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

PETITIONER: SATISH KUMAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENTTRUST, JALANDHAR & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       29/01/1996

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. G.B. PATTANAIK (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (7) 277        1996 SCALE  (2)13

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Though the  learned  counsel  has  tried  his  best  to persuade us  to disagree  with the  impugned  order  of  the Court, we  think  that  the  High  Court  is  right  in  its conclusion that  the petitioner is not entitled to the equal pay as  Pumpset Operator. The learned counsel sought to rely upon section  18 of  the Punjab  Town Improvement Trust Act, 1923 (for  short the Act). Section 18 envisages power of the Trust to  fix  number  of  employees,  their  salaries  etc. Section 17  envisages constitution  of the trust and subject to the  constitution section 18 says that the Trust may from time to  time employ  such other  servants on such terms and conditions as it may deem, necessary and proper for carrying out  its  functions  under  the  Act.  Sub-section(2)  gives controlling  power   of  appointment,   promotion,  granting leave,  suspension  of  the  servants,  reducing  them  into their hierarchy  of position  removing  them  from  service, dismissing them  from service  for  misconduct  for  reasons other than  misconduct Chairman  also has  power  under  the Act.      It  is  stated  that  in  exercising  this  power,  the Chairman being  the controlling  authority had  releaxed the service conditions  of the  petitioner  and  also  appointed him as  Pumpset Operator  though he  was  not  possessed  of the minimum  qualification prescribed  under the  Act. It is not in  dispute that  for the  said post  Matriculation with I.T.I. are  qualifications which  the petitioner  admittedly has not  possessed of.  General  power  of  supervision  and control does  not include the power to appoint any person of his  choice  without  basic  qualification.  Therefore,  the exercise of  the power  by the  Chairman would  obviously be illegal. Under  those circumstances,  the doctrine  of equal pay for  equal work  envisaged in  Article  39  (a)  of  the Constitution has  no application. It would apply only when a person is  dicharging the same duties but not being paid the same  pay  for  the  same  work.  In  this  case  since  the

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

petitioner is  not possessed  of minimum basic qualification to the  post to  which he  was appointed, unequals cannot be made equals  for paying equal pay for equal work. Therefore, he is not entitled to equal pay.      The Petition is accordingly dismissed.