Y.K. MEHTA AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.

                          Y.K. MEHTA AND ORS.
                                    v.
                          UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

                                AUGUST 26, 1988

B          [E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND MURARI MOHON
                          DUTT, JJ.]

          Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
    1966: Doordarshan-Staff Artists-Whether Government Servants-
    Whether entitled to parity in pay with their counterparts in Film Divi-
    sion of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.
c
          Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16, 37 & 39(d): Equal pay for
    equal work-Two posts under two different wings of the same
    Ministry-Identical and involving performance of same nature of
    duties-Unreasonable and unjust to discriminate in the matter of pay.

          The Government by an order dated March 9, 1979 revised the fee
  scales- of certain categories of Staff Artists in Doordarshan with
  retrospective effect from January I, 1973 on the analogy of the recom-
  mendations of the Third Pay Commission made in respect of regular
  Government servants but the categories of the petitioners were denied
E the benefit by giving them junior scales.

            In these writ petitions they assailed the said order as discrimina-
      tory and violative of Arts. 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. Their case is
      that the nature of work performed by them is similar to that performed
      by their counterparts in the Film Division and the qualifications
Ii' required for appointment to these categories of Staff Artists are also the
      same·as required in the cases of their counterparts in the Film Division.
      They, therefore, claimed that they should be declared Government
      servants and given the same pay scales as given to their respective
    · counterparts in the Film Division of the same Ministry of Information
      and Broadcasting with effect from the respective dates of their
O appointments.
        The petitioners' claim was contested by the respondents by con'
  tending that the Staff Artists of Doordarshan were not Government
  servants but were engaged on contract basis, that they were not of the
  same class as the employees of the Film Division and that they were
H therefore not entitled to the s~me scales of pay.

                                         604
                            Y.K. MEHTA v. U.0.1.                         605

       Allowing the writ petitions,
                                                                                A
         HELD: I. The Staff Artists of Doordarshan including the
  petitioners are Government servants. They possess all the criteria of a
  Gbvernment servant. They are holding civil posts under the Govern-
  ment. They are being appointed up to1the age of 55-60 years on a time
· scale like a regular Government servant. Their contract runs till the age     B
  of retirement as in regular government service. 608E, B, 606F]

       Union of India v. M.A. Chowdhary, AIR 1987 SC 1526, applied.

         2.i The petitioners perform the same duties as those perforlned
 by their counterparts in the Film Division, under the same Ministty of C
 Iiiforniatioil aitd Broadcasting. When two posts under two different
 wings of the saine Ministry ate not only identical, but also involve the
 performance of the saine llatiire of dudes, it would.be unreasonable and
 iliijiist to discriminate between them in the matter of pay. [6090 l

       2.2 One of the Directive Principles of State Policy as embodied in       D
 clause (d) of Art. 39 of the Constitution is equal pay for equal work for
 both men and women~ The Directive Principles contained in PartalV of
 the Constitution though not enforceable by any court, are intended ·to
 be implenieiited by the State of its own accord so as to pr<~mote the
 welfare of the people. Article 37 provides, inter alia, that it shall be the
 duty of the State to apply these principles in making law. [609E-FJ            E

        2.3 The principle of "equal pay for equal work", if not given
 effect to in the case of one set of Government servants holding same or
 similar posts, possessing same qualifications and doing the same kind of
 work as ariotlier set of Government.servants, it would be discriminatory
 and violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitutfon. l609G1                   F

      Such discrimination :has been made in respect of the petitioners.
They are, therefore, entitled to same scales of pay as their counterparts
in the Film Division. [609H-6IOA]

       [The petitioners to he given the new scales of pay with effect from      G
the'first day of the month of the year in which each writ petition was
tiled; except the petitioners in Writ Petition CMI No. 1756 of 1986 who
are to be given such scales of pay with effect from December l, 1983.
They would also be entitied to the. substituted scales of pay and conse-
quential benefits. The respondents to disburse to the petitioners the
arrear amounts being the difference in the pay-scales within four               B
months.] [610B-C, E-F)
    606         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A        CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil)
    Nos.1239of1979,974of1978& 1756of86.

          (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

         P. Rama Reddy, R.K. Jain and R.P. Gupta for the Petitioners in
B   W.P. No. 1239 of 1979 and W.P. No. -1756 of 1986.

         M.K. Ramamurthy, J. Ramamurthy and B. Parthasarathy for.
    the Petitioner in W.P. No. 974 of 1978.

         G. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, A.K. Ganguli,
    Miss A. Subhashini and K. Swamy for the'Respondents in W.P. No.
c   1239 of 1979.

          Miss A. Subhashini for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
          DUTT, J. In these writ petitions, three categories of Staff
    Artists of Doordarshan.under the Ministry of Information and Broad-
    casting, namely, Cameraman Grade-II, Sound Recordist and Lighting
    Assistant/Lightman, have claimed that they should be declared as
    Government servants and should be _given the same_ pay-scales as.given
E   to their respective counterparts in the Film Division under the same
    Ministry.

          The Staff Artists were originally appointed on renewable con-
    tracts for 3-4 years; duration, but that practice has since undergone a
    change and they are now appointed up to the age of 55-60 years on a
p   time-scale. They are, however, employed on contract basis till the age
    of 55-60 years, that is, the contract runs till the age of retirement as in.
    regular Government service.

        In 1973, the Third Central Pay Commission considered the pay-
  scales of the employees in the Film Division including those of the
o Staff Artists. The Commission, however, excluded the cases of Staff
  Artists from its consideration on the ground that they were not
  Government servants but contract employees. It may be stated at this
  stage that the emoluments that are paid to the Staff Artists are
  termed as 'fees' and the scales of pay are termed as 'Fee Scales', the
  reason being that they are contract employees and not Government
H servants.
                       Y.K. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [DUTT, J.]                 607

           By an order dated March 9, 1977, the Government revised tile A
    Fee Scales of the Staff Artists in Doordarshan on the analogy of the
    recommendations of the Third Central Pay Commission made in
    respect of regular Government servants. The revised Fee Scales came
    into force with effect from January 1, 1973. It appears that up to the
    post of Cameraman Grade-II in Doordarshan, the same scales of pay
    of equivalent posts in the Film Division as per the recommendation of B
    the Third Pay Commission were given, but from the stage of Camera-
    man Grade-II or Sound Recordist up to the post of Lighting Assistant/
    Lightman, the same pay-scales of equivalent posts in the Film Division
    were not given. The pay-scale of Cameraman under the Film Division
    is Rs.650-960, while the pay-scale of the equivalent post of Camera-
    man Grade-II in Doordarshan was fixed at Rs.550-900. Similarly, the
    pay-scale of Sound Recordist in Doordarshan was fixed at Rs.425-750 C
    instead of Rs.550-900 as fixed in the case of the Sound Recordist in the
    Film Division. The pay-scale of Lighting Assistant/Lightman was fixed
    at Rs.330-480, while the pay-scale of equivalent post in the Film Divi·
    sion, namely, Assistant Cameraman, was fixed at Rs.425-750.
                                                                               D
           It is the case of the petitioners that the nature of worlqferformed
    by them is similar to that performed by their counterparts in the Film
    Division. The qualifications required for appointment to these cate-
    gories of Staff Artists, are the same as required in the cases of their
    counterparts in the Film Division. In the circumstances, it is submitted
     by the petitioners that the said Government order dated March 9, 1977 E
    is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitu-
1    tion. Accordingly, in these writ petitions it has been prayed that the
    petitioners should be declared as Government se<Vants and paid the
    same scales of pay as paid to their counterparts in the Film Division
    with effect from the respective dates of their appointments.
                                                                               F
           The respondents have opposed the writ petitions by filing
    counter-affidavits. It has been averred in the counter-affidavits that
    the.Staff Artists of Doordarshan are not Government servants, but
    they are engaged-on contract basis. It is submitted that as they.are not .
    of the same class as of the employees in the Film Division, they are not
    entitled to the same scales of pay. With regard to the Sound G
    Recordists, petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No. 974 of 1978, it is the
    case of the respondents that there is no such post in the Film Division
    as "Sound Recordist". It is averred that in the Film Division, there are
    three posts, namely, the Chief Sound Recordist, the Recordist and the
    Assistant Recordist. It is, accordingly, contended that in Doordar-
    shan, the organisational structure is entirely different and consists of H
     608         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.

A    only one category of post, that is, the Sound Recordist.

           The first question as to whether the Staff Artists of Doordar-
     shan are Government servants or not, need not detain us long. It was
     already been noticed that although initially their appointments were
     made on contract basis, subsequently the Staff Artists were being
B    appointed up to the age of 55-60 years on a time scale like a regular
     Government servant. Indeed, they possess all the criteria of a Govern-
     ment servant. The question once came up before us in Union of India
     v. M.A. Chowdhary, AIR 1987 SC 1526, which was disposed of by the
     following order:-·

                "Shri A.K. Ganguli, learned counsel for the Union of India
0
                submits that Art. 311 of the Constitution is applicable to
                the Staff Artists of the All India Radio. We are of the view
                that the statement made on behalf of the Government rep-
                resents the true legarposition because the Staff Artists are
                holding civil posts under the Government. In view of the
                above statement, this appeal filed against the judgment of
                the High Court of Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 258 of
                1974 which has also taken the view that Art. 311 is applic-
                able to those Staff Artists has to be dismissed. This appeal
                is accordingly dismissed. No costs."

IE         It will appear from the order extracted above that we took the
     view that the Staff Artists of All India Radio were holding civil posts
     under the Government. There is no distinction between the Staff             '•
     Artistes of All India Radio and those in the Doordarshan. Accord-
     ingly, we hold that having regard to the service conditions of the Staff
     Artists of Doordarshan and in view of the said decision, the Staff
I'   Artists of Doordarshan including the petitioners are Government
     servants.

           The contention of the respondents that the category of Staff
     Artists designated as 'Sound Recordist' has no counterpart in the
     Film Division is without any substance. It may be that in the Film
G    Division, the designation is 'Recordist' and not 'Sound Recordist' but,
     in our opinion, it is quite immaterial. It is not the case of the respon·
     dents that the nature of duty of the Recordist in the Film Division is\
     something else than that of the Sound Recordist in Doordarshan.
     Indeed, it is the case of the petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No. 974 of
     1978, who are all Sound Recordists ef Doordarshan, that they peform
H    the same duties as performed by their counterparts in the Film Divi-
                          Y.K. MEHTA v. U.0.1. [DUTT, J.]                   609

     sion, that is, the 'Recordists' or 'Sound Recordists' as the case may be.
     At this stage, it is significant to notice that the last sentence of          A
     paragraph 6 of the Reply Affidavit of the respondents to the Rejoinder
     of the petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No. 974 of 1978, affirmed by
     Shri Sailendra Shankar, the Director General of Doordarshan, reads
     as follows:
                                                                                   B
                 "I reiterate that the petitioners cannot be compared with
                 the Sound Recordist of the Film Division, who are regular
                 civil servants."

           The above statement is an admission of the fact that there is the
     post of 'Sound Recordist' in the Fjlm Division. It m~y be that really
     the designation in the Film Division is 'Recordist', but the use of the       c
     designation as 'Sound Recordist' in the statement extracted above
     suggests that the 'Recordists' in the Film Division and the 'Sound
•'   Recordists' in Doordarshan are counterparts of each other. The con-
     tention of the respondents is, accordingly, rejected.
                                                                                   0
           We have gone through the averments in the writ petitions and
     those made ·in the counter-affidavits filed by the Director General of
     Doordarshan and we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioners
     perform the same duties as those performed by their counterparts in
     the Film Division. When two posts under two different wings of the
     same Ministry are not only identical, but also involve the performance        E
     of the same nature of duties, "ii will be unreasonable and unjust to
     discriminate between the two in the matter of pay. One of the directive
     principles of State Policy, .as embodied in clause (d) of Ariicle 39 of ihe
     Constitution, is equal pay for equal work for both men and women.
     The provision of Article 39(d) has been relied upon by the petitioners.
     The Directive. Principles contained in Part-IV of the Constitution,           f
     though not enforceable by arty court, are intended to be implemented
     by the State of its own accord so as to promote the weifare of the
     people. Indeed, Article 37 provides, inter alia, that it shall be the duty
     of the State to apply these principles in making laws. Even leaving out
     of our consideration Article 39{d), the principle of "equal pay for
     equal work", if not given effect to in the case of one set of Government      G
     servants holding same or similar posts, possessing same qualifications
     and doing the same kind of work, as. another set of Government
     servants, it would be discriminatory and'. violative of Articles f4and'16
     of the Constitution, Such discrimination has been made ili tespect of
     the µc:utioners, who are t_he Staff Artists of Doordarshan-, by nof
     giving them the same scales of_pay as· provided· to their counterparts in     Hi
    610         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               I 1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
                                                                               )

A   the Film Division under the same Ministry of Information and Broad-
    casting. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to the same scales of
    pay as their counterparts in the Film Division.

          But the question is as to from which date they will be entitled to
   the scales of pay as prescribed for their counterparts in the Film Div-
B s1on. The petitioners have claimed that such scales of pay should be
   admitted to them with effect from their respective dates of appoint-
   ments. After having given a careful thought to this aspect, we are of
   the view that ends of justice will be met sufficiently, if such scales of
   pay are given to the petitioners with effect from· the first day of the     •
 : month of the year in which each writ petition was filed in this Court
C except that in the case of Writ Petition (C) No. 1756 of 1986 such scales
   of pay shall be given to the petitioners with effect from December. I,
    1983.

         In the circumstances, all these writ petitions are allowed. The
   Sound Recordists, who are the petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No. 974
D of 1978, shall be given the pay-scale of the Recordist/Sound Recordist
   in the Film Division i.e., Rs.550-900 with effect from January 1, 1978.
   The Cameramen Grade-II, who are the petitioners in Writ Petition (C)
   No. 1239 of 1979, shall be given the pay-scale of the Cameraman of the
   Film Division i.e., Rs.650-960 with effect from August 1, JQ79. The
   Lighting Assistants/Lightmen, who are the petitioners in Writ Petition
fl (C) No. 1756 of 1986, shall be given the scale of Pay of Assistant
   Cameraman in the Film Division i.e., Rs.425-700 with effect from
   December 1, 1983. The petitione.rs in all these writ petitions will also
   be entitled to the substituted scales of pay and consequential benefits.
   The respondents are directed to disburse to the petitioners the arrear
   amounts being the difference in the pay-scales within four months
F from today.

          There will, however, be no order as to costs.

    P.S.S.                                                Petitions allowed.