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

PETITIONER: GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: M. PANDURANG & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/11/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (7)  11        JT 1995 (9)   140  1995 SCALE  (6)714

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      Respondent No,1,  namely, M.  Pandurang, and respondent No.14, namely,  V. Parvathalu,  are reported  to be dead. In spite of  the fact  that time  was given  to the  State  for impleading  the  L.Rs.,  the  needful  has  not  been  done. Therefore, the  appeal  as  against  those  two  respondents stands abated. It is accordingly dismissed.      As regards  the other respondents, the facts are fairly clear that  they were  working as  Junior  Analysts  in  the Institute of  Preventive Medicine,  Public Health  Labs  and Food (Health)  Administration which  was under  Medical  and Health Department.  They claimed  that since  their  juniors were drawing  more pay  than them  in the  cadre  of  junior Analysts, they  invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for payment  of   equal  pay   under  Article   39(A)   of   the Constitution. The  Tribunal  in  the  impugned  order  dated November 15, 1995 has allowed the writ petition and directed implementation of the order passed in similar circumstances. Feeling aggrieved by that order, this appeal has been filed.      It is  stated in  the petition  that since  one of  the juniors was  granted Selection  Grade, he was drawing higher scale of  pay. Another  junior, in view of his longer length of service  in the  feeder cadre, is drawing higher scale of pay. Therefore,  the respondents  are not  entitled  to  the parity  of  the  scale  of  pay  with  those  persons.  Shri Nageswara Rao,  the learned  counsel  for  the  respondents, contended  that   the  Government   in  several  G.Os.  have implemented the  directions issued by this Court and also by the High  Court. Having  implemented those  directions,  the same relief cannot be denied to the respondents.      We find  no force  in the contention. G.Os. were issued by the Government implementing the interim directions issued by this  Court or  by the  High Court.  However, it would be subject to  the result in the main pending matters either in

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

the High Court or in this Court. It is common knowledge that when Article  371D(5) was  declared ultra  vires, number  of writ  petitions   were  filed  in  the  High  Court  and  it entertained  them   and  issued   interim   directions.   In implementation of  those interim  directions, the Government issued orders  but they  were made  subject to the result in the writ  petitions. Ultimately,  it is now settled law that the  Tribunal  has  jurisdiction.  No  doubt,  in  a  recent judgment, a  Full Bench  of the High Court has held that the Tribunal is  not on par with High Court and the exclusion of the High  Court’s jurisdiction  was unconstitutional  and it has also  jurisdiction to  decide the  service  matter.  The controversy is  now referred  to a  larger Bench of 7 Judges and the  same is  pending in this Court. In view of the flux in the  jurisdiction of  the Tribunal,  several matters were entertained by the High Court. However, they will be subject to the  final decision of this Court by the larger Bench. In view of  the interim  directions granted  by the Courts, the Government has  implemented them.  But those  orders will be subject to the result in the pending matters.      The controversy  raised in  this case is covered by the decision of  this Court  in  State  of  A.P.&  Ors.  vs.  G. Sreenuasa Rao & Ors. [(1989) 2 SCC 290]. Therein, this Court held that if some juniors, by the circumstance of the length of service,  were drawing higher scale of pay, parity cannot be claimed  by the seniors on that basis. Therefore, Article 39(A) has no application to such a situation. The same ratio applies to the facts in this case. As stated earlier, one of the juniors  had been  granted selection grade scale of pay, by necessary consequence, he would draw higher scale of pay, though he happened to be junior to others. Another candidate was drawing  higher scale of pay due to length of service in the feeder  cadre. It  would be  grant of  special pay under Rule 22(a)(i)  of the  Fundamental Rules  for the purpose of that candidate  in the  higher promotional  post. That would not be  a ground  to grant  parity of  scale of  pay to  the seniors working in the cadre.      Under these  circumstances, the directions given by the Tribunal are illegal. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The orders of the Tribunal are set aside. No costs.