Holding

The classification of supervisors on the basis of educational qualification is a valid, rational classification; therefore the State did not violate Articles 14, 16 or the principle of equal pay for equal work.

Summary

The appellants, diploma‑holder supervisors in the Andhra Pradesh Engineering Subordinate Service, challenged the State’s rule that granted graduate supervisors a higher pay scale than non‑graduate supervisors, invoking the principle of equal pay for equal work under Article 39(d) and alleging violation of Articles 14 and 16. The State argued that the two categories are distinct, justified by historical reasons and differing educational qualifications. The Supreme Court examined earlier judgments, especially Mohammad Shujat Ali’s case, and held that classification on the basis of educational qualification is a valid rational classification. Consequently, the different pay scales were not unconstitutional, and the principle of equal pay for equal work does not apply where the employees are not equals. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the classification of graduate and non‑graduate supervisors on the basis of educational qualification violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Whether the principle of equal pay for equal work under Article 39(d) requires identical pay scales for the two categories.
Whether the two categories constitute the same class of service for the purpose of equal pay.
Whether the State may prescribe different pay scales for different cadres with a rational nexus to efficiency.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. 14, s. 16, s. 226, s. 32, s. 39

Subjects

equal pay for equal workeducational qualificationArticles 14,16,39civil service classificationpay scale discriminationAndhra Pradesh Engineering Service Rules

Judgment

-l r
A V. MARKENDEYA & ORS.
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

APRIL 6, 1989
B \
[K.N. SINGH AND KULDIP SINGH, JJ.]

Civil Services: Andhra Pradesh Engineering Service Rules, 1967:
•
Graduate and non-graduate supervisors-Two different scales of pay-
Whether legal and permissible-Whether violative of principle of'equal
pay for equal work'.
c ~
Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 14, 16, 32, 39 and 226---
Classification of employees into two categories-Perform indentical or
similar duties and carry out same functions-Entitled to equal pay-
Higher qualification and experience based on length of service-Valid
consideration for prescribing different pay scales for different cadres-
D
Court cannot prescribe equa.l scales of pay for different class of
employees.

The appellants are members of the Andhra Pradesh Engineering
Subordinate Service as Supervisors. The cadre of supervisors includes
r
degree holders in Engineering and diploma or licence holders. The
E appellants are diploma holder supervisors. Their two-fold grievance
was: ( 1) discrimination in the matter of promotion in asmuch as the
quota of promotion is four to oite from amongst the graduate super-
-
visors and non-graduate supervisors, respectively; and (2) disparity in
the matter of grant of different pay scales to graduate supervisors and ~
non-graduate supervisors.
" For the redressal of their lirst grievance, the non-graduate
....
supervisors had earlier, in Mohd. Sujat Ali v. Union of India, (1975] 1
SCR 449, challenged the validity of the Andhra Pradesh Engineering
Service Rules,. 1967 which gave preferential treatment to graduate
supervisors for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer. They had
G contended that this amounted to denial of equal opportunity to non-
,...
graduate supervisors thus violating the equality clause enshrined under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This Court rejected the
challenge, holding that the graduate supervisors had always been
treated as a distinct and separate class from non-graduate supervisors
and that they were never fused into one class.
H

~n
•

V. MARKENDEYA v. STATE OF A.P. 423

The constant appeal relates to their second grievance ·and arises
A
ont of the writ petition tiled. by the non-graduate supervisors in the High
Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging discrimination in the matter of
grant of different pay scales to graduate and non-graduate supervisors.
Their contention was that they were entitled to the same scale of pay as
>. prescribed for the graduate supervisors on the principle of equal pay
for equal work, as they constituted the same service and performed the B
same duties and functions as those performed by graduate supervisors.
The State Government contested the case on the pleading that graduate
supervisors and diploma supervisors always remained separate and
they were never fused into one service. It was further contended that
even though the two class of employees discharged the same functions
and carried out similar duties, the State was justified in prescribing
different pay scales for historical reasons, and also on the basis of c
difference in the educational qualifications.

The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition. On appeal by
the State, the Division Bench set aside the judgment of the learned
Single Judge and dismissed the writ petition on the linding that the D
State practised no. discrimination and the appellants were not entitled to

.
-:
relief on the principle of equal pay for equal work.

Before this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants that
(1) the graduate and non-graduate supervisors constituted the .same
class as they belonged to the same service and both the class of officers E
were fused into one, as the two posts were inter-changeable; (2) even if
the two class of officers constituted two different categories, since they
had been carrying out of the same work and performing the same duties
carrying the same responsibility, without any distinction, the doctrine
of equal pay for equal work was fully applicable, and it was not neces-
sary that the two class of officers must belong to one integrated service; F
and (iii) even if the appellant's grievance regarding violation of Articles
14 and 16 of the Constitution was not sustainable, the appellants were
entitled to the same scale of pay as granted to the graduate supervisors
on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' enshrined under Article
39(d) of the Constitution.,
G
Dismissing the appeal, this Court,

HELD: (I) There is a basic difference between the two class of
supervisors as graduate supervisors hold degree in Engineering while
non-graduate supervisors are only Diploma and Licence holders, and
they have all along been treated
'.-
differently on the basis of difference
-~
in H
,,
i

. 424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11989] 2 S.C.R.
...... >

A educational qualifications. Classification of Supervisor into two classes
on the basis. of historical reasons is valid and it does not offend Articles
14 or 16 of the Constitution. l431B]

ii'" Mohammad Suja,t Ali v. Union of India; referred to.
•
B (2) Since classification on the basis of educational qualification is Ir
a valid consideration for discriminating in matters pertaining to promo-·
tion to higher post, there is no reason as to why the same principle is not
applicable for prescribing scales of pay. [432C I
•
(3) Classificatlon in service founded on the basis of educational
-·
and academic qualification is now well recognised. It is open to the
c administration to give preference to a class of employees on the basis of . ';---
educational qualifications, having regard to the nature of duties
attached to. the post, for the purpose of achieving efficiency in public
services. [43ZB]

D Union of India v. Dr. (Mrs.) S.B. Kohli, 11973] 3 SCC 592 and
State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa. [1974] 1 SCC 19,
referred to.

(4) The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not an abstract
one. It ls open to the State to prescribe different scales of pay for
r
B · different· cadres having regard to nature of duties, responsibilities
and educational qualifications. Different grades are laid down in
service with varying qualification for entry into a particular g•~·
•
Higher. qualification and experience based on length of service ate
valid considerations for prescribing different pay scales for different
cadres. [433G-H; 434A]
fl
State of Mysore v. P. Narasing Rao, [1968] 1S.C.R.407, referred
to. ..,.
(S) Where two class of employees perform identical or similar
duties and carry out the same functions with the same measure of
0 responsibility, having same acad~mic qualifications, they would be 'fi...
entitled to equal pay. If the State denies them equality In pay, .its action
would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, and the
Court will ·strike down the discrimination and grant relief to the
aggrieved employees. But before such relief is granted the court must
consider and analyse the rationale behind the State action in prescrib-
H ing different scales of pay. If on an analysis of the relevant rules,
V. MARKENDEYA v. STATE OF.A.P . 425

.orders, nature of duties, functions, measure of responsibility, and A
educational qualifications required for the relevant· posts, the court
finds that the. cfassificatlon made by the State in giving different treat- '
ment to the two Class of employees is founded on rational basis having
nexus with the .objects sought to be achieved, the classification must be.
upheld. Principles of equal pay for equal work is applicable among .
equals; it cannot~ applied to unequals. [435E-G I . . . B
• Federation of All India CU.stoms and Central Stenographers
(Recognised) v. Union of India, [1988) 3 SCC 91; State of U.P. v. J.P.
Chaurasia, [1989] 1 SCC 121 and Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India
Institute of Medical Sciences, Judg. Today (198?) 1 SC 512, referred to.

(6) This Court granted relief in a number of cllses after recording
c
findings that the aggrieved employees were discriminated _in violation
of the equality clause under Articles .14 and 16 oUhe Constitution,
. without there being any rationale for the classification, ·even though
'in some cases the two class of employees did not constitute the same
service. [434C] D

Randhir Singh v • .Union of India, [1982) 3 SCR 298; P. Savita v.
Union of India, 11985] Suppl. SCR 101; Dhirendra Chamouli v. State of
U.P., [1986] '1 SCC 637; Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief CPWD,
[1986] 1 SCC 639; Bhagwan Dass v. State of Haryana, [1987) 4 SCC
634 andlaipalv. State of Haryana, [1988] 3 sec 3S4, referred to. E

(7) Article 39(d) contained in.Part IV of the Constitution, ordains
the State to direct its policy Jo wards securing equal pay for 'equal work
for both men and women. Provisions contained in the Chaple~ on Direc-
tive Principles of State Policy carinot be enforced by courts ltlthough the
principles contained therein are fundamental In nature for the gover- F .
. nance of our country. [432H; 433A) . •
. . '-. . . . .,
(8) Fundamental rights and the Directive Principles ·constitute
"Conscience of the .Constitution'·'. The Constitution aims at bringing
about a synthesis between "Fundamental Rights' and 'Directive Princi·
pies of State Policy' by giving to the former a place of pride and to the G
latter a place of permanence; together they fonn core of the Constitu-
tion., They constitute its true .conscience and. without faithfully imple- j
menting the Directive Principles it is not possible to achieve the welfare
.state contemplated by the Cons~itntion. [43JD) .. · ,, i
? ,. ~. '.r ••»· .

. . Keshavanand Bharti v; Siate of Kera/a, [19fal,.4 SCC 225, refer- H
red to. • . · . ' · . . .
•':·<oJ;
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 11989] 2 S.C.R.

(9) The Court has no power to direct the Legislature to frame
A laws to give effect to the Directive Principles as contained in Part IV of
the Constitution or to injunct the Legislature from making any such
law. But while considering the question of enforcement of fundamental
rights of a citizen, it is open to the Court to be guided by the Directive
Principles to ensure that in doing justice the Principles contained
therein are maintained. l433A-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 764
of 1978.

From the Judgment and Order dated 5.7.1974 of the Andhra
-
Pradesh High Court in W.A. No. 71of1974.
c
H.S. Guru Raja Rao, S. Markendeya, Mrs. Chitra Markendeya,
G. Seshagiri and Kumari Usha Saraswat for the Appellants.

P.A. Choudhary and T. V.S.N. Chari for the Respondents.
D
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SINGH, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and or-
der of a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh setting ~
aside the order of a learned single Judge, dismissing the appellant' writ
E petition made under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The appellants are members of the Andhra Pradesh Engineering
Subordinate Service as supervisors in Category 1 of the Engineering
Branch. The Engineering Branch category 1 includes officers, namely,
Supervisors, Overseers, Head Draftsmen, Civil Draftsmen, Artists
F Draftsmen, Tracers, Blue-Print Operators and Building Mistries.
Supervisors are recruited by direct recruitment as well as by promotion
from amongst the Overseers. The cadre of supervisors include degree
holders in engineering and diploma or licence holders. Both perform
the same duties and functions in the engineering branch. Promotion to
the post of Assistant Engineer, the next higher post is made from
G amongst the post of supervisors, in accordance with the Andhra
Pradesh Engineering Service Rules 1967. Graduate Overseers are
given preforence in' the Tatio of promotion to the post of Assistant
Engineer inasnluch as the quota of promotion is four to one from
amongst the graduate supervisors' and non-graduate supervisors. In
addition to the disparity in the matter of promotion, graduate
H supervisors and non-graduate supervisors are granted different pay.
V. MARKENDEYA v. ST~TE OF A.P. [SINGH, J.) 427
9
,, If' On recruitment to the service of supervisors a graduate supervisor is A
granted higher starting salary than non-graduate supervisors. Subse-
quently, a lower, pay scale was prescribed for the non-graduate
supervisors. Aggrieved the non-graduate .sup.ervisors filed two writ
petitions in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh under Article 226 of the
Constitution challenging validity of discrimination in prescribing two
-J, different scales of pay. The appellants contended that diploma-holder B
supervisors were entitled to the same scale of pay as prescribed for the
• graduate supervisors on the principle of equal pay for equal work as
' they constituted the same service and perforined the same duties and
functions as those performed by graduate supervisors. The State
Government contested their case on the pleading that graduate
supervisors and diploma supervisors always remained separate and
they were never fused into one service. The two class of employees
c
4 discharged the same functions and carried out similar duties, but the
State was justified in prescribing .different pay scales for historical
reasons, and also on the basis of difference in the educational qualifi-
cations. Plea bf discrimination against non-graduate supervisors was
denied. A learned Single Judge ·of the High Court Justice 0. D
Chinnappa Reddy (as he then was) by his judgment and order dated
February 26, 1974 held that the State practised invidious discrimina-
tion without there being valid justification between the two categories
'<( of supervisors graduates and non-graduates. The learned judge
allowed both the writ petitions· and issued mandamus to the State
Government to accord the same scale of pay to the non-graduate E
supervisors as prescribed for the graduate supervisors ,under the
Government Order dated June 13, 1969. On appeals preferred by the
State of Andhra Pradesh a Division Bench of the High Court set aside
the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the writ peti-
tions on the finding thatthe State practised no discrimination and the
appellants were not entitled to relief on the principle of equal pay for F
equal work. Hence this appeal by special leave.

·~ This is the second round of litigation by the Diploma-holder.
' Supervisors. Earlier they had challenged the grant of higher quota of
promotion for graduate Supervisors on the ground that when graduate 1{;

arid non-graduate Supervisors, belong to the same cadre, and are eligi- G
ble for promotion, then giving preferential treatment to graduates
amount to denial of equal opportunity to the non-graduate Super-
visors. This Court in Mohd .. Sujat Ali v. Union of India, [19751.l SCR
449, rejected the challenge.holding that two categories of Supervisors
were never fused into one class and have throughout remained distinct
and apart .. The non-graduate supervisors have' again .challenged the H'
- !'

-~

+>-
.\'/'"""
•• ~;:~:
I,.
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 2 S.C.R.
../411
A disparity in the pay scale prescribed for the two class of supervisors. ~.::.~
Since controversy in the present appeals centres round the. pay of
the Supervisors it is necessary to refer to the histery of pay scales
prescribed for the Supervisors. Prior to 1958 the scale of pay
prescribed for Supervisors was Rs.100-5-1-250 but directly recruited
B graduate Supervisors were granted initial starting salary at Rs.150 on \·-
the date of their initial appointment while a diploma holder Supervisor
was paid starting salary of Rs.100 only, though the same pay scale was •
prescribed for both the 'degree holders and diploma holders. On his
appointment a graduate supervisor was designated as Junior Engineer
while a non-graduate continued to be designated as supervisor. In 1958
-...
c the scale of pay of Supervisors was revised to Rs.100-5-150-7.1/2-200-
10-300 but graduate Supervisors were continued to be granted higher
starting salary at Rs.180 on the date of their initial appointment.
Later, the starting salary of graduate Supervisors was raised to Rs.200
and their pay was fixed in the pay scale of Rs.200-10-300. In 1961 the
scale of pay of Supervisors was again revised according to which non-
D graduate supervisors were granted pay-scale of Rs.180-7.1/2-210-10-
280-15-400, while Junior Engineers (graduate Supervisors) were
granted the scale of Rs.250-15-400. Though different pay scales were
provided for non-graduate Supervisors and graduate Supervisors but
the maximum pay for both the categories was maintained at the same
level, irrespective of .the Supervisor being a graduate or a non-
E graduate. The State Government further revised the pay scale of both
the categories of Supervisors by the Government Order No. 173 dated
13th June 1969 according to which the 'scale of pay of non-graduate
Supervisors was revised to Rs.200-12-320-16-400 while the scale for
Junior Engineers (Graduate Supervisors) was revised to Rs.300-20-
600. The revised pay scales made substantial difference in the matter
F of pay between 'the 'graduate supervisors and non-graduate super-
visors, which gave rise to the disputes before the High Court.

Mr. H.S. Gururaja Rao, learned counsel for the appellants
urged that non-graduate supervisors and graduate supervisors consti-
tute the same class as they belong to the same service and both the
G class of officers are fused into one, as the two posts are inter-
changeable. The graduate supervisors are no doubt designated as
Junior Engineers but the work and duties of both are the same, and
both set of officers are treated at part for every other purpose. Since
the two categories of officers were fused into one, the State denied
equality by prescribing different scales of pay for the non-graduate
H supervisors. Learned counsel further urged that even if the graduate
V. MARKENDEYA v. STATE OF A.P. [SINGH, J.) 429

supervisors (Junior Engineers) and non-graduate supervisors consti-
tute two different categories, but since they have been carrying out the ·A
s'ame work and perf9rrning the same duties carrying the same responsi-
bility, without any distinction the doctrine of equal pay for equal work
is fully applicable and on that basis .the non-graduate supervisors are
also entitled to' the same pay scales as prescribed for the graduate
supervisors (Junior Engineers). Learned counsel emphasised that for B
application of the principle of equal pay for equal work it is not neces-
sary'that the.two class of officers must belong to one integrated service
instead if the nature of duties and functions of the two posts are identi-
cal or similar, the principle would apply. He referred to a number of
decisions, reference to which will1be made at the appropriate stage.
Shri ·P.A. Chaudhry, learned counsel appearing for the respondent
State seriously contested. the correctness of the submissions made on c
behalf of the appellants and urged that in view of the Constitution
Bench decision of this Court in Mohammad Shujat Ali's case (supra)
the appellants are not entitled to any relief.

Since the Division Bench of the High Court rejected the appel- . D
!ants' claim for equal pay in view of the findings of a Constitution
Bench of this Coutt'in Mohammad Shujat Ali's case it is necessary to
refer to that case in some detail. In Shujat Ali's case non-graduate
supervisors of Andhra Pradesh had challenged validity of the rule
which gave preferential treatment to graduate supervisors (Junior
Engineers) for promotion to the post of Assistant Engineer on the E
ground that.it.violated the equality clause enshrined under Articles 14 i:
and 16 of the Constitution. In that context, the question arose whether '~;

the preferential treatment given to graduate supervisors was justified ,,
on any reasonable classification or it was arbitrary and irrational. 1~

r Bhagwati, J. speaking for the Constitution Bench after considering ,!,

various decisions of this Court observed as under: F
,!(:
"But where graduates and non-graduates are both regar-
ded as fit, and; therefore, eligible for promotion, it is
.~
difficult to·see how, consistently with· the claim for equal ~
.,·opportunity, any differentiation can be made between ·
them by laying down a quota of promotion for each and G
giving. preferential treatment to ·graduates.· over .non-
graduate in the matter of fixation of such quota. The result :"~;

of fixation of quota of promotion for· each of ihe ·two
categories ,of Supervisors ·would be that when a vacancy
··" •, arises in the post of As.sistant Engineer, which, according
·. to the quota is reserved for graduate Supervisors, a non-· H ...

-,,
111:-;.:::o-: -:::::: ,, '<If·
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19891 2 S.C.R.

graduate supervisors cannot be promoted to that vacancy,
A
even' if he is senior to all other graduate Supervisors and
more suitable than .they. His opportunity for promotion
would be limited only to vacancies available for non-
graduate Supervisors. That would clearly amount to denial
of equal opportunity to him."
B
The above observation would show that the Constitution Bench
held that fixation of quota giving preference to graduate supervisors
amounted to denial of equal opportunity to the non-graduate super-
visors. But after making the aforesaid observations the Constitution
Bench considered the history of the graduate supervisors and non-
graduate supervisors under the Andhra Pradesh Rules and thereupon,
c it recorded findings that the graduate supervisors have always been
f·
treated as a distinct and separate class from non-graduate supervisors
both under the Hyderabad Rules as well as under the Andhra Pradesh
Rules and they were never treated as equals. The Bench observed as
under:
D
"The pay-scale of Junior Engineers was always different
from that of non-graduate supervisors and for the purpose
of promotion, the two categories of supervisors were
kept distinct and apart under the Andhra Rules even
after the appointed day. The common gradation list of
E supervisors finally approved by the Government of India
also consisted of two parts, one part relating to Junior
Engineerif- and the other part relating to non-graduate
supervisors. The two categories of supervisors were thus
never fused into one class and no question of unconstitu-
tional discrimination could arise by reasons of differential
F treatment being given to them."

In view of the aforesaid findings of the Constitution Bench which relate
to this very cadre of supervisors, it is difficult to accept the appellants'
contention that the graduate supervisors and non-graduate supervisors
were integrated into one class of service and that no differential treat-
G ment is permissible to the non-graduate supervisors. The Constitution
Bench on elaborate discussion held that the equality clause under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution was not violated in the matter of
promotion of graduate supervisors and non-graduate supervisors, as
the graduate supervisors and non-graduate supervisors constituted two
different classes. The necessary consequence of the Constitution
H Bench findings are that the classification of Supervisors into two clas-
..
V. MARKENDEYA v. STATE OF A.P. [SINGH, J.] 431

ses on the basis of historical reasons is valid and it does not offend
A
Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution. Once the classification is upheld it
is difficult to hold that non-graduate supervisors are entitled to the
same pay scale as prescribed for graduate supervisors as equality in
pay is permissible with equals and not with unequals. There is basic
J difference between the two class of supervisors as graduate supervisors
(' hold degree in Engineering while non-graduate supervisors are only B
-• Diploma and Licence holder and they have all along been treated
differently on the basis of different in educational qualifications.

In Staie of Mysore v. P. Narasingh Rao, [1968] 1 SCR 407 the
question arose whether two different pay scales could be prescribed
for the employees working in the same service on the basis of educa-
tional qualification. In the State of Mysore tracers included matricu- c
lp.tes and non-matriculates. The government prescribed higher pay
scale to· matriculate tracers although the non-matriculates and matricu-
lates tracers both were performing the same duties and functions. The
non-matriculate tracers challenged the validity of different pay scales
on the ground that it violated the guarantee of equality under Articles D
14 and 16 of the Constitution as there was no valid reason for makifig
distinction. The Higli Court accepted their contention and allowed
their petition holding that there was no valid reason for making dis-
tinction as both matriculate and non-matriculate tracers were doing
the same kind of work and the denial of different scale of pay was in
violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. On appeal by the E
State Government this Court set aside the order of the High Court on
the finding that higher educational qualification is a relevant consi-
deration for fixing different pay scales and the classification of two·
grades of tracers did not violate of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution.
The Constitution Bench observed as under: ·
F
"The provisions of Article 14 or Article 16 do not exclude
)~
.
....
\
the laying down of selective tests, nor do they preclude the
Government from laying down qualifications for the post in.
question. Such qualifications need not be only technical but
they can also be general q1Jalifications relating to the suita-
bility of the candidate for public service as such. It is there- G
fore not right to say thaHn the appointment to the post of
tracers the Government ought to have taken into account
only the technical proficiency of the candidates in the
particular craft. It is open to the Government to consider ,-,.
,.
. also the general educational aitainments of the candidates
and to give _preference to candidates who have a_; better H'·
432 SUPRBME COURT REPORTS (19891 2 S.C.R.
- ..j_ -
educational qualification besides technical proficiency of a
A tracer.·,, · ·

Classification in service founded on the basis of educational and
academic qualifications is now well recognised. It is open to· the
Administration to give preference to a class of employees on the basis
B of. educational qualifications having regard to the nature of duties
attached to the post for the purposes of achieving efficiency in public
services. It is permissible to give preference to degree holders as was
held by this Court in Union of India v. Dr. (Mrs.) S.B. Kohli, (1973] 3
SCC 592-and State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa, (1974]
1 SCC 19. Since classification on the basis of educational qualification
is a valid consideration for discriminating in matters pertaining to
c promotion to the higher post, there is no reason as to why the same
principle is not be applicable for prescribing scales of pay. Having
-regard to the findings recorded by the Constitution Bench in Moham·
mad Shujat Ali's case that graduate supervisors and non-graduate
supervisors constitute two distinct class, the non-graduate supervisors
D cannot validly claim parity with the graduate supervisors regarding pay
scales. The appellants· grievance that they have been denied equality
in violation of.Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution is not sustainable. ·

Learned counsel for the appellants urged that even if the appel·
!ants' grievance regarding violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the
E Constitution is not sutainable, the appellants are entitled to the same
scale of pay as granted to the graduate supervisors on the principle of
'equal pay for equal work' enshrined under Article 39(d) of the
Constitution. He placed reliance on the decision of this Court in
Randhir Singh v. Union of India & Ors., (1982] 3 SCR 298; P. Savita v.
Union of India, (1985] Supp. SCR 101; Dhirendra Chamoli & Anr. v.
F State of U.P.; (1986] 1SCC637; Surinder Singh & Anr. v. Engineer-in·
Chief, CPWD & Ors., (1986) 1 SCC 639; Bhagwan Dass v. State of
Haryana, (1987) 4 SCC 634 and Jaipal v. State of Haryana, [1988] 3
SCC 354. In view of these authorities the learned counsel_ contended,
there is no justification to disregard the_ doctrine of 'equal pay for
equal work' as graduate supervisors and the.non-graduate supervisors
G both have been doing the same work with the same responsibilities
without there being any difference in the duties and functions of the
two categories of officers. '

Article 39( d) contained in part IV of the Constitution, orJains
the State to direct its policy towards securing equal pay for equal work
· H for_ both men and women. Provisions contained in the Chapter on
V. MARKENDEYA v. STAIB OF A.P. [SINGH, J.] 433
..
Directive Principles of State Policy cannot be enforced by courts
although the principles contained therein are fundamental in nature A
for·the governance'of our couritry. The court has no power to direct
the Legislature to frame laws to give effect to the Directive Principles.
as contained in Part IV of the Constitution or to injunct the Legisla-
.. ; ture from making any such law. But while considering the question of
i enforcement of fundamental rights of a citizen it is open to the court to B
• be guided by the Directive Principles to ensure that in doing justice the
principles contained therein are maintained. The purpose of Article

- 39( d) is to fix certain social and economic goals for avoiding any dis-
crimination amongst the citizens doing similar work in matters relating
to pay. If the court finds that discrimination is practised amongst two
set of employees similarly situated in matters relating to pay, the court
must strike down discrimination, and direct the State to adhere to the c
doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' as enshrined under Article 39(d)
of the Constitution. Fundamental rights, and the Directive Principles
constitute "conscience cf the Constitution". The Constitution aims at
bringing about a synthesis between 'Fundament~l Rights' and 'Direc-
tive Principles of State Policy' by giving to the former a place of pride D
and to the latter a place of permanence, together they form core of the
Constitution. They constitute its true conscience and without faithfully
implementing the Directive Principles it is not possible to achieve the
welfare State contemplated by the Constitution see Keshavanand
Bharti v. State of Kera/a, [1973] 4 SCC225.

- ·In Randhir Singh's case (supra) and later in Dhirendra Chama/i's
case (supra), Surinder Singh's case (supra), Bhagwan Dass's case
(supra). Jaipal's case (supra) and P. Sativa's case (supra), this Court
E

implemented the principle of 'equal p::y for equal work'. The Court
granted relief on the principle of equal pay on the basis of same or
similar work performed by two class of employees under the same F
employer even though the two class of employees did not constitute
the same service. But in all the aforesaid cases relief was granted only
after it was found that discrimination was practised in giving different
scales of pay in violation of the equality clause enshrined under Article
14 and 16 of the Constitution. The principle of equal pay for equal
work was enforced on the premise that discrimination was practised G
between the two set of employees performing the same duties and
functions, without there being any rational classification. The princi-
ple of 'equal pay for equal work' is not abstract one, it is open to the
State .to prescribe different scale of pay for different cadres having
regard to nature, duties, responsibilities and educational quali-
fications. Different grades are laid down in service with varying H
434 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 2 S.C.R.
4·
A quaiification for entry into, particular grade. Higher qualification and
experience based on length of service are valid considerations for
prescribing different pay scales for different cadres. The application of
doctrine arises where employees are equal in every respect, in educa-
tional qualifications, duties, functions and measure of responsibilties
and yet they are denied equality in pay. If the classification for
B prescribing different scales of pay is founded on reasonable nexus the V
principle will not apply. But if the classification is founded on unreal
and unreasonable basis it would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the •
Constitution and the principle of equal pay for equal work, must have
its way. In the decisions reference to which have been made by the
learned counsel for the appellants, this Court granted relief, after
recording findings that the aggrieved employees were discriminated in
c violation of the equality clause under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution, without there being any rationale for the classification.

In a number of decisions of this Court the claim for equal pay for
equal work has been negatived on the ground that the different pay
0 scales prescribed for persons doing similar or same work is permissible
on the basis of classification founded on the measure of responsibili-
ties, educational qualifications, experience and other allied matters. In
Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers
(Recognised) v. Union of India, [1988] 3 SCC 91, Justice Sabyasachi
Mukharji said (SCC p. 100 para 7).
+
E
"There may be qualitative differences as regards reliability
and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the
responsibilities make a difference. One cannot deny that
often the difference is a matter of degree and that there is
an element of value judgment by those who are charged
F with the administration in fixing the scales of pay and other
conditions of service. So long as such value judgment is
made bona fide, reasonably on an intelligible criteria which
has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation, such
differentiation will not amount to discrimination. It is
important to emphasise that equal pay for equal work is a
0 concomitant of article 14 of the Constitution. But it follows
naturally that equal pay for unequal work will be a nega-
tion of that right."

The learned Judge further observed: (SCC pp. 104-105 para 11)

H "The same amount of physical work may entail different
:_:1- .--i

..
V. MARKENDEYA v. STATE OF A.P. [SINGH, J.] 435
1
quality less-it varies from nature and culture of employ-
A
ment. The problem about equal pay cannot always be
translated into a mathematical formula. If it has a rational
nexus with the object to be sought for, as reiterated before
a certain amount of value judgment of the administrative
I
authorities who are charged with fixing the pay scale has to
y be left with them and it cannot be interfered with by the B

• court unless it is demonstrated that either it is irrational or
based on no basis or arrived ma/a fide either in law or in
fact."
- In State of U. P. and Others v. J.P. Chaurasia & Ors., [1989] 1
SCC 121, this Court negatived the claim of Bench Secretaries for equal
pay for equal work on the basis of reasonable classification based on c
4
merit, experience and seniority though both set of employees were
performing the similar duties and having similar responsibilities. In
Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences & Ors.,
Judg. Today 1989 (1) SC 512, this Court refused to grant relief to the
petitioner for parity in pay on the application of the principle of 'equal D
pay for equal work' on the ground of reasonable classification on the
basis of educational qualifications.

-i In view of the above discussion we are of the opinion that where
-two class of employees perform identical or similar duties and carrying
out the same functions with the same measure of responsibility having E

- same academic qualifications, 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 of the Constitution, and the Court will strike down
the discrimination and grant relief to the aggrieved employees. But
~ i before such relief is granted the court must consider and analyse the
rationale behind the State action in prescribing two different scales of F
pay. If on an analysis 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 class of
employees is founded on rational basis having nexus with the objects
----1- sought to be achieved, the classification must be upheld. Principle of G
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 two
class of employees without there being any reasonable classification H
436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1989] 2 S.C.R.

A for the same. If the aggrieved employees fail to demonstrate discrimi-
nation, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be enforced
by court in abstract. The question what scale should be provided to a
particular class of service must be left to the Executive and only when
discrimination is practised amongst the equals, the court should
intervene to undo the wrong, and to ensure equality among .the simi-
B
larly placed employees. The Court however cannot prescribe equal
scales of pay for different class of employees.

In the instant case the graduate overseers have all along being
treated separate entity from the non-graduate supervisors and they
have been drawing different pay since long. The Constitution Bench
-
C has already recorded findings that two set of officers, namely,
graduate supervisors and non-graduate supervisors do not belong to
the same class of service and unequal treatment relating to promotion
is justified on the basis of educational qualification. Therefore the
classification made between the graduate supervisors and non-
graduate supervisors is reasonable and the State Government did not
D violate Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution in prescribing different
scales of pay for them. In result, the appeal fails and is accordingly
dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

R.S.S. Appeal dismissed.
E

-