http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SECRETARY, MADRAS CIVIL AUDIT & ACCOUNTSASSOCIATION AND ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/02/1992

BENCH: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) BENCH: REDDY, K. JAYACHANDRA (J) SHARMA, L.M. (J)

CITATION:  1992 SCR  (1) 530        1992 SCC  (2)   1  JT 1992 (1)   586        1992 SCALE  (1)257

ACT:      Constitution  of India, 1950-Articles 14,  16-Personnel of  Audit  Wing  and  Accounts  Wing-Recommendation  of  4th Central  Pay Commission-Separate dates  for  implementation- Legality  of-Principle of equal pay for equal  work  whether attracted.      Constitution  of India, 1950-Articles  14,  16-Equality before  law-Meaning-Civil  Service-Classifying  persons   by State-Legality.

HEADNOTE:      The Bangalore Bench of Central Administrative  Tribunal held  that the employees belonging to the Accounts  Wing  of Indian  Audit and Accounts Department were entitled  to  the benefit  under  Office  Memo dated  12.6.87  issued  by  the Government  of  India, Ministry of  Finance,  Department  of Expenditure with effect from 1.1.86.      Subsequently,  some  of the employees of  the  Accounts Wing  in  the Tamil Nadu filed petitions before  the  Madras Bench  of the CAT, claiming that they also should  be  given benefit with effect from 1.1.86.      The  Madras Bench did not agree with the view taken  by the  Bangalore  Bench  and the matter was  referred  to  the Chairman of the CAT and a Full Bench was constituted.      The Full Bench answered the reference agreeing with the view taken by the Bangalore Bench.      The  appeals,  before this Court,  were  filed  against several  orders  passed by the Madras Bench as well  as  the Bangalore Bench of the CAT.      The  appellants  contended that the Office  Memo  dated 12.6.87  was  based  on the recommendations  of  the  Fourth Central  Pay  Commission which consisted of two  parts.  The first  part recommended corresponding scales of pay for  the existing posts in the Accounts  Wing giving effect from                                                        531 1.1.86. The other part was contained in para 11.38. Pursuant to those recommendations the Government decided to implement the same with effect from 1.4.87; that the Full Bench failed to   appreciate   correctly   the   second   part   of   the recommendation  of the Pay Commission, which indicated  that the number of posts to be placed in these scales were to  be identified  by  the  Government  and  the  Government  could

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

therefore decide and then give effect at a later date.      The   respondents-employees  contended  that  the   Pay Commission  recommended that there should be parity  in  the pay scales of the staff in the I.A. & A.D.and other Accounts Organisations  and  since  all of  them  discharged  similar duties  the  benefit  should  be extended  to  all  of  them uniformly   with  effect  from  1.1.86;  that  the   persons allocated  to  the  Accounts  Wing,  who  possessed  similar qualifications  before and after entry into the  Department, were performing duties of same nature, as those allocated to the  Audit Wing, and allowing them lower scales of pay  than those allowed to the Audit wing was violative of Articles 14 and  16 of the Constitution; that since all of them did  the same work, they should be treated alike and the principle of equal pay for equal work was very  much attracted; and  that the recommendations of the Pay Commission should be accepted as a whole in respect of all the categories of employees.      On the question, "whether the benefit under Office Memo dated  12th  June, 1987 issued by the Government  of  India, Ministry  of  Finance,Department of  Expenditure  should  be extended  to the members of the Accounts Wing of the  Indian Audit  and Accounts Department, with effect from 1.1.86,  as in  the  case of Audit Wing, or whether it  should  be  from 1.4.87  as  indicated  in the Office Memo  ?"  Allowing  the appeals of the Union of India, this Court,      HELD:  1.01. The Pay Commission Report  indicated  that after bifurcation, certain posts in the Accounts Wing should be  declared  to be brought into the functional  grades  and thereafter  the higher scales of pay should be paid  to  the officers fitted  in such grades. [541E-F]      1.02.  For  that  purpose necessary rules  have  to  be framed  prescribing  the  eligibility etc.  and  the  senior Accountants who have completed three years’ regular  service in  the  grade are upgraded to the post of  Asstt.  Accounts Officer.  It is evident that all this could have  been  done only  in the year 1987 and in the organised Accounts  Office higher scales of pay                                                         532 were  given with effect from 1.4.87 i.e. from the  beginning of the financial year. [540G-H]      1.03.The  respondents cannot insist that they  must  be given  higher scales with effect from 1.1.86. This claim  is obviously  based  on the ground that some  of  the  officers belonging  to the Audit Wing were given scales  with  effect from  1.1.86.  But it must be borne in mind that  they  were eligible  on that date for the higher scales. Likewise  some of  the Officers of the Accounts Wing who were eligible  for higher scales were also given. [540H-541A]      1.04.Before  bifurcation  all of them belonged  to  one Department and as such all those officers of both the  wings who  were  entitled to the scales of pay from  1.1.86,  have been  granted the same with effect from that date. But  with regards  the  posts that were to be identified  and  brought into  the functional grades in future. the higher scales  of pay  cannot  be made applicable retrospectively,  i.e.  with effect from 1.1.86. It cannot be said that on that date  the post  identified  subsequently, were also in  existence.  In such  a situation the principle of equal pay for equal  work is not attracted as on 1.1.86. [541F-H]      1.05.  After  upgradation, officers in  the  Audit  and Accounts  Wings who are doing the equal work are being  paid equal  pay. But that cannot be said to be the  situation  as well on 1.1.86 also. [543D]      2. Equality before the law means that among equals  the law  should be equal and should be equally administered  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

that  like should be treated alike. However,  the  principle does  not take away from the State the power of  classifying persons for legitimate purposes. [537C]      Ameerunisa  Begum and  Ors. v. Mahboob Begum and  ors., [1953]  SCR 404; State of West Bengal v. Anwar  Ali  Sarkar, [1952] SCR 284; E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu &  Anr., [1974]  2 SCR 348; Mrs. Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India  and Anr.,[1978]   1   SCC   248;  Ramana   Dayaram   Shetty   v. International  Airport Authority of India and ors. [1979]  3 SCC  489;D.S Nakara and Ors.v. Union of India, [1983] 1  SCC 305;  All  India  Station  Master’  and  Assistant   Station Masters’  Association  & Ors., v. General  Manager,  Central Railways and Ors., [1960] 2 SCR 311; Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v.  Union of India. AIR 1962 SC 1139; Unikat Sankunni  Menon v. The State of Rajasthan, [1967] 3 SCR 430; State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh, [1963]Supp. 2 SCR 169, referred  to.                                                          533      Purshottam  Lal  and Ors. v. Union of India  and  Anr., [1973]  1 SCC 651; P.Parameswaran and Ors. v.  Secretary  to the   Government   of  India,  [1987]  Suppl.   S.C.C.   18, distinguished.

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION :Civil Appeal NOs. 1783-84 of 1990.      From  the  Judgment and Order dated 12.10.1989  of  the Central   Administrative   Tribunal,  Madras   in   Original Applications No. 232 and 262 of 1988.      (With  C.A.Nos. 772-777/89, 1085-90/89,535-40/89,  705- 725/89,  945-74/89,  1043-63/89,  1024-42/89,733-38/89  739- 747/89,  726-32/89, 997-999/89, 3117/89,  1064-84/89,  1000- 23/89,  975-96/89,  3623-25/88, 3698-3704/88,  3705-14/88  & 3678/89).      K.T.S.Tulsi,  Addl. Solicitor  General,N.N.  Goswamy,A. Subba Rao,C.V.S. Rao and P. Parmeswaran for the Appellants.      E.X.   Joseph,   Sanjay  Kumar,  N.S.  Das   Behl,   S. Balakrishnan, M.K.D.  Namboodiri  and  S.  Prasad  for   the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY, J.  All these appeals pursuant to the  special leave granted are filed by the Union of  India, the   Comptroller  &  Auditor  General  and  the   Principal Accountant  General.   The  only question  that  arises  for consideration is whether the benefit under Office Memo (O.M) dated  12th  June, 1987 issued by the Government  of  India, Ministry  of  Finance, Department of Expenditure  should  be extended  to the members of the Accounts Wing of the  Indian Audit and Accounts Department ("I.A. & A.D." for short) with effect  from 1.1.86 as in the case of Audit Wing or  whether it  should  be from 1.4.87 as indicated in the  said  Office Memo  ? Several of the employees belonging to  the  Accounts Wing  filed  petitions and the Bangalore  Bench  of  Central Administrative  Tribunal ("CAT" for short ) held  that  they are  entitled  to  the  benefit  with  effect  from  1.1.86. Subsequent to the said judgment some of the employees in the Accounts  Wing in the Tamilnadu filed petitions  before  the Madras  Bench  of the CAT claiming that  benefit  should  be extended with effect from 1.1.86.  The Madras bench was  not prepared     to     agree    with     the     view     taken                                                      534 by  the Bangalore Bench and the matter was referred  to  the Chairman  of the CAT who constituted a Full  Bench  presided over by himself.  The Full Bench agreed with the view  taken

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

by   the   Bangalore  Bench  and  answered   the   reference accordingly.  Following the decision of the Full Bench,  the Madras Bench passed the final orders.  All these appeals are filed  against several orders passed by the Madras Bench  as well as the Bangalore Bench .  It is contended on behalf  of the  Union  of India that the Office Memo dated  12.6.87  is based  on  the  recommendations of the  Fourth  Central  Pay Commission  which  consists of two parts.   The  first  part recommends  corresponding  scales of pay  for  the  existing posts  in the Accounts Wing giving effect from 1.1.86.   The other  part  is contained in para 11.38. Pursuant  to  those recommendations the Government decided to implement the same with effect from 1.4.87. It is also contended that the  Full Bench failed to appreciate correctly that the second part of the  recommendation of the Pay Commission clearly  indicated that  the number of posts to be placed in these scales  were to be identified by the Government and the Government  could therefore decide and then give effect at a later date.   The learned  counsel  on  behalf of  the  respondents  employees contended  that  the Pay Commission recommended  that  there should be parity in the pay scales of the staff in the I.A & A.D. and other Accounts organisations and since all of  them discharge the similar duties the benefits should be extended to  all  of  them  uniformly with  effect  from  1.1.86.  To appreciate  these contentions it becomes necessary to  refer to  the  history  of the case briefly and  to  the  relevant documents   including   the  recommendations  of   the   Pay Commission.      I.A. & A.D. headed by the Comptroller & Auditor General of  India  (C.  & A.G.) recommended some  time  in  1983  to Government  of  India  to  bifurcate  I.A.&  A.D.  into  two separate  and distinct wings, one to exclusively  deal  with ’audit’ and the other to deal with ’accounts’ with their own separate   personnel.    The  Government  of   India   after considering  all aspects approved the proposal in  December, 1983.  Thereafter C. & A.G. formulated a scheme on  19.12.83 for  bifurcation  of the I.A & A.D. into  two  separate  and distinct wings from 1.3.84 providing for all incidental  and auxiliary matters thereto.  Before the restructuring of  the cadres,  the staff working in the I.A. & A.D. were asked  to exercise their option to serve in either of the  two  wings. Some  exercised the option.  There was a grievance that  the various  equivalent cadres in Audit and Accounts Wings  were not                                                        535 paid  the same scales of pay and the persons allotted to the Audit  Wing  were drawing more pay than the persons  in  the Accounts Wing.  The Fourth Pay Commission which was  looking into various aspects of the matter recommended in its report that there should be parity of scales of pay between the two wings.   The Government took the necessary decision  on  the basis of the recommendations and the same were published  in the  Gazette  on  13.9.86.   The  Government  accepted   the recommendations relating to the scales of pay and decided to give effect from 1.1.86 in respect of the recommendations of scales of pay for Group ’D’ employees.  Thereafter  Ministry of  Finance,  Department of Expenditure  accordingly  issued Office  Memo dated 12.6.87 regarding the posts to be  placed in  higher  scales of pay and it was  mentioned  that  these orders  would  take effect from 1.4.87.   The  grievance  of these  employees is that these recommendations  should  take effect from 1.1.86.  The Fourth Pay Commission in para 11.38 of its Report made the following recommendations:           "We  have  considered the matter.  There  has  all          along been parity between the staff in the IA &  AD

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

        and accounts staff of other departments, which  has          been  disturbed by restructuring the IA &  AD  into          two separate cadres, viz. audit cadre and  accounts          and  establishment  cadre  and  giving  higher  pay          scales to a major portion of the staff on the audit          side.    The  audit  and  accounts  functions   are          complementary  to  each  other  and  are  generally          performed  in many Govt.  Offices in an  integrated          manner  which  is  necessary  for  their  effective          functioning.   The staff in these  offices  perform          functions of internal check and audit suited to the          requirements of each organisation which are equally          important.   There  is direct  recruitment  in  the          scale  of  330-560 in all the  audit  and  accounts          cadres    through   Staff   Selection    Comm./Rly.          Recruitment    Board   from   amongst    university          graduates.  We are therefore of the view that there          should  be  broad parity in the pay scales  of  the          staff  IA  & AD and other  accounts  organisations.          Accordingly we recommend that the posts in the  pay          scale  of  Rs. 425-700 in  the  organised  accounts          cadres may be given the scale of 1400-2600.  In the          Railways this will apply to the post of sub-head in          both  the ordinary  and selection grades.  We  also          recommend that this should be treated in future  as          a  functional  grade  requiring  promotion  as  per          normal procedure.  The proposed scale of                                                       536          2000-3200 of section officer may also be treated as          a  functional  grade.  With  the  proposed  scales,          there  will be no selection for any of  the  posts.          As  regards the number of posts in  the  functional          scales  of Rs. 1400-2600 and Rs. 2000-3200 we  note          that  about  53  per cent of  the  total  posts  of          junior/senior auditor and 66 per cent of the  total          posts  of ordinary and selection grade  of  section          officer  in  IA & AD are in the  respective  higher          scales.  Govt. may decide the number of posts to be          placed in the scales of (i) 1400-2600 and (ii)  Rs.          2000-3200  in the other organised  accounts  cadres          taking  this factor into consideration.  All  other          accounts  post may be given the scales  recommended          in Chap. 8."      From  this it emerges that the Pay Commission made  two recommendations i.e:           "(i)  there  should  be broad parity  in  the  pay          scales  of staff in the IA & AD and other  Accounts          organisations;           (ii)  the scales of pay of Rs. 1400-2000  and  Rs.          2000-3200  should be treated as functional (grades)          requiring  promotion as per normal procedure.   The          number of posts to  be placed in these scales to be          decided by the Government."      So  far  as the first part of  the  recommendations  is concerned,  it has been implemented and there is no  dispute about  the  same.  The second part  of  the  recommendations relates  to the treatment of the scales of pay of Rs.  1400- 2000  and  Rs.  2000-3200  as  functional  grades  requiring promotion  as  per normal procedure and also the  number  of posts  to  be  placed  in these  scales  of  pay.   The  Pay Commission    also    observed   that    in    respect    of other  recommendations  the  Government will  have  to  take specific  decisions  to  give effect from  a  suitable  date keeping  in view all the relevant aspects.  Accordingly  the Government had to examine and decide the number of posts  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

be  placed in these scales of pay and a final  decision  was taken in the year 1987 and promotions were to be made as per normal  procedure.  Therefore the Government  issued  Office Memo that the appointments to the extent of number of  posts should  be  made with effect from 1.4.87.   The  Full  Bench having noted that the offices belonging to both wings do the same type of work, concluded that the principle of equal pay and  equal  work  is fully applicable in  the  case  of  the personnel belonging to the                                                       537 Accounts    Wing.    The   Full   Bench   interpreted    the recommendations  of the Pay Commission as to mean that  both the  wings would not only get the revised scales of pay  but they would also get from the same date.  It ultimately  held that there is no apparent reason to give different dates  of implementation to the members of the Accounts Wing and  that the Office Memo dated 12.6.87 is violative of Article 14  of the  Constitution of India and it accordingly confirmed  the view taken by the Bangalore Bench.      It  may not be necessary to refer various decisions  of this  Court on the scope of Article 14 particularly  on  the question of discrimination.  Suffice if we refer  to few  of them  which are cited quite often.  It is well-settled  that equality  before  the law means that among  equals  the  law should be equal and should be equally administered and  that like  should be treated alike.  However, the principle  does not  take  away  from the state  the  power  of  classifying persons  for legitimate purposes.  In Ameerunisa  Begum  and Ors.  v.  Mahboob Begum and Ors., [1953] S.C.R. 404  it  was held thus:           "A  Legislature  which has to  deal  with  diverse          problems  arising  out of an  infinite  variety  of          human  relations must, of necessity have the  power          of   making  special  laws  to  attain   particular          objects;  and for that purpose it must  have  large          powers  of selection or classification  of  persons          and things upon which such laws are to operate."      In  State  of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali  Sarkar,  [1952] S.C.R. 284, it was held thus:           "The classification must not be arbitrary but must          be  rational,that  is to say, it must not  only  be          based  on some qualities or  characteristics  which          are to be found in all the persons grouped together          and  not  in  others who are  left  out  but  those          qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable          relation  to  the object of  the  legislation.   In          order  to  pass the test, two  conditions  must  be          fulfilled, namely,(1) that the classification  must          be  founded on an intelligible  differentia   which          distinguishes those that are grouped together  from          others  and (2) that that differentia must  have  a          rational  relation  to  the  object  sought  to  be          achieved by the act.  The differentia which is  the          basis  of classification and the object of the  Act          are distinct things and what is necessary                                                      538          is that there must be a nexus between them."  In  E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., [1974]  2 S.C.R.348;Mrs.  Maneka  Gandhi v. Union of India  and  Anr., [1978]   1   S.C.C.  248  and  Ramana  Dayaram   Shetty   v. International Airport Authority of India and Others,[1979] 3 S.C.C.  489 this Court has held that Article 14  strikes  at the  arbitrariness in State action and ensures fairness  and equality  of treatment.  In D.S. Nakara and Others v.  Union of India, [1983] 1 S.C.C. 305 the above three decisions  are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

referred to and the ratio laid down is as under:           "Thus the fundamental principle is that Article 14          forbids  class legislation but  permits  reasonable          classification for the purpose of legislation which          classification  must  satisfy  the  twin  tests  of          classification  being  founded on  an  intelligible          differentia  which distinguishes persons or  things          that are grouped together from those that are  left          out  of the group and that differentia must have  a          rational nexus to the object sought to be  achieved          by the statute in question."      In  the instant case the question is whether there  was apparent reason to give different dates of implementation of the recommendations of the Pay Commission in respect of  the members   of   the  Accounts  wing  and  whether   such   an implementation offends Articles 14 and 16 in any manner ? It is  not  in  dispute  that  after  the  report  of  the  Pay Commission the Government considered the matter and accepted the substantial part of the recommendations and gave  effect to the revised scales of pay with  effect from 1.1.86. It is clearly   indicated  in  the  report  that  in   regard   to recommendations in other matters the Government will have to take  specific  decisions  to give effect  to  them  from  a suitable  date  keeping  in view all  the  relevant  aspects including  the  administrative  and  accounting  work.   The second  part of the recommendations relates to treatment  of scales  of  pay  of  Rs.  1400-2000  and  Rs.  2000-3200  as functional   grades  requiring  promotion  as   per   normal procedure and also the number of posts to be placed in these scales  of pay.  These recommendations clearly fall  in  the category  of  other recommendations and the  Pay  Commission itself has indicated that in respect of such recommendations the Government will have to take specific decisions to  give effect from a suitable date.  The Government, therefore, had to  take  the decision in respect of number of posts  to  be placed  in  these  scales of pay.  In  this  context  it  is relevant to                                                      539 refer  to paragraph 4 of the Office Memo dated  12.6.87.  It reads as under:           "4  The question regarding number of posts  to  be          placed  in the higher scales of pay has been  under          the consideration of the Government and it has  now          been  decided that the ratio of number of posts  in          higher  and lower scales in the Organised  Accounts          cadres  as well as in Accounts Wing of the IA &  AD          may be as follows:-           (i)Section Officer (SG) Rs.2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200          80%           (ii)  Section Officer     Rs.  1640-60-2600-EB-75-          2900  20%           (iii)  Senior  Accountant    Rs.  1400-40-1600-50-          2300-EB-60-2600  80%           (iv) Junior Accountant  Rs.1200-30-1560-EB-40-2040          20%           The  designations in different Organised  Accounts          cadres may be different.  In such cases also the pay          structure on these lines may be decided."      The  Government  have to necessarily  frame  rules  for appointment  to these functional grades and  the  Government decided that those who have passed the Graduate  examination and who have completed three years as Section Officer  could be  placed  in the category of the persons entitled  to  the scale  of  pay  of  Rs. 2000-3200  and  the  same  post  was redesignated  as Assistant Accounts Officer which  post  was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

not  there previously. A Circular dated 17.8.87  makes  this aspect clear.  It can be seen that the category of  officers who  have  to be placed in the functional grade  had  to  be decided  by  the Government and accordingly  the  Government took  the  decision in the year 1987.  Therefore it  is  not correct  to  say that these officers who  were  subsequently placed in the functional grade belong to the same group  who were entitled to the respective scales in their own right on 1.1.86  itself.  It must be borne in mind that in  order  to enable  the  identification of posts and fitment  of  proper persons against them the Government had to take a  decision. We  have already noted that the recommendations of  the  Pay Commission  deal with parity of scales of pay of  the  staff in I.A & A.D. and other Accounts organisations after holding that  Audit and Accounts wings functions are  complementary. But  the Pay Commission also pointed out that the  posts  in the scales of pay of Rs. 1400-2600 and Rs. 2000-3200                                                   540 should  be treated as functional grades requiring  promotion as per normal procedure and it was left to the Government to decide  about  the  number of posts to be  placed  in  these scales.  Paragraph 4 of the Office Memo dated 12.6.87  deals with  the  later  part of the  recommendations  and  clearly provides  for  the  identification  of  the  posts  carrying somewhat  higher  responsibilities  and duties  and  for  an exercise  to  be  undertaken  for  fitting  the  senior  and suitable persons against these posts.  The Government  after due  consideration  decided the issue.  The  Circular  dated 17.8.87 clearly shows that some of the posts are  identified as belonging to the higher functional grade and  accordingly issued instructions in conformity with its Office Memo dated 12.6.87  and  accordingly they were given the  benefit  with effect from 1.4.87.      One  of the submissions of the learned counsel for  the respondents  is that the persons allocated to  the  Accounts Wing  who possessed similar qualifications before and  after entry  into the Department, were performing duties  of  same nature,  as  those  allocated to the Audit  Wing,  and  that being  so,  allowing  them lower scales of  pay  than  those allowed  to the Audit Wing was violative of Articles 14  and 16 of the Constitution.  It is true that all of them  before restructuring  belonged  to  one Department.   But  that  by itself cannot, be a ground for attracting Articles 14 and 16 of  the  Constitution.  As already mentioned the  new  posts have to be identified as indicated by the Pay Commission and thereafter  the  implementation  of  the  recommendations in respect  of  higher scales can be done.  The Full  Bench  as well  as  the  Bangalore Bench of  CAT  have  not  correctly interpreted  the  scope of the recommendations.  A  combined reading  of  the Pay Commission Report and the  Office  Memo makes  it  abundantly  clear  that the  second  set  of  the recommendations   could  only  be  given  effect  to   after identifying these posts.  For that purpose the whole  matter is  required to be examined  and the necessary decision  has to  be taken.  In this context it is also necessary to  note that  the  post  of Assistant Accounts Officer  was  not  in existence  earlier which is now brought under  a  functional grade.   For that purpose necessary rules have to be  framed prescribing the eligibility etc.  and the Senior Accountants who have completed three years’ regular service in the grade are  upgraded  to this post.  It is evident  that  all  this could  have been done only in the year 1987 and in the  said organised Accounts office higher scales   of pay were  given with  effect  from  1.4.87 i.e. from the  beginning  of  the financial  year.   We  are  unable to  see  as  to  how  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

respondents can insist that they must be given higher scales with effect from 1.1.86.  This                                                   541 claim  is  obviously based on the ground that  some  of  the Officers belonging to the Audit Wing were given scales  with effect from 1.1.86.  But it must be borne in mind that  they were eligible on that date for the higher scales.   Likewise some of the Officers of the Accounts wing who were  eligible for  higher scales were also given.  But with  reference  to the  second part of the recommendations categories of  posts in  the  functional grades in the Accounts Wing  had  to  be identified  and  created.   The  respondents  who  got  that benefit  of being upgraded now cannot claim that  they  must also be given same scales like others in respect of whom the recommendations  of the Pay Commission were given effect  to with  effect  from  1.1.86.  There is  a  clear  distinction between the two categories.  Therefore, the submission  that giving   two  different  dates  of  implementation  of   the recommendations  in  respect  of  these  two  categories  of personnel  of the Accounts Wing and the Audit  Wing  offends Artics 14 and 16, is liable to be rejected.      The  Full  Bench of CAT further held that  I.A  &  A.D. consists of two wings and both should get the same scales of pay and there is nothing in the report of the Pay Commission to  indicate that these were to be separated and dealt  with separately.  It also held that bifurcation was done only for the  purpose  of specialisation and efficiency  and  not  to create  two  separate organisations.  Relying  on  this  and other similar observations made by the Tribunal, the learned counsel  submitted that since all of them do the  same  work they  should be treated alike and the principle of equal pay for  equal work is very much attracted.  We see no force  in this  submission.  It must be noted that the Pay  Commission Report  clearly  indicated that  after  bifurcation  certain posts in the Accounts wing should be declared to be  brought into the functional grades and thereafter the higher  scales of pay should be paid to the officers fitted in such grades. It may be noted that before bifurcation all of them belonged to one Department and as such all those officers of both the wings  who were entitled to the scales of pay  from  1.1.86, have  been granted the same with effect from that  date  but with  regards  the  posts that were  to  be  identified  and brought  into  the functional grades in future,  the  higher scales of pay cannot be made applicable retrospectively i.e. with effect from 1.1.86. It cannot be said that on that date the  posts identified subsequently were also  in  existence. In  such  a situation the principle of equal pay  for  equal work is not attracted as on 1.1.86.      In  All  India Station Masters ’and  Assistant  Station Masters’ Association                                                   542 &  Others v. General Manager, Central Railways  and  Others, [1960] 2 S.C.R. 311 this Court held as under:                "It is clear that , as between the members of          the same class, the question whether conditions  of          service  are  the same or not may well  arise.   If          they  are  not,  the question of  denial  of  equal          opportunity  will require serious consideration  in          such cases.  Does the concept of equal  opportunity          in   matters  of  employment  apply,  however,   to          variations  in  provisions as  between  members  of          different  classes of employees under the  State  ?          In our opinion, the answer must be in the negative.          The  concept  of  equality can  have  no  existence          except  with reference to matters which are  common

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

        as  between individuals, between whom  equality  is          predicated.  Equality of opportunity in matters  of          employment  can  be  predicated  only  as   between          persons,   who   are  either   seeking   the   same          employment, or have obtained the same employment.          Proceeding further the Court held thus:          "There  is,  in  our opinion  no  escape  from  the          conclusion that equality of opportunity in  matters          of promotion, must mean equality as between members          of  the same class of employees, and  not  equality          between members of separate, independent classes."     The  same principle was later confirmed in the  case  of Kishori  Mohanlal  Pakshi v. Union of India, AIR  1962  S.C. 1139.     The  above  ratio has been followed in  Unikat  Sankunni Menon  v.  The  State of Rajasthan,   [1967]  3  S.C.R.  430 wherein this Court observed as under:          "It  is  entirely wrong to think  that  every  one,          appointed   to the same post, is entitled to  claim          that  he must be paid identical emoluments  as  any          other   person   appointed  to   the   same   post,          disregarding  the  method of  recruitment,  or  the          source   from  which  the  Officer  is  drawn   for          appointment  to  that  post. No  such  equality  is          required  either  by  Art. 14 or  Art.  16  of  the          Constitution."                                                        543     In  State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh, [1963]  Suppl.  2 S.C.R. 169, this question has been considered and it is held that the question of denial of equal opportunity could arise only  as between members of the same class and that  it  was open  to the Government to constitute two distinct  services of  employees  doing the same work but subject  to different conditions  of  service. The Court also concluded  that  the assumption  that equal work must receive equal pay  was  not correct  and  that it was also not correct to  say  that  if there was equality in pay and work there must be equality in conditions of service.     Having given our earnest consideration we are unable  to agree with the view taken by the Full Bench of CAT that  the principle   of  equal  pay  for  equal  work  is   attracted irrespective of the fact that the posts were identified  and upgraded  in the year 1987. There is no dispute  that  after such  upgradation, officers in both the wings who are  doing the equal work are being paid equal pay. But that cannot  be said to be the situation as well on 1.1.86 also. The learned counsel, however, submitted that the recommendations of  the Pay  Commission should be accepted as a whole in respect  of all  the categories of employees. In this context he  relied on two decisions of this Court. In Purshottam Lal and Others v.  Union  of  India  and another, [1973]  1  S.C.C.  651  a question  came  up  whether the report  of  the  second  Pay Commission did not deal with the case of those  petitioners. It was held thus:          "Either  the  Government  has  made  reference   in          respect of all Government employees or it has  not.          But  if it has made a reference in respect  of  all          Government   employees   and   it   accepted    the          recommendations  it  is  bound  to  implement   the          recommendations   in  respect  of  all   Government          employees.  If  it does not  implement  the  report          regarding  some employees only it commits a  breach          of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. That  is          what  the  Government  has done  as  far  as  these          petitions are concerned."

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

   In   P.Parameswaran  and  Ors,  v.  Secretary   to   the Government  of  India, [1987] Suppl. S.C.C. 18  in  a  short judgment   this   Court  observed  that   because   of   the administrative  difficulties the Government cannot deny  the benefit  of  the revised grade and scale  with  effect  from January 1, 1973 as in the case of other person.                                                        544     There  is no dispute that in the instant case the  terms of reference of Pay Commission applied to all the categories of Government servants. But the question is as to from which date  the other category referred to above namely  Assistant Accounts  Officer etc. should get the higher scales of  pay. Identification of these posts and the upgradation cannot  be treated    as   mere   administrative   difficulties.    The implementation of the recommendations of the  Pay Commission according to the terms thereof itself involved this exercise of  creation of posts after identification  which  naturally took some time. Therefore the above decisions relied upon by the  learned counsel are of no help to the respondents.     For  all  the  above reasons we  set  aside  the  orders questioned in all these Civil  Appeals and accordingly allow them.  In the circumstances of the cases, there will  be  no order as to costs. V.P.R.                                        Appeal allowed                                                        545