http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13  

PETITIONER: STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAM CHANDER & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/05/1997

BENCH: S. B. MAJMUDAR, M. JAGANNADHA RAO

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T S.B. Majmudar, J.      State of  Haryana and Director of industrial Training & Vocational Education having obtained special leave to appeal from this  Court under  Article 136  of the  Constitution of India have  moved this appeal against the judgment and order rendered by  the Punjab  & Haryana  High  Court  in  Letters Patent Appeal  No.1267 of  1992 which  was dismissed  by the Division Bench of the High Court and whereby the judgment of the learned  Single Judge  of the  High  Court  against  the appellants was confirmed.      In order  to high light the grievance of the appellants it is  necessary to  note a  few backdrop facts.  Respondent nos.1 and   2  who only  remain in  the arena  of contest as respondent nos.3  and 4  were ordered  to be  deleted by  an earlier order of this Court dated 08th Apr 1997, are working as Language  Teachers  in    Haryana  Government  Vocational Education  Institute.   They  teach  Hindi  and  English  to standard 11  and 12  students who  study in such institutes. The respondents were appointed in pay scale of Rs.600-1100/- which was    subsequently  revised  to  Rs.1400-2600/-  with effect from 1.1. 1986 as per Haryana  Civil Services (Revise Pay) Rules, 1987. The respondent ’ grievance is that as they were Language  Teachers teaching students of standard 11 and 12 forming  part  of  higher  secondary  educational  system should have  been paid  the same  pay scale  that  was  made available to  their counterparts  who were teaching standard 11 and 12 students in higher secondary schools in the State. That they  were equally  circumscribed  as  their  aforesaid counterparts and consequently on the principle of ’Equal Pay for Equal Work’ they were entitled to higher pay scale which was made  available to  higher secondary  school teachers in these schools. Said  higher pay scale was initially Rs.1640- 2940/- which was further revised by the appellant-State with effect from  01st May  1990 to  Rs.2000-3500/-. It  is  this revised pay  scale  which,  according  to  the  respondents, should have  been made available to them and as that was not granted they  filed Civil  Writ Petition No.16543 of 1990 in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana.      A learned  Single Judge of the High Court after hearing

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13  

the appellants  herein as well as the contesting respondents Came to  the conclusion  that there was no justification for the  appellant-State   to  deny  equal  pay  scales  to  the respondents as  were made  available to  Lecturers in higher secondary schools  as the  nature of work carried out by the respondents was  identical with  the work of the teachers in higher secondary  schools. The  learned Judge  negatived the contention of  the  appellants  that  respondents  were  not comparable with  the higher secondary school teachers as the respondents’ educational  qualifications differed from those which were  required to  be possessed  by  higher  secondary school teachers-cum-lecturers.  In the  view of  the learned Single Judge educational qualification wise respondents were better  situated.   The  learned  Single  Judge  accordingly allowed the  writ petition  and directed  the appellants  to make available  to  the  respondents  higher  pay  scale  of Rs.2000-3500/- as  was granted  to higher  secondary  school teachers. However  the arrears  payable to  the  respondents were made  payable from  the date  of   the judgment  of the learned Single Judge which rendered on 15th July 1992.      The appellants  being aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Single Judge carried matter in appeal before the Division Bench  of the  High Court.  The respondents were on the other hand satisfied with  the direction of the grant of back wages  as awarded  by the  learned  Single  Judge.  The Division Bench  dismissed the  said Letters Patent Appeal by its  judgment   and  order  dated  04th  October  1993  duly endorsing the  view of the learned Single Judge. That is how the appellants  have landed  in this  Court.  After  earlier issuing notice  in the Special Leave Petition a Bench of two learned Judges of this Court by an order dated 20th February 1995 granted  special leave to appeal and also directed that pending appeal,  there shall be an interim stay. Accordingly the order under appeal has remained stayed till date.      Learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently submitted that  the educational  qualifications of  Language Teachers in  vocational training  institutes  are  different from the educational qualifications for being appointed as a Lecturer or Teacher in higher a secondary schools. He placed in juxtaposition  the  educational  qualifications  of  both these classes of employees as under: Lecturers in the           Language teacher in the school cadre               vocational Education Institutes Master’s Degree in      i) Language Teachers (Hindi) 2nd Division with          B.A. B.Ed with Hindi as 50% marks in the           one of Teaching subjects relevant subject.          in B Ed with a Master’s                            Degree.                       (ii) Language Teachers (English)                            B.A. B.Ed. with English as                            one of the Teaching subjects                            in B Ed with a Master’s                            degree.      He, therefore,  submitted that  a Language Teacher like respondents  having  ordinary  Pass  Class  Master’s  Degree cannot claim  parity of  pay scale with a Lecturer in school cadre who  is required  to have  Master’s Degree  in  second division with  50% marks  in the  relevant subject.  He next submitted that  the  cadres  of  both  these  categories  of employees are  different Institutions in which they work are also different Though they teach standard 11 and 12 students the respondents  cannot be said to be teaching the same type of students  as are  taught in  standard 11 and 12 in higher secondary schools  which are  non-technical schools. He also submitted that the seniority of respondent-Language Teachers

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13  

in the  vocational institutes  is kept  in common  with  the seniority of Technical Instructor. He further submitted that granting of  pay scales  is within  the domain  of a  policy decision which  the appellants  have to take in the light of Expert Committee  report and  such  an  exercise  cannot  be undertaken by courts on the abstract principle of ’Equal Pay for Equal Work’. In support of his contention he invited our attention to some of the judgments of this court to which we will make a reference at an appropriate stage in latter part of this judgment. In short he submitted that the respondents were not at all comparable from the point of view of quality of work and educational qualifications with the Lecturers in school cadre  and consequently  the High  Court had patently erred in law in directing the appellants to pay the same pay scales to the respondents as were available to the Lecturers in school cadre.      On the  other  hand  learned  senior  counsel  for  the respondents vehemently  submitted that  the respondents were doing the  same type of work as their counterparts in school cadre. That both these categories of employees were teaching standard 11  and 12  Students who  were belonging  to higher secondary system of education, that is, 10+2 system. That in vocational education  institutes more  emphasis was given to technical type  of education.  But  so  far  as  respondent- Language Teachers  were concerned they had to teach standard 11 and  12 students,  that is  to say,  students  in  higher secondary classes  English and  Hindi  for  which  the  same syllabus  which  was  prescribed  for  standard  11  and  12 students in  higher secondary schools was to be taught. That the nature  of examination  in these  subjects was also same for both these sets of students. Thus qualitatively and even quantitatively the work which the respondents were doing was almost identical  with the  work which  their    counterpart Language Teachers were doing while teaching higher secondary school students  of standard  11 and  12. That so far as the educational qualifications  were concerned  it was true that the Lecturers in school cadre were required to have Master’s Degree in  second division  with 50%  marks in  the relevant subject, but  the said  educational qualification  was  more than offset  so far as the educational qualifications of the respondent Language  Teachers were  concerned as they had to have additionally  B.A., B.Ed. Degree with Hindi or English, as the  case may  be, as  one ff  the teaching  subjects  in Bachelor of  Education course  along with   master’s Degree. Therefore, even  though they  might be  holding  Pass  Class Master’s Degree their expertise in teaching was better being armed with  Bachelor of  Education Degree  which was not the requirement for  Lecturers in  school  cadre.  According  to learned senior  counsel for  the respondents  therefore  the High  Court   was  right   in  taking  the  view  that  even educational qualifications of the respondents were almost at par if not better than those of secondary school teachers.      Having given  our  anxious consideration to these rival contentions we find that before a set of employees can claim parity of  pay scales  on the  principle of  ‘equal Pay  for Equal Work’  it has  to be  shown  by  such  claimants  that qualitatively said  quantitatively the work which they do is of the  same type  and nature  as that of their counterparts whose pay  scales are  pressed in  service for  getting  the parity. Not  only that  but even  educational qualifications must be  identical. It  is  well  settled  by  a  series  of decisions of  this Court  that different  pay scales  can be prescribed  for   employees  having   different  educational qualifications. Consequently  if the  matter had  rested  at this stage  we would  have been required to closely consider

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13  

whether it  was open  to the  High Court  to  undertake  the exercise of  trying to  find out  whether Master’s Degree in second division with 50% marks in the relevant subject being the educational  qualification for  becoming a  Lecturer  in school cadre  represented an educational qualification which was parallel and equivalent to the educational qualification possessed by  a Language  Teacher  in  technical  institutes having B.A.  B.Ed. Degree  with the concerned subject as one of the  teaching subjects  in B.Ed.  and ’a  Master’s Degree which may  be even a Pass Class Master’s Degree. However the said exercise  is spared for us for the reasons which we now proceed to unfold.      On 02  May 1995  a Bench  of two learned Judges of this Court consisting  of K.  Ramaswamy and  B.L. Hansaria,  JJ., passed the following order :      "Learned counsel  for the appellant      is directed  to produce  the record      of the  pay commission  relating to      the fixation  of the  pay scales to      the language  teachers  working  in      Training Institutes  and  Lecturers      in School  cadre  fixing  1400-2600      and 2000-3500 respectively.      Learned counsel  seeks for  and  is      granted six  weeks’ time  for doing      the needful."      Despite the  aforesaid order  being passed  as early as 02nd May  1995 the  appellants did  not produce the relevant requisite material.  That was  noted by  us when this matter reached for final hearing before us. By our order dated 08th April 1997, therefore, we passed the following order :      "I.A. No.4 stands granted.      Respondent Nos.3  and 4  will stand      deleted  from  the  record  of  the      case. After  this matter  was heard      for some time we were informed that      the   appellant   State   has   not      complied with  the  order  of  this      Court  of  2nd  May,  1995  despite      being granted many opportunities to      comply with  the same.  By an order      dated 21st  March,   1996,  another      Bench   of   this   Court   granted      further 6  weeks’  time  to  comply      with the  order.  Still  till  date      nothing has  been done.  When  this      was brought  to the  notice of  the      learned counsel  for the appellant,      he prayed  for a last ; opportunity      to comply  with the  order of  this      Court and  requested for  some more      time. It  is made clear to him that      within this  further time  if  this      order is  not complied with and the      necessary papers  are not produced,      the appeal will stand dismissed for      non-prosecution. Accordingly  as  a      last  opportunity  weeks’  time  is      granted to  comply with  the  order      of 2nd  May, 1995  and  to  produce      necessary   information    required      thereby. It  is clarified that this      will be  the last  opportunity. The      appeal is adjourned to 29.4.1997 as      part  heard.  It  is  further  made

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13  

    clear that in case there was no pay      Commission as stated, but any other      body of Experts which went into the      question and  had given any report,      record of  the said  report may  be      produce."      It was  only thereafter  that the  appellants  filed  a printed copy  of the  Haryana Civil  Services (Revised  Pay) Rules, 1987  framed by  the Governor  of State of Haryana in exercise of  his powers  under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution  of India.  As the  said  response  by  the appellants did  not amount to full compliance with our order dated 08th  April 1997  in continuation of the earlier order of 02nd  May  1995  we  directed  learned  counsel  for  the appellants to  produce the  copies of  the report of the Pay Commission or  any other  expert body  whose advice was made available to  the appellants  when they framed the aforesaid rules. Thereafter  the learned  counsel for  the  appellants placed for  our consideration  Interim  Report  of  the  Pay Revision Committee in respect of Group B, C and D employees. He submitted  that the  respondents’ case  is covered by the said Report  and it  was that  Report which  was taken  into consideration by  the appellant-State while promulgating the aforesaid  Revised   Pay  Rules.  He  also  placed  for  our consideration Report  of the  Pay Anomalies Commission which was required  to consider  the anomalies  in the revision of pay scales as granted by the aforesaid Revised Pay Rules. He submitted that  in the  light  of  the  Report  of  the  Pay Anomalies  Commission  the  pay  scales  were  appropriately revised for  the classes  of employees concerned. He made it clear that  the pay  scales made  available to  Lecturers in secondary  school   cadre  were  revised  with  effect  from 1.1.1986 from Rs.550-900/- to Rs.1640-2900/- as per the said Revised Pay  Rules while  respondents’ earlier  existing pay scales were  revised from  Rs.525-1050/- to  Rs.1400-2600/-. The revised  pay scale  of  Lecturers  in  higher  secondary schools were  further revised  in the light of Pay Anomalies Commission Report  to Rs.2000-3500/-  from 01st May 1990. In view of  this material placed before us we have to see as to whether the  appellants in  their own  discretion created  a situation in  which the revised pay scales made available to Lecturers  in   higher  secondary   schools  should   almost automatically be  made available  to  Language  Teachers  in technical institutes  teaching standard  II and  12 students who also  can legitimately  be said  to be  higher secondary school students  though  styled  as  studying  in  technical institutes. When  we turn  to the  interim report of the Pay Revision Committee  we find  that the  said Committee in the light of  the IVth  Central Pay  Commission  recommendations undertook the task of suggesting appropriate revision of pay scales of Haryana Government employees by drawing an analogy from the revised pay scales suggested for Central Government employees by  19th Central Pay Commission. In para 10 of the Report the Committee has observed that it has broadly taken, amongst others,  various factors  into  consideration  while giving its  recommendations.  In  para  10(b)  it  has  been observed as under :      "10(b). As  per the recommendations      of the  Fourth Pay  Commission  and      the  notification   issued  by  the      Government of  India regarding  the      employees of the Central Government      and    the    Union    Territories,      different scales  have  been  given      for    posts    with    the    same

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13  

    designations   in    the    Central      Government   and    various   Union      Territories.  The   Committee   mas      recommended such  of the  scales in      such categories  as suit  the State      Government employees  best in order      to maintain the existing parities."      In sub-para  (c) of  the said  para  10  the  following observations are found :      "10(c).       The       experience,      qualifications, mode of recruitment      and   job    content   etc.   being      different in  the Central and State      Governments,  the  Committee  could      not go  into the  details of  these      matters on  account of  constraints      of time."      Thus  it   appears  that  the  Expert  Committee  while recommending  upward  revision  of  pay  scales  of  Haryana Government employees had kept in view the revised pay scales made available to Central Government servants under the IVth Pay Commission subject to  certain relevant adjustments.      In pare  12 of  the said Report, they referred to their first option to go simply by the ‘designations’ of the posts in central Government and recommend same scales to the state Government employees. They said :      " In  this option,  the same scales      are  recommended   for  the   State      Government employees  as have  been      given by  the Central Government in      such cases  where the  designations      are  similar   and  the  posts  are      identical..................."           [Emphasis supplied] and in  para 16, they decided to recommend the first option. Read along  with para  10(c) quoted  above, it is clear that the Committee  on account  of constraints  of time,  did not think fit  to go by comparison of experience, qualification, mode of  recruitment or  job content  but by the comparative designation  and   nature  of  post.  In  other  words,  the distinction based on difference in educational qualification was not  to be the basis for the first option recommended by the Committee.      When we  turn to  the  annexures  to  the  said  Report containing the suggested revision of pay scales of employees concerned we  find at  Annexure A-2  revised scales of posts carrying present  scales in  Group ‘C’  and ‘D’ except posts for which different revised scales are indicated separately. Learned counsel  for the appellants submitted that at serial no.4 at Annexure A-2 to the said Report are listed employees having earlier  pay scale  of Rs.525-1050/- as was available to the  respondents and  the said  scale was  proposed to be revised to  Rs.1400-2600/- and  it was  this  proposed  hike which was  accepted by  the appellant  authorities for being made available  to the  respondents. It  is not  possible to agree with this contention. The reason is obvious. At serial no.4 at  Annexure  A-2  to  the  Report  is  found  List  of employees who  were getting  pay scale  of Rs.525-1050/- and who were  proposed to  be given  a hike  r of  pay scale  by raising  it  to  Rs.1400-2600/-.  In  that  list  are  found Librarians, Assistants,  Draftsman, Statistical  Assistants, Veterinary  Compounders,   Assistants  (of  Directorates  at Headquarter) etc.  Respondents obviously  do not  belong  to that category.  On the other hand we find at Annexure ‘P’ to the said  Report the  proposals regarding revised pay scales

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13  

of certain other categories of staff which are common to the State  Government   and  the   Central  Government.  In  the Education Department  at  serial  no.2  are  listed  Trained Graduate Teachers,  Headmasters  Primary  Schools  while  at serial no.3  are listed  Post  Graduate  Teachers  and  Head Masters of Middle Schools. Columns 2, 3, 4 and 5 referred to the posts, pay scales, emoluments as on 1.1.1986 and revised scales given  by Central Government to these employees while at column  nos.6 to  11 are  found the posts under the State Government with the existing pay scales, total emoluments as on 1.1.1986,  total emoluments  after adding  20%  over  320 Consumer Price Index and the recommended scales. It would be profitable to reproduce the relevant entries at serial nos.2 and 3 for comparative analysis :      A mere  look at  these entries  shows that  the Central government Trained Graduate Teachers were given a higher pay scale of  Rs.1400-2600/- while  Post Graduate  Teachers  and Head Masters of Middle Schools were given a higher pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/-. So far as their counterparts in the State service  were  concerned  for  Trained  Graduates  in  State service the  existing pay  scale of Rs.525-1050/- was sought to  be  revised  to  Rs.1400-2600/-  while  so  far  as  the Lecturers  in  higher  secondary  schools  who  were  having degrees in  Division 1st or 2nd and who were earlier getting Rs.600-1100/ were  sought to  be given a higher pay scale of Rs.1640-2900/-. The  ‘Remarks’ column against serial no.3 is more instructive.  It says  that the  Commission recommended that Lecturers be treated at par with Post Graduate Teachers of Central  Government. It  becomes, therefore, obvious that even though earlier in the State service Lecturers in higher secondary schools  who were  having first  or  second  class degrees like  M.A. 1st Class or 2nd Class were having higher pay scale  of Rs.600-1100/-  as compared to Trained Graduate Teachers who  were having lesser pay scale of Rs.525-1050/-, they were  now sought  to be  treated at  par in so far as a uniform revised  pay scale  of Rs.1640-2900/-  was suggested for all  of  them.  Thus  so  far  as  Lecturers  in  higher secondary schools were concerned, earlier distinction in the pay scales  on the  basis of  first  or  second  class  Post Graduate Degrees  was sought  to be done away with and these Lecturers were  to be  treated at  par  with  Post  Graduate Teachers of  Central Government. When we turn to column 2 of Entry 3  we find that under Central Government Post Graduate Teachers were  all given   uniform  hike  in  pay  scale  of Rs.1640-2900/- meaning  thereby the distinction between Post Graduate Teachers  having 2nd class or 1st class M.A. Degree and those having a Pass Class Post Graduate Degree was given a go  by and  it is this uniform hike in pay scale which was recommended for  acceptance of  the State  Government by the Pay Revision  Committee. It  is of course true, as submitted by   learned    counsel   for    appellants,   that    these recommendations were  not necessarily  binding on the  State authorities and  it was  open to them to suitably modify the pay scale  which could  be revised for  different categories of employees  on their  discretion. Even  though that  is so When we  turn to  the Revised  Pay  Rules themselves we find that the  appellants in their own discretion and wisdom have accepted the  aforesaid  recommendations of the Pay Revision Committee and have done away with the difference between the pay scales  of 1st  Class or  2nd Class Post Graduate Degree holder Lecturers  in higher  secondary schools  and the Pass Class  Post  Graduate  Degree  holder  Lecturers  in  higher secondary schools  wherever they may be working and teaching standard 11  and 12 students. It has to be kept in view that both these classes of teachers have a common employer, State

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13  

of Haryana.  Respondents may be working as Teachers teaching higher secondary  students of  Class 11  and 12 in technical institutes  while  their  counterparts  who  are  styled  as Lecturers may  be teaching  similar  class  of  students  in standard 11  and 12  in higher  secondary schools.  Both  of them, therefore,  must be  treated to  be on par and were in fact treated to be on par by the appellants themselves while promulgating the  Revised Pay  Rules and making available to them revised pay scales as will be seen presently.      When we  turn to the relevant rules we find that Rule 4 states that as from the date of commencement of these rules, the scales of pay of every post specified in column 2 of the First schedule  shall be as specified against it in column 4 thereof. In  the First  Schedule  at  Part  ’A’  are  listed revised scales  for posts  carrying present scales in Groups ’D’, ’C’,  ’B’ and  ’A’ except  posts  for  which  different revised scales were notified separately. Learned counsel for the appellants  relied upon  serial no.6  dealing  with  all posts carrying  present scale specified in Column 3 and took us to  Column 3  which mentioned Rs. 525-1050/- dealing with Groups  ’C’   and  ’B’.  It  is  not  in  dispute  that  the respondents fall  within that  group Revised  pay scale made available to  them as  per these  Rules from 1.1.1986 was Rs 1400-2600 But  the respondents  contend  that  these  scales would not  be applicable  to them as they will be covered by Part ’B’  dealing with  ’Revised scales  of pay  for certain other categories  of  staff’.  Learned  senior  counsel  for respondents invited  our attention  to Education  Department and-under  that   caption  are   found  at   serial   no   2 Master/Mistress, Trained Graduates, Shastri/Sanskrit teacher D.P.E. whose pay scale from Rs 525-1050/- was revised to Rs. 1400-2600/-. But  at serial  no 3  are Listed  Lecturers  in higher secondary  schools whose  revised pay scale was shown as Rs  1640-2900/-. Once  the respondents  are found  to  be teaching in higher secondary school they would obviously not fall in  serial no  2 dealing with ’Master/Mistress, Trained Graduates, Shastri/Sanskrit  Teacher D.P.E. They fall within the category  of Lecturers in higher secondary schools. They would obviously,  therefore, become entitled to uniform time scale of  Rs. 1640-2900/-.  It is  pertinent to note that in these Revised Pay Rules lesser revised pay scale is not made available to  Pass class  Post Graduate Teachers as compared to 1st  and 2nd  Class  Post  Graduate  Teachers  in  higher secondary schools.  To that  extent it must be held that the recommendations of  the Pay  Revision Committee for treating all Post  Graduate Lecturers  in higher secondary schools at par for the purpose of revised pay scales with Post Graduate Teachers of  Central Government and to make them available a uniform pay  scale of  Rs.1640-2900/- appear  to  have  been wholly accepted.  For grant  of such  a uniform  revised pay scale the  earlier distinction  between a  Pass  Class  Post Graduate teacher  and a  second class  or first  class  Post Graduate degree  holder teacher  was totally  effaced by the appellants  themselves.  On  this  short  ground  alone  the respondents are  entitled to succeed. They would be entitled to get the uniform pay scale made available to Post Graduate teachers in  higher secondary schools as revised to Rs.1640- 2900/-  under   the  Revised  Pay  Rules  with  effect  from 1.1.1986. It  is not  in dispute that the said pay scale was further revised  on the  recommendations  of  Pay  Anomalies Commission  to  Rs.2000-3500/-  from  Rs.  1640-2900/-  with effect from  1st May  1990. A feeble attempt made by learned counsel for the appellants for submitting that these revised pay scales were available only to those Post Graduate Higher Secondary  School   Teachers   who   were   entrusted   with

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13  

administrative duties, cannot be countenanced for the simple reason that  such a   distinction  was never  canvassed  for consideration by  the appellant before the High Court at any stage. Their  only ground  for defeating  the claim  of  the respondents  was   that  they  were  teaching  in  technical institutes while  the  Post  Graduate  Lecturers  in  higher secondary schools  were teaching in higher secondary schools and  were   having  different   types   of   Post   Graduate qualifications. It  was submitted  by learned senior counsel for the  respondents that  all the  higher secondary  school teachers  having   Post  Graduate  qualifications  who  were admittedly granted  the pay  scale of  Rs.1640-2900/- by the appellants  with   effect  from  1.1.1986  got  the  further revision of  pay scale  to Rs.2000-3500/- from 01st May 1990 in the  light of  Pay Anomalies  Commission Report which was accepted and  no distinction  was made  on the ground of any higher   administrative    duties   and,   therefore,   this distinction sought  to be  raised by learned counsel for the appellants at  this belated stage should not be accepted. We find considerable force in this contention as the appellants have not  even whispered  on this  aspect at  any  time  all throughout before  the High  court and even in their Special Leave Petition in these proceedings.      We have  also to  keep in  view the salient features of this case which have remained well established on record and which have  been heavily  relied upon  both by  the  learned Single Judge  and by  the Division  Bench of the High Court. They can be catalogued as under :      1.   The respondents  are  Language           Teachers, namely,  they  teach           Hindi and  English to standard           11 and  12 students  who study           in higher  secondary  classes.           They   however   teach   these           students     in      technical           institutes. But these students           join  these  institutes  after           passing      standard       10           examination.             Their           counterparts     also     join           standard    11    in    higher           secondary    schools     after           passing the  same  examination           of standard 10.      2.   The respondents teach the same           syllabus of  Hindi and English           to standard 11 and 12 students           who appear at the same type of           examination and write the same           papers as  are written  by the           standard 10  and  11  students           who  are   taught  Hindi   and           English  in  higher  secondary           schools.      3.   Whether  a   teacher   teaches           Hindi and English languages to           standard 11 and 12 students in           a technical  institute or in a           higher secondary  school makes           no difference in the nature of           duties and functions performed           by these two sets of teachers.      4.   Whether separate  institutions           under which they work maintain           a different  set of  seniority

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13  

         lists  or   not  would   be  a           totally             irrelevant           consideration for deciding the           question in controversy.      5.   The students  of  standard  11           and 12  who are  taught  Hindi           and English by the respondents           are  examined   in  the   same           subjects    by     the    same           institution,  namely,  Haryana           School education  Board  which           sets same  type of examination           papers on  the basis  of  same           syllabus,  to   the   students           taught by  the respondents  as           well as  to the  students  who           are   taught    by    Language           Teachers   attached   to   the           regular    higher    secondary           schools   who    also    teach           standard 11  and  12  students           the   very    same   Languages           English and Hindi based on the           same syllabus.      6.   The students who are taught by           respondents   and   pass   out           standard 12  examination  will           get the  certificate  of  10+2           examination on  the same lines           as students  who pass standard           10+2 examination  from  higher           secondary    schools.    These           certificates    obtained    by           vocational           education           institutes    students     are           exactly  at   par   with   the           certificates     issued     on           completion    of    successful           passing   of    standard    12           examination     by     general           education students  coming out           of higher secondary schools.      7.   Both these  sets  of  students           are eligible  to get admission           in B.A.,  B.Com. etc.  and  to           pursue   higher   studies   in           colleges.      These aspects  deal with the quality of work. So far as the quantity  of work  is concerned  it is  well established that in  school cadre  in Education  Department  a  Lecturer teaches 30  periods in  a week, one period is of 40 minutes’ duration, i.e.,  20 hours  in a  week whereas  the  Language Teachers  like   the  respondents   teaching  in   technical institutes teach for 24 hours in a week, one period being of one hour’s  duration, i.e.,  24 hours  in a  week. Thus even quantitatively the  work which  the respondents  do is  more intensive as  compared to the work done by their counterpart teachers in higher secondary schools. That the difference in the nomenclature  between the two sets of employees, namely, Language  Teachers   like  the   respondents  in   technical institutes and  Lecturers in  higher secondary  schools does not represent  any substantial  cleavage in the quantity and quality of work done by both these sets of employees.      In the  light of  these salient features which are well established on  record there  would be  no escape  from  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13  

conclusion that  but for  the  difference  in    educational qualifications both  these sets  of employees  are similarly circumscribed. So  far  as  the  educational  qualifications difference is  concerned that  would have,  as noted  above, made some  vital  difference  but  for  the  fact  that  the appellants themselves  in their own wisdom thought it fit to ignore this  difference in the educational qualifications by offering a uniform time  scale of Rs.1640-5900/- to all Post Graduate Lecturers  a in  higher secondary  schools. For all these reasons no  can be found with the decision rendered by the  High   Court  especially   in  the   light  of   latter developments at  the end  of the  appellants themselves  who treated all  these  teachers  at  par  by  promulgating  the Revised Pay Rules in the light of the recommendations of the Pay Revision  Committee as  well as Pay Anomalies Commission as noted in details by us earlier.      Now is  the time  for us to refer to a few decisions of this Court  to which  our attention,  was invited by learned counsel for  the appellants.  In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh &  Anr. v. Pramod Bhartiya & Ors. (1993) 1 SCC 539 a Bachelor of  three learned  Judges of  this  Court  speaking through B.P.  Jeevan Reddy,  J. held  that in the absence of any  clear   allegation  and/or   material  suggesting  that functions and  responsibilities of  both the  categories  of lecturers are  similar, they  cannot  claim  parity  of  pay scales.  It  is  obvious  that  the  aforesaid  decision  it rendered on  the peculiar  facts of that case. In para 12 of the  Report   this  aspect   is  highlighted.  The  relevant observations are found in the said para as under :      "The material  abovenmentioned goes      to show that (a) the qualifications      prescribed for the lecturers in the      Higher Secondary School and the non      technical  lecturers  in  Technical      schools are  the same;  (b) service      conditions of  both the  categories      of lecturers  are same and (c) that      the status  of the  schools is also      the  same.  There  is,  however,  a      conspicuous absence  of  any  clear      allegation     and/or      material      suggesting   that   functions   and      responsibilities   of    both   the      categories   of    lecturers    are      similar. Much  less  is  there  any      allegation    or     proof     that      qualitatively    speaking,     they      perform similar  functions.  It  is      not  enough   to   say   that   the      qualifications are  same nor  is it      enough to  say that the schools are      of the  same status. lt is also not      sufficient to  say that the service      conditions of similar. What is more      important and  crucial  is  whether      they  discharge   similar   duties,      functions and  responsibilities. On      this score  there is  a  noticeable      absence  of  material.  Whether  we      look at  the averments  in, and the      material produced  along with,  the      original   petition   or   to   the      averments in the counter- affidavit      or even  to the  averments  in  the      counter  affidavit   filed  by  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13  

    Government in  M.P. No.2277 of 1985      upon  which  the  counsel  for  the      respondents   has   placed   strong      reliance), we do not find any clear      material to  show that  the duties,      functions and  responsibilities  of      both the  categories  of  lecturers      are identical similar."      It becomes  at once  obvious that  this Court,  in  the absence of  material showing  equal quality  ant quantity of work which  was being  carried out  by Lecturers  in  higher secondary schools  and non-technical  Lecturers in technical institutes in  that case,  came to  the conclusion that both these groups  of employees  could not  claim  identical  pay scales. As  discussed earlier there is ample material on the other hand  in the  present case.  Our  attention  was  also invited to  a decision of this court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Mathur  etc. etc.  v. Karnataka University & Anr etc. etc. AIR  1986 SC  1448 for  submitting that fixation of pay scales is  the function  of an  Expert Body  and  the  Court should not  interfere with  the same.  There cannot  be  any dispute on  this aspect.  But as  we have  seen earlier  the appellants  themselves  in  their  discretion  accepted  the advance and  recommendations of the Expert Body, namely, Pay Revision Committee and offered uniform revised pay scales to all the  Post Graduate Teachers teaching in higher secondary schools. Learned counsel for the appellants also invited our attention to the following judgments,      1.   Federation   of    All   India      Customs    and    Central    Excise      Stenographers   (Recognised)    and      others v.  Union of  India  &  Ors.      (1988) 3 SCC 91      2.   Harbans  Lal   and  others  v.      State of Himachal Pradesh &  (1989)      4 SCC 459 for submitting  that ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’ is a concept which requires  for its applicability complete and wholesale identity between a group of employees claiming identical pay scales and  the other  group of  employees who  have already earned such  pay scales.  In  the  light  of  what  we  have discussed earlier  the ratio  of the  aforesaid decisions do not get attracted on the peculiar facts of this case.      In the  result this  appeal  fails  and  is  dismissed. Interim stay  granted by  this Court  on 20th  February 1995 shall stand  vacated. The  appellants will  have now to make good to  the respondents  arrears of  pay in the revised pay scale of  Rs.2000-3500/- as claimed by them with effect from the date  of the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court,  that is,  from 15th  July  1992,  though  their earlier pay scales will stand nationally revised to Rs.1640- 2900/- from  1.1.1986 and  to Rs.2000-3500/-  from 01st  May 1990 and  their increments  in the said pay scales will have to be worked out accordingly and their present pay will have to be  re-fixed accordingly.  Only the  actual arrears  will have to  be made  available to  them in the said revised pay scales from  15th July 1992 as ordered by the learned Single Judge end  which part  of the  order has  become  final  qua respondents as seen earlier. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out  by the appellants and all the monetary benefits shall be  made available respondents within a period of four months from  the date  of receipt of a copy of this order at the end of the appellants. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13