http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

PETITIONER: STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M.R. ALAGAPPAN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       08/04/1997

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

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH               [I.A. Nos. 5 to 9 and 10 to 13]                       J U D G M E N T S.B. Majumdar, J.      The State  of Tamil  Nadu and  Director of Agriculture, Madras as  common appellants  have brought  in  challenge  a common  judgment   rendered  by  Tamil  Nadu  Administrative Tribunal  in   two  original   Applications  filed   by  the contesting  respondents   who  are   working  as      Deputy Agricultural  Officers   in  the   Tamil  Nadu  Agricultural Extension  subordinate   service   under   the   Agriculture Department of  the said  State. The Tribunal by its impugned common judgment in these two original applications has taken the view  that the  contesting respondents  area entitled to get the  same pay scale as available to Agriculture Officers working in  Tamil Nadu  Agricultural  Extension  Service  as according to the Tribunal both these categories of employees perform the same type of work and carry out the same type of duties. Consequently on the principle of Equal pay for Equal Work the  appellant -  state must  maintain  parity  of  pay scales between  these two groups of employees working in its Agriculture Department.  The Tribunal has also directed that the contesting  respondents be  paid all arrears with effect from 1st June 1988.      On grant  of special  leave to appeal under Article 136 of the  Constitution of  India the appellants have preferred these appeals.  During the  pendency of  these appeals by an interim order  of this court the impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal have remained stayed. In order to appreciate the grievance  of the  respondents  which  appealed  to  the Tribunal, it  is necessary  to note a few introductory facts leading to these proceedings.      The respondents herein were originally appointed in the Agriculture  Department  of  the  State  as  Fieldman.  They belonged to  Tamil Nadu  Agricultural  subordinate  Service. They were  subsequently promoted  to the posts of the Deputy Agricultural Officers.  These posts  could be  filled in  by promoting  Assistant  Agricultural  Officers.  There  is  no higher avenue  of promotion  for the  respondents beyond the promotional posts of Deputy Agricultural officers.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

    On the  other  hand  Agricultural  officers  are  being directly recruited from open market and they belong to Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extension service. The minimum educational qualification for  being directly  recruited as Agricultural officer is Bachelor of Science (Agriculture) while so far as Deputy  Agricultural  officers  are  concerned  the  minimum qualification for being considered for promotion to the said post is  passing of  SSLC  examination  equivalent  to  10th standard examination.  The respondents  contended before the Tribunal that  though they were discharging the same type of duties as  Agricultural offices  the pay  scale available to them was  Rs.1600-60-2300-60-2660/- while  the pay  scale of Agricultural officers  which was originally Rs.1640-60-2600- 75-2900/- was  further upward revised to Rs.1820-60-2300-75- 3200/- and  no such  upward revisions  and parity of revised pay scale  were offered  to the Deputy Agricultural officers like the  respondents.  As noted earlier the said contention of the  respondents appealed to the Tribunal and on applying the principle of Equal pay for Equal work the impugned order was  passed in favour of the respondents.      In  support   of  these  appeals  learned  counsel  for appellants submitted,  relying on  a series  of decisions of this court to which we will make a reference hereafter, that difference  in  educational  qualifications  can  furnish  a rational criterion  for classifying  different categories of employees and for offering them different pay scales. It was submitted that  Agricultural officers are directly recruited as gazetted  officers in  Tamil Nadu  Agricultural Extension service  while   the  respondents  who  were  promote-deputy Agricultural officers  were non-gazetted  officers belonging to Tamil  Nadu Agricultural  Extension Subordinate  Service. That the  methods of recruitment to both these services were different.  Agriculture  officers  were  directly  recruited while Deputy  Agricultural Officers  were  promotees.  Their educational qualifications  were also  different.  Before  a direct  recuit   can  be   considered  for   appointment  as Agricultural Officer  from open market he has to possess the degree of  bachelor of  Science(Agriculture) in  addition to other requisite qualifications as laid down by the statutory rules while  so far  as the  Deputy Agricultural  officer is concerned  all   that  was  required  was  passing  of  SSLC examination with  the requisite  experience as  laid down in the Rules.  That out  of 2390 posts of Agricultural officers there were  1372 posts to which Deputy agricultural officers could not  be posted  as they were of specialised type while only for  rest of  1018 posts  Deputy Agricultural  Officers could also  be posted  to work  and in  that sense for these 1018  posts   there  was  interchangeability  of  assignment between these  two  groups  of  employees.  It  was  further contended that  even though  the duty  charts of  both these groups of employees were almost identical there were certain special duties assigned to Agricultural Officers which could not be  entrusted to  Deputy Agricultural  Officers. It was, therefore, submitted  that these  two  classes  of  employes though  working   in  the  Agricultural  Officers.  It  was, therefore, submitted  that these  two classes  of  employees though working  in the  Agriculture Department  of the State form two  distinct and  separate Classes  and there  was  no comparison between  the two  to enable them to earn same pay scale and  consequently the  Tribunal had committed a patent error of law in passing the impugned order in their favour.      Learned counsel  for the  respondents on the other hand submitted that  once it  is held  that the  respondents were doing same  type of  work as  their counterpart Agricultural Officers would become irrelevant and it is the nature of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

work  which  was  almost  similar  that  would  entitle  the respondents to  claim equal  pay for  equal work which  they were doing. That even though some of the work could not have been assigned  to them  as mentioned  in paragraph(5) of the Additional Affidavit  filed by  Shri. V.  Srinivasan, Deputy Secretary to  Government, Agriculture  Department, there was material to  point out that even the work of drawing samples could be  entrusted to  the Deputy Agricultural Officers and consequently on  the principle  of Equal  pay for Equal work the Tribunal  was justified in passing the impugned order in their favour   especially in the light of Articles 14 and 16 read with  Article 39(d)  of the  Constitution of  India. In support of this contention he placed reliance on some of the decisions of  this Court  to which  we will make a reference hereafter.      Before dealing with the various decisions of this court to which  our attention   was invited by learned counsel for the respective  contesting parties  we may  mention  by  I.A Nos.5,6,7,   8   and   9   certain   interested   applicants representing Agricultural  Officer seek  to be  impleaded in the present  proceedings as  according  to  them  they  have direct interest  in these  proceedings  for  justifying  the separate pay  scale available to them as compared to the pay scale which was made available to the contesting respondents by the  State of  Tamil Nadu.  As these applicants represent the rival  group of employees in the same Department we deem it fit  to grant  these I.As   and  permit joinder  of these respondents who  stated   before us that they are supporting the appellants  and adopt  arguments of  the learned counsel for the  appellants. We   may  also state  that certain I.As have been  filed by  the contesting respondents for vacating the  interim   stay  granted   by  this  Court  against  the implementation  of   the  Tribunal’s   order  pending  these appeals. As  the appeals  area being  disposed of finally by the present  judgment these  I.As for  vacating the  interim stay would  naturally not survive and will stand disposed of accordingly.      So far  as the  merits of  the contentions canvassed by the contesting  parties for our consideration go, it will be necessary to  note certain  well established facts on record of these  cases in  the light of which the controversy posed for our  consideration will  have to  be  resolved.  In  the Agriculture Department  of the  appellant-state two types of services manned  by different  employees are  in vogue.  The history of  these services shows that upto 1961 the posts of assistant Agricultural  officers were  borne on  Tamil  Nadu Agricultural   Subordinate    Service.    These    Assistant Agricultural Officers  could be  promoted to  the  posts  of Deputy Agricultural  officers  who  were  earlier  known  as Agricultural Demonstrators.  These posts  could be filled up by direct recruitment as well as by promotion from the posts of Assistant  Agricultural Officers.    This practice was in vogue upto  1966. Out  of the total cadre strength of Deputy Agricultural Officers 20 per cent was reserved for promotees from Assistant  Agricultural Officers  and the  remaining 80 per cent  could be  filled up  by direct  recruitment.  Only B.Sc. (Agriculture)  graduates were  directly  recruited  as Deputy Agricultural  officers  .  upto  1961  there  was  no disparity in  the scale  of pay for graduate or non-graduate Deputy Agricultural Officers. It was also a well established position  in   the  Department   that  the   promotee-Deputy Agricultural  officers.  it  was  also  a  well  established position  in   the  Department  that  the  promotee-  Deputy Agricultural Officers  had no  further chances  of promotion while for  directly recruited  Deputy Agricultural  officers

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

there were  further chances  of promotion. It is also not in dispute between  the parties  that after 1962 the pay scales of promotee-  Deputy Agricultural  officers left  company of the pay  scales of  directly recruited  Deputy  Agricultural Officers and  non-graduates continue  to  be  called  Deputy Agricultural Officers. Thus from 1962 onwards all throughout the pay  scales of  directly recruited Agricultural Officers remained higher  as compared  to the pay scales of promotee- Deputy Agricultural  Officers, though  both these categories of employees substantially carried out same type of work and discharged same  type of duties subject to the difference in the nature  of specialised  work which cold be assigned only to directly  recruited Agricultural  Officers as highlighted by learned  counsel for  the appellants  and noted  earlier. Subsequently by  statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution  of India Tamil Nadu Agricultural Extension Service was constituted with effect from year 1981. Category IV of  the said  Service consisted  of Agricultural Officers (Extension). Method of recruitment and qualification for the posts of Agricultural officers (Extension) were laid down as under. ============================================================ Class and Post    Method of               Qualifications                   Recruitment ----------------------------------------------------------- Class-IV          Direct           i) A Bachelor degree in Agricultural      Recruitment         Agriculture; and Officer                                    ii) Must possess adequate                                       knowledge of Tamil as                                       defined in the                                       Explanation to sub-                                       rule (a) of the Rule                                       12(a) of the General                                       Rules in part-II of                                       the Tamil Nadu State                                       and Sub-ordinate                                       Service Rules. ------------------------------------------------------------ In the  year 1988  the State Government framed special rules for Tamil  Nadu Agricultural  Extension subordinate service. In the  said subordinate  service category  I  consisted  of Deputy  Agricultural   Officers  to   which  the  contesting respondents belong.  Rule 2  of the said subordinate service laid down  the method  of recruitment to the posts of Deputy Agriculture officers as under: ============================================================ Cataegory      Post           Method of appointment ------------------------------------------------------------ Category I     Deputy         By promotion from among the                Agricultural   holders of the post of the                Officer        Asst. Agricultural Officers in                               Category 3 including the                               Assistant seed officers, in                               category 2 who is promoted                               from the post of Asst.                               Agricultural officer in                               Category-3.                               Provided that the total number                               of Deputy Agricultural                               Officers shall not exceed 10                               percent of  the total strength                               of the Agricultural Officers                               borne in Class IV of the                               Tamilnadu Agricultural

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

                             Extension Service. ============================================================ The  qualification   prescribed  for   the  post  of  Deputy Agricultural officer under the Rules read as under; ============================================================ Post                     Qualification ------------------------------------------------------------ Deputy                    1. Must have passed SSLC Agricultural                 Examination. officer                          2.  Atleast ten years of service as                               Assistant Agricultural officer                               including services rendered in                              the post OF Asst. Seed Officer. ============================================================      It is  true as  pointed out  by learned counsel for the contesting respondents  that as per the rules of recruitment for promotion to the post of Deputy Agricultural Officer the concerned incumbent  must have  at least 10 years of service as Assistant  Agricultural  officer  including  the  service rendered in the post of Assistant seed officer and for being an Assistant  Seed Officer he must have not only passed SSLC examination but  must also  have put  in not  less than five years  of  service  as  Assistant  Agricultural  officer  in Category 3. It is also true that under the same set of rules it is provided that an Assistant Agricultural officer can be recruited by  direct recruitment  and for  that purpose  the candidate must  have passed  SSLC examination  and must have passed either  two  years’  diploma  course  or  two  years’ Agricultural Science  Certificate course  conducted  by  Sri Rama Krishna  Vidyalaya and  other institutions mentioned in the concerned rules of recruitment. Therefore, it is obvious that  before  a  promotee  can  reach  the  post  of  Deputy Agricultural Officer  he must  be equipped not only with the passing certificate  of SSLC  examination but must have also obtained the  requisite diploma as laid down in the rules of recruitment  concerning   Assistant  Agricultural  officer’s post. But  still the Fact remains that a Deputy Agricultural officer is  not required  to have  a degree of graduation in Agricultural Science  which is  the basic  requirement for a directly recruited candidate from open market to the post of Agricultural Officer.  It is  no doubt true that most of the duties carried  out by  the Deputy Agricultural Officers run parallel  to   those  assigned   to  and   carried  out   by Agricultural  Officers.   It  is   also  true   that  Deputy Agriculture officers when they are assigned that work and to that extent  their assignment  of duty  can be  held  to  be interchangeable.  Still   the  fact   remains  that   Deputy Agricultural Officers belong to subordinate service which is non-gazetted service  and are  directly recruited  from open market and  their minimum educational qualification is B.Sc. (Agriculture), if  not more. The question is with this basic difference in the two types of services whether the abstract doctrine of  Equal pay  for Equal  work can  be  pressed  in service by the concerned respondents.      In the light of the aforesaid service structure data of these two  warring groups  we may  now look  at the relevant decisions of this court on the point.      A Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of State of Mysore  v. P.  Narasing Rao  [1968] 1  SCR  407  speaking through Ramaswami,  J, clearly ruled that higher educational qualifications furnish  a relevant  consideration for fixing higher pay scales and consequently the classification of two grades of  tracers in  two different  pay scales  by the new Mysore State  was not  violative of  Article 14 or 16 of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

Constitution of  India. In the said case respondent Narasing Rao employed  as a  tracer in  the Engineering Department of the ex-Hyderabad  State on  the pay  scale of Rs. 65-90\- In the common  cadre of tracers there were matriculates as well as non-matriculates.  The said  situation continued till re- organisation of  States in  1956 .  After re-organisation  a part of  the area  of Hyderabad  state became  part  of  new Mysore state. After transfer of respondent to the new state, the cadre  of tracers  into which  tracers from Bombay state had also been absorbed, was re-organised into two grads, one consisting of  matriculate tracers  whose scale  of pay  was fixed at Rs.50-120/- and other on non-matriculates at Rs.40- 80/-. It  was this  creation of two scales of tracers in the new Mysore  State that  was tried  to be  challenged on  the anvil of  Articles 14  and 16  of the constitution of India. The non-matriculate  tracers like  Narasing Rao were able to convince the  High Court  of Mysore that the said difference of pay scale was discriminatory and violative of Article 14. The said  decision of  the High  Court was  set aside by the Constitution Bench  in the  aforesaid case  and it  was held that despite  same type  of work  being carried  out by  the tracers there  was nothing  wrong in  awarding a  higher pay scale to matriculate tracers as compared to non-matriculates like respondent  Narasing Rao. On the question whether there could be  differential treatment  in the matter of promotion another constitution  Bench of  this court  in the  case  of Mohammad Shujat  Ali &  Ors. etc.  V. Union  of India & Ors. etc. [1975]  1 SCR  449 speaking  through Bhagwati,  J. held that  Andhra   Pradesh  Rules   in  so   far  as  they  made differentiation   between    graduate    and    non-graduate supervisors in  the matter of promotion could not he held to be invalid.  Historical  background  in  which  these  rules operated was also kept in view and it was observed that this differentiation is not something brought about for the first time by  the Andhra  Pradesh Rules. It had always been there in the  Engineering services of the Hyderabad and the Andhra States. The  graduate supervisors had always been treated as a distinct  and separate class from non-graduate supervisors both under  the Hyderabad  Rules as well as under the Andhra Rules and they had never been integrated into one class.      The aforesaid  two Constitution Bench judgments of this court clearly laid down that any differentiation made in the matter of  pay scales or even for that matter with reference to further  chances of  promotion between  graduate and non- graduate employees  would not fall foul on the touchstone of Articles 14  and 16  of the  Constitution of  India. We  may also in  this connection  refer to a latter decision of this court in the case of V. Markendeya & Ors. V. State of Andhra Pradesh &  Ors. (1989) 3 SCC 191. In that case the Court had to consider  the difference  in pay scales made available to two  classes  of  employees,  namely,  graduate  supervisors holding degree  in Engineering  and the  other class of Non- graduate  supervisors  being  diploma  and  licence  holding degree in  Engineering and  the other  class of non-graduate supervisors being  diploma and  licence holders. It was held that   on   the   basis   of   difference   in   educational qualifications such  difference in pay scales  was justified and could  not offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In this connection Article 39 sub-Article  (d) was also considered  and it  was  observed  by  K.N.  Singh,  J. Speaking for the Court as under:      "The purpose of Article 39(d) is to      fix  certain  social  and  economic      goals     for      avoiding     any      discrimination amongst the citizens

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

    doing  similar   work  in   matters      relating to  pay. The  principle of      ‘equal pay  for equal work’  is not      an abstract  one; it is open to the      state to prescribe different scales      of pay  for different cadres having      regard   to   nature   of   duties,      responsibilities  and   educational      qualifications. Where  two  classes      of employees  perform identical  or      similar duties  and carry  out  the      same  functions   with   the   same      measure  of  responsibility  having      same academic  qualifications, they      would be  entitled to equal pay. If      the State  denies them  equality in      pay, its  action would be violative      of Articles  14  and  16,  and  the      Court   will    strike   down   the      discrimination and  grant relief to      the aggrieved employees. But before      such relief  is granted  the  Court      must  consider   and  analyse   the      rationale behind  the State  action      in prescribing two different scales      of pay.  If on  an analysis  of the      relevant rules,  orders, nature  of      duties,   functions,   measure   of      responsibility,   and   educational      qualifications  required   for  the      relevant  posts,  the  Court  finds      that the classification made by the      state in giving different treatment      to the  two classes of employees is      founded on  rational  basis  having      nexus with the objects sought to be      achieved, the  classification  must      be upheld.  Principle of  equal pay      for equal  work is applicable among      equals, it  cannot  be  applied  to      unequals. Relief  to  an  aggrieved      person  seeking   to  enforce   the      principles of  equal pay  for equal      work can  be granted  only after it      is demonstrated  before  the  court      that  invidious  discrimination  is      practised   by    the   state    in      prescribing  two  different  scales      for  the   classes   of   employees      without there  being any reasonable      classification for the same."      On the  same lines runs a latter decision of this court in the  case of Sita Devi & Ors. v. State of Haryana &  Ors. (1996) 10  SCC 1  wherein a  Bench  of  two  learned  judges speaking through B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J. laid down that under- matriculate instructors  in Adult  literacy programme in the Government of  Haryana could not justifiably demand same pay scales as were available to matriculate instructors and that person claiming  parity in pay on the principle of Equal pay for Equal  Work must show that his qualification, duties and functions similar  to person  with whom  he  claims  parity. learned  counsel  for  the  contesting  respondents  however submitted that in the case of Sita Devi (Supra) there was no evidence  regarding   similar  nature  of  work  as  clearly indicated in paragraph (5) of the judgment. That may be so .

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

However the  principle remains well established in the light of the  aforesaid series  of decisions  of this  Court  that before the  abstract doctrine of Equal pay for Equal work is pressed in  service it  must be  shown  that  the  concerned incumbents  have   parity  of   qualifications,  duties  and functions and  then only  they can be treated at par for the purpose of  pay scales  and the  courts can  interfere after reaching a  clear finding  of fact  that both  the  sets  of employees stand  completely at  par on the basis of equality of  work   both  qualitatively   and  quantitatively  and  , therefore, denial  of equal  pay scales to them would offend Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.      Learned counsel  for the  respondents in support of his contention invited  our attention  to two  decisions of this Court. Firstly  he referred  to the  case of  Bhagwan Dass & Ors. v.  State of  Haryana &  Ors. (1987) 4 SCC 643. In that decision Thakkar,  J. speaking  for the Bench of two learned Judges observed  that if  duties and  functions of temporary appointees and  employees  of  regular  Cadre  in  the  same Government  department     are   similar,  there  cannot  be discrimination in  pay between  them  merely  on  ground  of difference  in   mode  of   their  selection   or  that  the appointment or scheme under which appointments were made was temporary. So  far as the aforesaid decision is concerned it has to  be kept  in view  that difference  in pay scales was sought to  be supported by the state of Haryana  before this court only  on four  grounds as  enumerated in para 9 of the Report . They were as under:      "(i) that the  petitioners are  not           full-time employees;      (ii) the   mode of  recruitment  of           the petitioners  is  different           from the  mode of  recruitment           of respondents 2 to 6;      (iii) the  nature of  the functions           discharged by  the petitioners           are   not   similar   to   the           functions    discharged     by           respondents 2 to 6; and      (iv) appointments are  made on  six           monthly basis  and there  is a           break in service having regard           to the fact that the posts are           sanctioned  on  year  to  year           basis in view of the temporary           nature of the scheme."      It becomes  at once  clear that in that case this court was  not  concerned  with  a  situation  wherein  there  was dissimilarity  of   educational  qualifications   among  the concerned groups  of employees who were not offered the same pay scale.  On the  contrary in para 12 of the Report it has been clearly observed that the petitioners before this Court possessed the  same qualifications,  namely, B.A.,  B.Ed. as were possessed  by the  employees in  the regular  cadre and some of  the petitioners  before this Court were having even higher degrees  like M.A.,  M.Ed., Under these circumstances when the state failed to establish different types of duties being discharged  by these  employees parity  of pay of ales was ordered  to be  granted to  the petitioners. However the fact situation  in the  present case  is entirely different. Hence  no  assistance  can  be  rendered  by  the  aforesaid decision to  the contesting  respondents. Our  attention was then invited  by learned  counsel for  the respondents  to a decision of  this court  in the  case of  Jaipal & ors. this decision another  Division  Bench  of  this  Court  speaking

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

through K.N/. Singh, J had to consider two identical schemes floated by the state of Haryana with the object of imparting literacy (functional and awareness) to adult illiterates and to provide  literacy to children keeping away from school’s. Even though  the petitioners  were discharging the same type of duties as instructors they were being paid a fixed salary of  Rs.200/-  per  month  while  under  the  second  scheme, employees discharging  similar duties were offered a running pay scale  of Rs.420-700/-. On facts it was found that there was no difference in the nature of duties of the instructors and squad  teachers. Both  of them  carried out similar work under the  same employer  and only  on the  ground that  the instructors were  part time  employees  they  could  not  be offered a  fixed salary of Rs.200/- per month. It becomes at once clear  that there was no difference of payment could be justified by  the State  was that they were employed under a different scheme and were working part a time only for fours hours. On  these peculiar  facts of  the case, therefore, it was held that instructors were entitled to same pay scale as sanctioned to  squad teachers  on the principle of Equal pay for Equal  work .  As the  said decision also is rendered in the light  of its peculiar facts it is not possible to agree with the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that the ratio  of the said decision also gets squarely attracted to the facts the present case. it is now time for us to take stock of the situation.      Keeping in  view the  aforesaid settled legal position, therefore,  it   has  to   be  seen   whether  the    Deputy Agricultural officers  and the  Agricultural officers can be said to  form an  identical class  of employees  who must be given the same pay scales and denial of which can be said to offend Articles  14 and  16 of the constitution of India. In the   light of  the well  established facts on the record of these cases,  to which  we have made a reference earlier, it is impossible  to hold  that the Deputy Agriculture Officers like the contesting respondents are required to be given the same  pay   scale  as  Agricultural  Officers.  Reasons  are obvious. They  do not form a similar class of employees even though they  may be  substantially discharging the same type of duties  and their place of a work may be interchangeable. A glaring  difference which results into making them fall in a distinct and separate category of employees deserves to be kept in  view. In the first place the contesting respondents are recruited  by  promotion  from  the  lower  category  of Assistant Agricultural  officers.  On  Promotion  as  Deputy Agricultural Officers  they remain non-gazetted employees in the subordinate  service  in  the  Tamil  Nadu  Agricultural Officers are directly recruited to a gazetted service called Tamil Nadu  Agricultural Extension  Service. The  contesting respondents   are    promoted   departmentally   while   the Agricultural Officers  are directly  selected through  Tamil Nadu Public  Service Commission.   The  minimum  educational qualification for  being  an  agricultural  officer  (direct recruit) is  B.Sc. (Agriculture) while for a promotee-Deputy Agricultural officer  the minimum  educational qualification is SSLC  with suitable  diploma as  laid down  by the Rules. Though substantially  they carry  out the  same type of work and duties,  important assignments are exclusively entrusted to  Agricultural   Officers  as  sen  from  para  5  of  the additional affidavit  filed by  shri V.  Srinivasan,  Deputy Secretary to  Government at  page 193  of the paper book, as noted earlier.  The special  duties which  can be  entrusted only to Agricultural Officers are listed as under :      "(a) draw samples of Insecticides      (b) draw samples of fertilizers

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

    (c) draw seed samples      (d) analyse the soil water samples      (e) work in the Regional Research station      (f) Work in the State seed Farm      (g) work in the Laboratories      (h) do soil survey work      (i) can be appointed in delta areas." Of course  learned counsel  for the  contesting  respondents submitted that  in certain  circumstances even  the task  of drawing  samples   is  also   being  entrusted   to   Deputy Agricultural Officers.  That may  be  so.  But  the  special quality of  work which  the directly  recruited Agricultural Officers have  to put  in  substantially  differs  from  the quality of work which can be entrusted to Deputy Agriculture officers like  the contesting  respondents. As noted earlier out of  the total  posts of  Agricultural officers under the Agricultural Officers  on interchangeable  basis. 1372 posts are exclusively   meant  to be manned  by directly recruited Agricultural  Officers.  In  view  of  these  distinguishing features between  the two groups of employees and especially in the light of the further fact that they form two separate cadres of  gazetted and  non-gazetted officers  governed  by different sets  of service  rules  which  in  turn  required maintenance of  separate seniority    lists,  and  on  which aspect also  there was no dispute between the parties, it is not possible to agree with the contention of learned counsel for the  contesting respondents that only on the doctrine of Equal pay for Equal work the pay scale available to gazetted employees like  Agricultural Officers  must of  necessity be made  available   to  non  gazetted  employees  like  Deputy Agricultural officers  on the  pain of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution  of India.  In our  view the  Tribunal  had patently erred in applying the said doctrine to the facts of the present  cases. The  decision of the Tribunal amounts to giving equal  treatment  to  totally  distinct  and  unequal categories  of   employees.  The   common  judgment  of  the Tribunal, therefore, cannot be sustained. In the  result, the  appeals succeed  and are  allowed.  The impugned common  judgment of  the Tamil  Nadu Administrative Tribunal is quashed and set aside. The Original Applications Nos.1488 and  3662 of  1990 are  dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs all throughout.