http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: PURNA CHANDRA NANDA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       01/05/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (5)   459        1996 SCALE  (4)478

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  by special  leave arises form the order of the Orissa  administrative Tribunal  made on  September  13, 1991 in  T.A. No.  302/86. The admitted position is that the appellant was appointed as a Veterinary Extension Officer on 10.10.1958. Thereafter  in 1965, he was posted as Supervisor in Milk  Service Scheme  at Rourkela as In-charge of animals stationed at  Khapuria. In 1969 also, he was posted as Dairy Overseer. The appellant claimed to have been promoted to the rank of  Dairy Supervisor  on 26.11.1969  and was  posted as Farm Manager in District Livestock breeding Farm. He claimed that he is entitled to equal pay for equal work form 1969 to 1974 and  from   1974 to  1977 as  Form Manager.  It  is  an admitted position  that in  1977, he  obtained B.V.S. degree and on his securing the degree he was given the pay-scale of Rs.525-975/- applicable  to Class  ii  Gazetted  scale  from 1.7.77. Farm  Manager is  Class ii  post. The  Tribunal  has pointed out  in the order that though the Farm Manager is an inter- changeable   post,  it is not an intermediary between Gazette cadre  and the immediate post held by the appellant. It has  pointed out  that in  the Diary  Department of Dairy wing.  the   service  consists   of  Dairy  Overseer,  Dairy Supervisor and  Dairy Inspector  last of which is equivalent to Gazetted  post. The  Farm Manager  post is  held by  both Class II  and Class I officers depending upon the exigencies of the post.      Shri  Misra,   learned  counsel   for  the   appellant, contended that  the  High  Court  in  writ  petition  O.J.C. No.1189/73 and  other matters had held that the Farm Manager post is  an intermediary  post for promotion to the Gazetted cadre. Al  persons who hold that post are entitled  to equal pay. That  order came to be final by dismissal of the SLP by this Court. Consequently, the appellant having held the post of a  Farm Manager is entitled to equal pay. In the counter- affidavit field  in the  Tribunal as  well as in this Court, the Government  has pointed that the holders of the post are

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

having different  scale of pay. Mere exigency of holding the post as  a Farm  Manager do not per se entitle the incumbent to the  same scale  of pay  which was  not admissible to the person who  held the post as Dairy Supervisor. It is pointer out that  the scale  of pay varies according to the gazetted or non-Gazetted  cadre. In  paragraph   7  of  the  counter- affidavit filed  in this  Court, They  have  reiterated  the distinction between the various posts held by the persons in the farm  branch and  Dairy branch. Merely because the posts are  inter-changeable   as  Farm   Manager,  they   do   not automatically become  entitled to  be the holder of the post and for  the same  scale of  pay. The  meet of the matter is that scales  of pay  are different  and direction  to  grant equal pay  is to allow the meet of the matter is that scales of pay  are different and direction to grant equal pay is to allow the  appellant to  jump the queue and land in a higher ladder. The  Tribunal, Therefore,  was right  in refusing to grant the  same scale  of pay to the appellant on the day on which he  was not entitled as per his seniority. Though Shri Misra contended  that the appellant was promoted to the post of a Farm Manager, we do not find any acceptable material on record to  conclude that  he was  holding Class  II Gazetted post own  right. Under these circumstances, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be used as a shield to reach higher cadder  of service    in  accordance  with  rules  of promotion and  seniority. The  Tribunal is well justified in distinguishing the judgment of the High Court not giving the same benefit.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.