietician (Non-Gazetted) under the
      Directorate of Research and Medical Education,
·-<   Government of Punjab. The impugned judgment is G
      therefore set aside and the order of the Central
      Administrative Tribunal is sustained. [Para 7, 8) [892-G·H;
      893-A·H]

          State of Madhya Pradesh & Others v. Ramesh Chandra . H....
    888      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 1 S.C.R.


A   Bajpai [(2009) 13 SCC 635); State of Haryana & Others v.
    Charanjit Singh [(2006) 9 SCC 321] - referred to.
                           Case law Reference:
          (2009) 13 sec 635          referred to         Para 7
B
          (2006) 9 sec 321           referred to         Para 7

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    2823 of 2009.

c       From the Judgment & Order dated 16.5.2007 of the High
    Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 17144-
    CAT of 2001.
                                                               /


          Kamini Jaiswal for the Appellants.
D       Rajinder Mathur, Nidhi Bisaria, Madhu Sikri for the
                                                                      --'!'
    Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order
E
    dated 16.05.2007 of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in
    C.W.P. No. 17144-CAT of 2001 holding that the respondents,
    who were working as Senior Dietician and Dietician under the
    Director Health Services, Chandigarh Administration, are
    entitled to pay scales at par with their counterparts under the
F   Government of Punjab and directing the appellants to give the
    pay scales accordingly to the respondents.
       2. The President of India in exercise of the powers
  conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution made
G the  Conditions of Service of Union Territory of Chandigarh
                                                                      'r·
  Employees Rules, 1992 with retrospective from 01.04.1991..
  The proviso to Rule 2 of these Rules empowered the
  Administrator to revise the scales of pay of persons appointed
  to the services and posts under the administrative control of the
H
    U.T. ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH & ORS. v.                 889
      MANJU MATHUR & ANR. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

 Administrator, Chandigarh, so as to bring them at par with the . A
 scales of pay which may be sanctioned by the Government of
 Punjab from time to time to the corresponding categories of
 employees. The Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh,
 notified the revised scales for the posts carrying existing scales
 in all classes of service by notification dated 03.01.1992 and s
 soon thereafter, the Finance and Planning Officer, Chandigarh
 Administration, issued a Circular dated 08.01.1992 to all the
 Heads of Departments/Officers in Chandigarh Administration
 informing them that the revised pay scales of various posts of
 their respective departments mentioned in the notification have c
 been revised on the basis of corresponding posts which also
 exist in the State of Punjab. Respondent nos. 1 and 2, who were
 then working as Senior Dietician and. Dietician posted in the
 General Hospital, Chandigarh under the Union Territory
 Administration, Chandigarh, made a representation dated D
 18.12.1992 to the Finance Secretary of the Union Territory
 Administration, Chandigarh, that the pay scales of Senior
 Dietician and Dietician have been revised to Rs.1500 - Rs.2540
 and Rs.1350 - Rs.2400 respectively which were not at par with
 the revised pay scales of Rs.2200-Rs.4000 and Rs.1500-
 Rs.2640 of the corresponding posts of Dietician and Assistant E
-Dietician respectively under the Government of Punjab.
 Respondents, however, were informed that they have been
 allowed revised pay scales as per the conversion technique.
        3. Aggrieved, the respondents filed O.A. No. 1017-CH of. F
   1993 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh.
   By order dated 20.04.2001, however, the Central
   Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, dismissed the O.A. -
   of the respondents after holding that the claim on the basis of
   equal pay for equal work is not all pervasive as distinctions have G
   to be made on the basis of number of factors as per the /aw
. laid down by this Court and if these factors are taken into
   consJderation, the claim of the respondents for parity in pay
  sc~les with their counterparts in the State of Punjab was not
  justified. The respondents then challenged the order dated H,
    890     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [~011] 1 S.C.R.


A 20.04.2001 of the C~ntral Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh
  Bench, before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in a petition
  under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution bearing no. C.W.P.
  17144-CAT/2001 and the High Court held in the impugned
  judgment that the Dietician and Senior Dietician working in the
B Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh, were entitled to pay
  scales at par with their counterparts in the State of Punjab and
  accordingly issued a mandamus to the appellants to grant pay
  scales of Dietician (Gazetted) of the Directorate of Research
  and Medical Education, Punjab, to the Senior Dietician in the
c Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh, and to give pay
  scales of Dietician (Non-Gazetted) of the Directorate of
   Research and Medical Education, Punjab, to the Dietician in
  the Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh.
       4. When this Special Leave Petition against the impugned
D judgment and order of the High Court was listed before this
  Court on 24.04.2009, the Court granted leave and pending
  hearing and final disposal of the Civil Appeal directed the Union
  Territory Administration, Chandigarh, to appoin( a High Level
  Equivalence Committee to examine the nature. of duties and
E responsibilities of Senior Dietician working under the Union
  Territory Administration, Chandigarh vis-a-vis Dietician
  (Gazetted) under the State of Punjab and also to examine the
  nature of duties and responsibilities of Dietician working under
  the Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh, vis-a-vis the
F Dietician (Non-Gazetted) working under the State of Punjab and
  to submit a report to the Court.
                    I

      5. Pursuant to these directions in the order dated
  24.04.2009 of this Court, a High Level Equivalence Committee
  comprising the Director, Health and Family Welfare, Finance
G and Planning Officer, Joint Secretary (Finance) and Joint           r
  Secretary (Personnel) met on 17.07.2009 and after examining
  the nature and quantum of duties and responsibilities of the
  posts of Senior Dietician and Dietician in the Health
  Department of the Union Territory, Chandigarh, vis-a-vis posts
H of Senior Dietician and Dietician (Non-Gazetted) in the State
              U.T. ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH & ORS. v.               891
                MANJU MATHUR & ANR. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

           of Punjab and have submitted the following report: ·              A
                "The Dietician (Gazetted) and Dietician (Non-Gazetted) in
                Directorate of Research & Medical Education (D.R.M.E.)
                Punjab are working in the Rajindera Hospital (Patiala) and
                Sh. Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital .(Amritsar) having bed
                                                                              8
                strength of 1009 and 951 respectively, whereas the Senior
                Dietician and Dietician in the U.T. Chandigarh are working
                in Govt..Multi Specialty Hospital Sector - 16 which is a 500
                bedded hospital. The Directorate of Research & Medical
                Education Punjab is a teaching institution in which the
                Dietician has to perform the multifarious duties such as C
                teaching the probationary nurses in the subjects of nutrition
                Dietaries, control and management of kitchen etc.
                Whereas the main duties of Dietician and Senior Dietician
                in Govt. Multi Specialty Hospital Sector -t6, U.T.
                Chandigarh are only to check the quality of food being D
-...,t..        provided to the patients and management of the kitchen.
              · The Health Department of U.T. Chandigarh follows the rules
                and regulations applicable to corresponding categories of
                employees in the Directorate of Health and Family Welfare, .
                Punjab and not of the Directorate of Research and Medical E
                Education, Punjab. In the Directorate of Health and Family
                Welfare, Punjab there are no posts of Senior Dietician and
                Dietician. The workload of the posts in D.R.M.E. Punjab
                is definitely more as compared to the posts in the Health
                Department U.T. Chandigarh. Besides, the teaching work, F
                the incumbents in Punjab are required to look after the
                basic work of supervision of food etc. in respect of a larger
                number of persons as is reflective from the number of beds
                in the hospitals, as compared to U.T. Chandigarh.
               The High Level Equivalence Committee has considered G
               all aspects of the matter and is of the opinion that the nature
               and quantum of duties and responsibilities of the post of
               Senior Dietician iri the Health Department of U.T.
               Chandigarh are not comparable or equivalent in any way
                                                                             H
    892       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 1 S.C.R.


          with the post of Dietician (Gazetted) in the Directorate of
          Research & Medical Education, Punjab. Similarly the
          nature and quantum of duties and responsibilities of the
          post of Dietician in the Health Department of U.T.
          Chandigarh are not comparable or equivalent in any way
B         with the Post of Dietician (Non-Gazetted) in the Directorate
          of Research & Medical Education, Punjab."         ,,;,
       6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. We find
  from the report of the High Level Equivalence Committee
  extracted above that the Directorate of Research and Medical .
C Education, Punjab, is a teaching institution in which the
  Dietician has to perform multifarious duties such as· teaching
  the probationary nurses in subjects of nutrition dietaries, control
  and management of the kitchen, etc., whereas, the main duties
  of the Dietician and Senior Dietician in the Government multi
D specialty hospital in the Union Territory Chandigarh are only to
  check the quality of food being provided to the patients and to
  manage the kitchen. We also find from the report of the High
  Level Equivalence Committee that after considering all aspects
  of the matter, the Committee was of the opinion that the nature
E and quantum of duties and responsibilities of the post of Senior
  Dietician in the Health Department of Union Territory
  Chandigarh are not comparable or equivalent in any way with
  the post of Dietician (Gazetted) in the Directorate of Research
  and Medical Education, Punjab and similarly the nature and
F quantum of duties and responsibilities of the post of Dietician
  in the Health Department of Union Territory Chandigarh are not
  comparable or equivalent in any way with the post of Dietician
  (Non-Gazetted) in the Directorate of Research and Medical
  Education, Punjab.
G      7. Considering this report of the Equivalence Committee,
  the respondents are not entitled to the same pay scale as that
  of Dietician (Gazetted) and Dietician (Non-Gazetted) in the
  Directorate of Research and Medical Education, Punjab, as .
  held by the High Court in the impugned judgment and order.
H This Court has held in a recent case State of Madhya Pradesh
              U.T. ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH & ORS. v.                    893
                MANJU MATHUR & ANR. [A.K. PATNAIK, J .]

            & Others v. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai [(2009) 13 SCC 635]                  A
  .>
            that the doctrine of equal pay for equal wort« can be invoked
            only when the employees are similarly situated and that
            similarity of the designation or nature or quantum of work is not
          . determinative of equality in the matter of pay scales and that
            the Court has to consider several factors and only if there was        B
            wholesale identity between the holders of the two posts, equality
            clause can be invoked, not otherwise. This Court has also held
            in State of Haryana & Others v. Charanjit Singh ((2006) 9 SCC
            321] that normally the applicability of principle of equal pay for
            equal work must be left to be evaluated and determined by an           c
            expert body and these are not matters where a writ court can
            lightly interfere. This Court has further held in this decision that
            it is only when the High Court is convinced on the basis of
            material placed before it that there was equal work and of equal
            quality and that all other relevant factors were fulfilled, it may     D
            direct payment of equal .pay from the date_of filing of the
            respective writ petition. In the present case, the .appellants had
            seriously disputed the equivalence between the posts held by
            the respondents and those held by the Dietician (Gazetted) and
            Dietician (Non-Gazetted) under the Government of Punjab and            E
            the High Court instead of referring this dispute regarding parity
            of posts under the Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh,

...   _
            with the posts under the Government of Punjab to an expert body
            has e·rroneously equated the posts under the Union Territory
            Administration, Chandigarh, with the posts under the                   F
            Government of Punjab on the basis of the pleadings of the
            respondents and issued the direction to grant pay scales to the
            respondents equal to pay scales of Dietician (Gazetted) and
            Dietician (Non-Gazetted) under the Directorate of Research
            and Medical Education, Government of Punjab.
                                                                                   G
                8. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment and
            order of the High Court and sustain the order of the Central
          > Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, and allow this
            appeal with no order as to costs.

            8.8.8.                                           Appeal allowed.       H