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

PETITIONER: CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NAURANG SINGH & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/03/1997

BENCH: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, K.S. PARIPOORNAN

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J.      This appeal  is preferred  against the judgement of the Central administrative  Tribunal,  Chandigarh  allowing  the Original application  filed by  respondents 1  to 5  herein. The respondents  are storekeepers  in the Punjab Engineering College.   Their claim before the tribunal was that they are entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 570- 1080 as has been given to five  other   storekeepers in  the  same  college.    The respondents invoked  the principle  " equal  pay  for  equal work".  The Tribunal has upheld their claim.      By Notification  dated November  1, 1966  issued by the Ministry  of   Home  Affairs,   Government  of   India,  the Administration of  the Union   Territory   of Chandigarh was required to  follow the  pattern of  Punjab Government  with respect to  the nature  of  the  post,  pay  scale  and  the revision of pa scales.  According to the Punjab pattern, the scale of  pay of  storekeeper   was the  same as that of the clerks namely Rs 60-175, which was later revised to Rs. 110- 50.   However, on  the basis  of a  letter  written  by  the Principal of  the Punjab  Engineering College  , Chandigarh, the Chandigarh  Administration revised  the  pay  scales  of three categories  including that of storekeeper.  As against the pay  scale of  Rs 110-250,  the pay scale of Rs. 160-400 was  extended   to  the   storekeepers.  Because   of   this proceeding, the  five storekeepers working in the college at that time got the benefit of the said higher pay scale.      In   1978-79 the Chandigarh Administration accepted and brought into  force the  recommendations of  the Second  Pay Revision committee.   According  to this recommendation, the pay scale  of the storekeeper  was kept at the same level as that of  clerk .  (By that date the pay scale of Rs. 160-400 was revised  to Rs. 570- 1080 to them also this was rejected where upon they approached the Tribunal.      The case  of the Administration before the Tribunal was that the decision of the chandigarh Administration contained in its  letter dated  19.9.75 extending the higher pay scale to storekeeper   was  mistake.   it was  an unscheduled  and unwarranted revision.   The  Higher pay  scale then given to storekeeper  was the pay scale actually given to Assistants,

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

which is  a promotion  post for  storekeepers.  This mistake was  corrected   by  the   pay  Revision   Committee   whose recommendations were  accepted  at  the  same  time  it  was thought that  taking away the said higher pay scale form the five persons  (to whom  it was  already given)  would not be proper and advisable and, therefore, the said higher pay was treated as  personal pay   to  the said  five  storekeepers. Inasmuch   as respondents  1 to  5 were  appointed after the acceptance  of   recommendations  of   Second  Pay  Revision committee, the  Administration said,  the respondents cannot treat the said mistake as a precedent nor can they make it a basis for  claiming equal  pay.   The  Tribunal  refused  to accept this case.      We  are,   however,  of  the  opinion  that  a  mistake committed by  the Administration  cannot furnish  a valid or legitimate ground  for the  Court or  the  Tribunal  to  the direct   the Administration to go on repeating that mistake. The proceedings  placed before  us clearly show that the pay revision  of  September  19,1975  was  an  unscheduled  one, effected merely  on the  basis of  a letter  written by  the Principal   of the College The Administration no doubt could have rectified  that mistake.  That would have been the most appropriate course but their failure to do so cannot entitle the respondents to say that  mistake should form a basis for giving the  higher pay  scale to them also.  The proceedings of the Administration dated 19.8.1982 clearly shows that the said higher  pay scale  was treated  as personal to the then existing incumbents.   As  stated above that was really t he pay scale  admissible to  the post of Assistants which was a promotion post  to storekeepers.  Both these posts cannot be given the same pay scale.      We are, therefore, of the opinion that the claim of the respondents could  not have  been allowed  by the  Tribunal. The  doctrine   of  "Equal   pay  for  equal  work"  Has  no application in  such a situation.  An evident mistake cannot constitute a  valid basis  for compelling the administration to keep  on repeating that mistake.  Personal pay is granted to employees  on various grounds.  In certain services where the matriculation  is the  minimum educational qualification for a  particular post,   and  a graduate  joins that  post, additional increments  are  given  to  him  to  start  with. Increments are  also given  to male employees for undergoing family  planning  operation.    Such  personal  pays  cannot furnish a ground for invoking the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work".   Because  it was   a mistake it was treated as personal pay  for  existing  incumbents.    And  for  future incumbents, the appropriate pay scale was given.      For the  above reasons  the appeals  is allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside.  No order as to costs.