http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: GARHWAL JAL SANSTHAN KARMACHARI UNION & ANOTHER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       27/03/1997

BENCH: K.S. PARIPOORNAN, S.P. KURDUKAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T S.P. KURDUKAR, J.      This Civil  Appeal by  Special Leave  is filed  by  the appellants challenging the correctness of the judgment dated April 18,  1995  rendered  by  the  Division  Bench  of  the Allahabad High  Court. The first  respondent is the State of Uttar Pradesh.  The second respond respondent is Garhwal Jal Sansthan, Dehradun. 2.   By way  of a  writ petition  under Article  226 of  the Constitution  of  India  ,  The  appellants  challenged  the legality and  correctness of  the communication/order  dated 5th march,  1984 passed  by the  State Government. A further relief was  sought for  issuance of  a writ  of mandamus  or direction to  the respondents  not implement the order dated 5th March,  1984 and  instead to  implement  the  resolution dated 4th June, 1983 passed by  the second respondent. 3.   The claim  set out  by the  appellants  in  their  writ petition was  that they are entitled for the same pay scales which are given to the employees of Jal Nigam. In short, the appellants claim  is based on the principle of equal pay for equal work and it arises under the following circumstances. 4.   The State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 1975 enacted the U.P Water  Supply and  Sewerage  Act,  1975(for  short  ‘the Act’). Prior  to the  passing of  this Act,  it appears that there  were  two  departments  (1)  Local  self  Engineering Department which was entrusted including proper water supply and sewer  age service  and (2)  after installation  of such projects, they  used to  be handed over to the Nagar Palikas and Municipal  Boards for  maintenance by  their  respective employees. From  the record  it  further  appears  that  the services and  the pay  scales in  these two departments were not identical  and the former was directly under the control of government  whereas the  latter was  under the control of local bodies such as Maha palikas or Municipal Boards. 5.   The Government  of Uttar  Pradesh under the Act created two separate  and distinct  Corporations. U.P  Jal Nigam has been constituted  under section  3 of  the Act  being a body corporate having  jurisdiction all  over  the  territory  of uttar Pradesh.  Jal Sansthans  have been  established  under section 18  having jurisdiction  over the  local area or any

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

part thereof  , of  one or  more local  bodies as  the State Government may  specify in the notification. Jal Sansthan is again a  body corporate  and is  deemed to    be  the  local authority. Under section 31 of the Act with effect from June 18,  1975,   all   properties,   assets,   liabilities   and obligations  of   U.P.  Local  self  Government  Engineering Department stood vested under Jal Nigam and Consequently the employees of this department stood allocated and transferred to the Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam. From the scheme of the Act , it appears  that Jal  Nigam (corporation) is vested with the jurisdiction all  over the  State and is fully controlled by the State  Government. As  against this, Jal Sansthans which are established  under Section 18 of the Act exercised their jurisdiction in  respect of  the local  area or    any  part thereof, of  one or  more local  bodies as  specified by the state Government  by notification.  It is,  therefore, quite apparent that  Jal Nigam  has got  a wider jurisdiction than Jal Sansthan,  although some  of the  duties and obligations are similar.  The nature of work discharged by Jal Nigam and Jal Sansthan  is also   to  some extent  similar but  having regard to the scheme of the Act, it cannot be said that both of  the  discharged  the  same  duties  and  functions.  The distinction  between   them  is   again  noticed   from  the provisions contained  in Section   16 of the Act Wherein Jal Nigam is  empowered to call for such reports and information from  Jal   Sansthan  or  local  body  whenever  it  may  be considered necessary  and after  considering the reports and information may  issue such  directions to  Jal Sansthan  or local Body  as may be found necessary. Section 17 of the Act in fact  confers supervisory powers on Jal Nigam. The duties and the  work assigned  to Jal Nigam and jal sansthan, inter alia, provide  for formulation  of the  projects and schemes relating to  the water supply and sewerage. The functions of Jal Nigam  have been  specifically set  out in Section 14 of the Act   whereas  functions of  Jal    Sansthan  have  been enumerated in  Section 24.  After going  through the various provisions of  the Act,  it appears to us that Jal Nigam and Jal Sansthan area two distinct body corporates although some of the  functions are  overlapping and of similar nature. It is the claim of the appellants that the duties , obligations and the  work discharged  by the  employees  of  both  these Corporations being  identical, they  are entitled for parity in pay scales on the principle of equal work. The appellants sought to justify their claim on the basis of the resolution dated 4th  June,  1983  passed  by  Jal  Sansthan,  Dehradun approving the  pay parity  with the employees of Jal Nigam . The resolution  dated 4th  June, 1983  was sent to the State Government for   its approval, however, the State Government vide its  communication dated 5th March, 1984 did not accord permission to  implement the said resolution and as a result thereof, they  were required  to  file  the  aforesaid  writ petition in the High Court for the aforesaid reliefs. 6.   The high  Court after  considering  the  pleadings  and materials on record held that the employees of jal sansthhan cannot be  equated in  the matter  of pay  scales  with  the employees of  Jal Nigam. The High court , inter alia noticed the following  of differences  between the tow corporations; (1) Jal Sansthan was constituted under section 18 of the Act and it  is a  local authority  . The  Nature of  work of the employees is  the same  as that  of local  bodies,  (2)  Jal Sansthans are  under the  purview of  pay commission for the local bodies,  (3) there  is a  basic difference  in the Jal Nigam and  Jal Sansthan  and (4)  Jal Nigam  is  a  separate corporation and  the employees  are  under  the  purview  of separate commission.  Consistent with  these  findings,  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

High Court  declined to  grant any  relief to the appellants (writ petitioners). 7.   Mr. G.L  Sanghi, Learned  Senior Advocate  appearing in support of  this appeal  urged that  both these Corporations have been  created under  the Act  and the  nature  of  work discharged by  the employees  being  similar,  there  is  no justification to  deny the  parity in  the pay scales of the employees of  Jal Nigam  and Jal  Sansthan  .  He  draw  our attention to  Annexures II,III,IV and ‘A’ and contended that the Garhwal  Jal Sansthan  had been creating posts from time to time  by passing  resolutions and extended the benefit of leave encashment,  reimbursement of medical expenses etc. to its employees  in the same manner as were made applicable to the employees  of the  Jal Nigam.  In this  Context, counsel drew our  attention to  the resolution  dated 4th June, 1983 passed by the Jal Sansthan recommending and seeking sanction from the State Government, to bring parity in respect of the pay scales  of the employees of jal Sansthan with Jal Nigam. Counsel therefore,  urged that  the High  Court was  totally wrong in denying the reliefs to the appellants. 8.   As indicated  earlier, some of the duties and functions discharged bu;  the employees  of Jal Nigam and Jal Sansthan are similar  but the question is whether that by itself is a decisive factor  to hold  that the  employees of  the  first appellant union  are entitled  for the  parity of pay scales with the  employees of Jal Nigam. Can the principle of equal pay for  equal work  be applied to the two sets of employees in different  organisations who  area discharging the duties and functions  to some  extent similar  without reference to the qualitative commonality thereof? From the scheme of  the Act, the  duties and  functions assigned to the employees of Jal  Nigam   and  Jal   Sansthan,  are   in  many   respects qualitatively different.  Jal Nigam  is a  corporation fully controlled by  the state  and extending the jurisdiction all over the  territory of Uttar  Pradesh whereas the duties and functions of  Jal Sansthans are restricted to local area and under  the  control  of  local  bodies.  From  the  material produced before  us, we are constrained to say that there is qualitative  difference   in  the   duties   and   functions discharged by  the employees  of Jal  Nigam an  Jal Sansthan and, therefore  , the  claim of  equal pay for equal work on the plea  of discrimination  under Articles  14 and 16(1) of the Constitution is without any foundation. The principle of equal pay  for equal  work would  not  be  applicable  where qualitative difference  in functions and responsibilities is apparent. This  Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and another vs. Pramod  Bhartiya and  others, 1993(1)  SCC  539  had  an occasion to  consider the  application of  this principle  . After careful  consideration of  various decisions  on  this subject, this Court held as under:-      "It  would  be  evident  from  this      definition that  the stress is upon      the similarity of skill, effort and      responsibility when performed under      similar  conditions.   Further   as      pointed out  by Mukharji, J. (as he      then  was)  in  Federation  of  All      India Customs  and 1983(3)  SCC 91,      the  quality   of  work   may  vary      institution  to   institution.   We      cannot  ignore   or  overlook  this      reality, It  is  not  a  matter  of      assumption but  one of  proof.  The      respondents (original  petitioners)      have  failed  to  establish    that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

    their duties,  responsibilities and      functions are  similar to  those of      the  non-technical   lecturers   in      Technical Colleges.  They have also      failed    to     establish     that      distinction between their scales of      pay  and   that  of   non-technical      lecturers  working   in   Technical      Schools is  either  irrational  and      that it has no basis, or that it is      vitiated by  mala fides,  either in      law or  in  fact(see  the  approach      adopted in  Federation case  ).  It      must be  remembered that  since the      plea of  equal pay  for equal  work      has to  be examined  with reference      to Article  14, the  burden is upon      the petitioners  to establish their      right to  equal pay, or the plea of      discrimination, as the case may be.      This    burden,     the    original      petitioners  (respondents   herein)      have failed to discharge."      In state  of Haryana  and others  Vs. Jasmer  Singh and others,  1977(1)  Supreme  137,  this  Court  observed  that 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. This Court observed as follows:-      "It is,  therefore, clear  that the      quality  of   work   performed   by      different sets  of persons  holding      different  jobs  will  have  to  be      evaluated. There may be differences      in   educational    or    technical      qualifications  which  may  have  a      bearing on  the  skills  which  the      holders bring to their job although      the designation  of the  fob may be      the same.  There may  also be other      considerations which have relevance      to efficiency  in service which may      justify differences  in  pay-scales      on the  basis   of criteria such as      experience and seniority, or a need      to prevent stagnation in the cadre,      so that  good  performance  can  be      elicited  from   persons  who  have      reached  the   top  of   the   pay-      consideration  which   may  have  a      bearing on efficient performance in      a job.  This Court  has  repeatedly      observed that  evaluation  of  such      jobs for  the purpose  of pay-scale      must be  left to expert bodies and,      unless there  are any  mala  fides,      its evaluation should be accepted."      In view  of the  settled position of law, we are of the considered view  that the  appellants have  not  brought  on record any  material which  justify their claim based on the principle of equal work. 9.   Mr. Sanghi, Learned Counsel for the appellants drew our attention to  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  Babu  Lal, Convenor and  anr. Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee an anr.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5  

1994 suppl.  (2) SCC  633. The  dispute in  this case was in respect of  the pay scales of SWD Beldars and SWD Mates Vis- a-Vis the work of Sewermen/Sewermates and SWD Lorry Beldars- class IV  employees working  under the  New Delhi  Municipal Committee. On  the basis  of the pleadings and record of the said case, this Court found that the work of SWD Beldars and SWD  Mates   is  almost   similar  to   the  work   of   SWD Sewermen/Sewermates and SWD Lorry Beldars. This decision, in our opinion,  is based  upon the  facts of  that  case  and, therefore, it  is distinguishable.  Mr. Sanghi then drew our attention to  another decision  of this  Court in Kshatrapal Sharma and  others Vs.  Lt. Governor and others. 1993 Suppl, (3) SCC  206. This  decision again  proceeds on  the footing that there  is commonality  of work  among the  employees in each department of New Delhi Municipal Committee and if this be so, granting benefit of Shiv Shanker Committee to certain categories  although,   there  is  commonality  of  work  is discriminatory. This  decision is  again distinguishable  on facts. 10.  It was  contended on  behalf of the appellants that the second respondent  vide its  resolution dated 4th June, 1983 resolved to  pay the  same pay-scales  as are  paid  to  the employees of  Jal Nigam,  to its employees after considering financial implication  thereof. The  second  respondent  has only sought  the approval  of the  State Government  to  its resolution  dated  4th  June,  1983  passed  by  the  second respondent. This  submission need  not detain  us any longer because the  State Government  exercises a supervisory power and if  the State  Government finds  that  the  appellants’s claim based  on principle  of equal  pay for  equal work  is unsustainable,  it   cannot  be  said  that  the  government decision is either arbitrary or suffers from any vice. 11.  In view of our above conclusions, we are of the opinion that  the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  suffers  from  no infirmity. The  appeal to  stand dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of  the case,  we direct  the parties  to bear their own costs.