http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: KARNATAKA LOKOPAYOGI ILAKA TANTRIKA,SAHAYAK NOUKARARA SANGHA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       03/02/1999

BENCH: Sujata V. Manohar, R.C.Lahoti

JUDGMENT:

Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.

     This  is  an appeal from a judgment and order  of  the Karnataka  Administrative Tribunal dated 4.9.1992 in various applications  including  Application No.16 of 1990.  By  the said   judgment  and  order   the  Tribunal  dismissed   the application  of the appellant and upheld the legality of  an order  of the Karnataka Government dated 27.11.1989 by which the  Government rejected the representation of the appellant for  grant  of a pay scale equal to the pay scale of  Senior Work  Inspectors to all the Junior Work Inspectors who  were members  of  the appellant-association.  By that  order  the Government  also directed recovery of excess salary paid  to Junior  Work  Inspectors.   The present appeal is  filed  on behalf  of  Junior  Work  Inspectors  in  the  work  charged establishment   of  the  Public   Works  Department  of  the Karnataka Government.

     Prior to 1.9.1971 in the work charged establishment of the Public Works and Electricity Department of the Karnataka Government  there were several categories of posts available to the supervisory staff.  These posts included the posts of Maistries, Work Inspectors, Karkoons, Road Inspectors, Augur Measurer,  Labour Maistries, Gang Maistries and so on.  By a Government order dated 20.9.1971 the Government reclassified various  posts  in  the work charged  establishment  of  the Public  Works Department with effect from 1.9.1971 into  two categories.   Some  of the posts were clubbed  together  and reclassified  as the post of Senior Work Inspectors.   These posts  were posts which, prior to 1.9.1971, carried the  pay scale  of  Rs.90-3-105-4-145-EB-5-200.  Some of  the  posts, however, had the pay scale from Rs.80-145.  All these posts, after  being  reclassified  as Senior Work  Inspectors  with effect  from  1.9.1971  were  given the  new  pay  scale  of Rs.120-240.  By the same order a number of other posts which carried,  prior to 1.9.1971, the pay scale of Rs.65- 95 were clubbed together and reclassified as Junior Work Inspectors. The  post of Junior Work Inspectors was given the pay  scale of Rs.90- 200 with effect from 1.9.1971.

     Thereafter  representations  were  received  from  the Mangalore  circle of the Public Works Department relating to certain  anomalies which had arisen in respect of the  staff under the Mangalore circle.  It was represented on behalf of the  Mangalore circle employees that originally with  effect

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

from  1.9.1964  the pay scale of Work Inspectors  Grade  II, carried  the  pay scale of Rs.55-2-75-3-90 for old  entrants and the pay scale of Rs.55-1-65-2-75 for new entrants.  When the  pay  was  revised  with effect  from  1.1.1970  as  per Government  order  dated 7.7.1970, a common scale of pay  of Rs.65-1-70-2-95 was sanctioned for both the old entrants and the  new  entrants.  The old entrants represented that as  a result  of  this common scale of pay which was given,  their increments  were  substantially  reduced under  the  revised scales  of pay.  They, therefore, submitted that there was a monetary  loss  to the old entrants in the category of  Work Inspectors Grade II, and there should be a revision of their scales  of  pay  to  get  rid   of  this  anomaly.   It  was recommended  by the Chief Engineer (C & B)Bangalore that the Government  should  sanction  a  revised  scale  of  pay  of Rs.80-2-90-3-120-4-140-5-145  with  effect from 1.1.1970  in respect  of  the old entrants.  Ultimately, by an  order  of 23.4.1980  the Government directed that the Work  Inspectors Grade  II (old entrants) of Mangalore circle be assigned the scale of pay of Rs.120- 240 with effect from 1.9.1971.

     It   seems   that   this   order  of   23.4.1980   was misunderstood  by  some  of   the  Executive  Engineers  and Assistant  Executive Engineers as extending the scale of pay of Rs.120-240 to Junior Work Inspectors also, while in fact, the  Junior  Work  Inspectors were given the  pay  scale  of Rs.90-200.    Some  of  them   made  payments   accordingly. Therefore,  by an order dated 11.4.1989 issued by the  Chief Engineer,  it  was directed that the Junior Work  Inspectors should  be  granted the pay scale of Rs.90-200 and that  the scale  of pay of Rs.120-240 to Junior Work Inspectors should be cancelled and the arrears paid should be recovered.

     Prior  thereto, the various Junior Work Inspectors had filed  applications  before   the  Karnataka  Administrative Tribunal,  Bangalore  in 1986 and 1988 for giving  them  the same  pay scale as that given to the Work Inspectors in  the Mangalore  circle.   All  these   applications  were   heard together  and  by  a  judgment   and  order  dated  29th  of September,  1988 the Tribunal directed the State  Government to  take a decision on the question within a period of three months.   The Government thereafter considered the  question of  granting  to  the Junior Work Inspectors  pay  scale  of Rs.120-240.   It also considered the direction given by  the Karnataka  Administrative Tribunal in its order of 29.9.1988 as  also  the earlier order of the Government in  connection with  Work  Inspectors  (old   entrants)  dated   23.4.1980. Thereafter  the respondents passed the impugned order  dated 27.11.1989  rejecting the proposal to sanction a higher  pay scale  of Rs.120-240 for all Work Inspectors whether  junior or senior with effect from 1.9.1971.

     Immediately  thereafter a number of other applications filed  on  behalf  of  Junior Work Inspectors  of  the  work charged  establishment came up for consideration before  the Karnataka  Administrative  Tribubnal.  The Tribunal  by  its order  dated  21st of December, 1989, in those  applications (B.N.   Thimmaiah  v.  The State of Karnataka & Ors.)  noted that  there  was an earlier litigation on the same  question which  was  disposed  of  by  the  Karnataka  Administrative Tribunal  on 29.9.1988 where the Junior Work Inspectors  had asked for the same scale of pay as given to the old entrants in  the  Mangalore  circle  (Mahadev & Ors.   v.   State  of Karnataka  &  Ors.).   The Tribunal also noted that  in  the application  before  it as also in the previous  application

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

(Mahadev  & Ors.  v.  State of Karnataka & Ors.), the  State had  not filed any counter-affidavits.  In Thimmaiah’s case, however,  the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal examined  in detail  the  various orders relating to reclassification  of various posts in the work charged establishment and division of  these posts into Senior Work Inspectors and Junior  Work Inspectors  by  the order of 20.9.1971.  It also  noted  the difference  in the pay scale between Senior Work  Inspectors and  Junior Work Inspectors.  While the former were  granted the  pay scale of Rs.120-240 the latter were granted the pay scale of Rs.90-200.  After examining, in detail, the various subsequent  orders passed and after noting the circumstances which  led  to a separate order being passed in  respect  of Work  Inspectors (old entrants) in the Mangalore circle, the Tribunal  held that there was no justification for giving to the  Junior Work Inspectors the same scale of pay as  Senior Work  Inspectors.  The Tribunal also held that there was  no violation  of  the principle of ‘equal pay for equal  work’. It  held that the work done by Senior Work Inspectors cannot be  equated  with the work done by Junior  Work  Inspectors. There  was  a qualitative difference in the work of the  two cadres  and  the responsibilities were also different.   It, therefore, dismissed the applications before it.  It is this judgment  which  has  been followed by the Tribunal  in  the impugned judgment which also raises the same question.

     From  the above narration it is clear that the  demand of  the  Junior  Work Inspectors for the same pay  scale  as Senior  Work  Inspectors  arose only after the  order  dated 23.4.1980  by  which, in order to remove  certain  anomalies relating  to  the pay scales given to Work  Inspectors  (old entrants) in the Mangalore circle, the said order was passed giving  Work  Inspectors  (old entrants)  in  the  Mangalore circle  the  pay  scale of Rs.120-240 from  1.9.1971.   This order  was confined only to the old entrants and it did  not apply  to  new  entrants who remained in the  pay  scale  of Rs.90-200.  However, misunderstanding the said order some of the  Executive Engineers gave to Junior Work Inspectors  the pay  scale  of  Rs.120-240  instead  of  Rs.90-200.   It  is surprising  that  for a long period of nine years the  State Government  did  not notice this.  It realised  the  mistake only in the year 1989 when it tried to rectify the situation by  restoring to the Junior Work Inspectors the pay scale of Rs.90-200  and ordering recovery of arrears.  Looking to the long  period of time over which some Junior Work  Inspectors had  received  the higher pay scale, this  naturally  caused resentment.  Even prior thereto, considerable litigation had been  generated  because  of the mistake committed  by  some Executive Engineers in giving to some Junior Work Inspectors the  higher pay scales on the basis of the order  pertaining to the Mangalore circle dated 23.4.1980.

     It is unfortunate that this kind of uncertainty should have  been  generated  about the pay scale to  be  given  to Junior  Work Inspectors when the order of 20.9.1971 is quite clear.   It is also unfortunate that in attempting to remove an  anomaly pertaining to the old entrants in the  Mangalore circle  the  respondents  should   have  allowed   Executive Engineers  to  grant higher pay scales to even other  Junior Work Inspectors in some other circles.  The narrow question, however,  is whether the Junior Work Inspectors do the  same work  as the Senior Work Inspectors or whether there is  any basis  for making a distinction between the two posts.   The Karnataka  Administrative  Tribunal  in   its  order   dated 21.12.1989  in Thimmaiah’s case has held that the work  done

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

by  the  persons holding these two posts cannot be  equated. Once  again  an attempt was made before us to show that  the two  posts  have  at  times  been filled  as  if  they  were interchangeable.   The respondents have filed a statement of objections  before this Court and have categorically  stated that  there is a difference between the two posts and  their work is not interchangeable.  The respondents have also said that  Junior  Work  Inspectors could not  be  compared  with Senior  Work  Inspectors  and  their pay  scales  were  also different.   Even  from  the  original  order  of  20.9.1971 reclassifying  posts,  it is quite clear that certain  posts which  then  carried  a higher scale of  pay,  were  clubbed together and classified as Senior Work Inspectors while some other  posts which then also carried a lower pay scale  were clubbed   together   and  re-designated   as   Junior   Work Inspectors.   Therefore, right from the year 1971 there  has been  a  clear  distinction between the two  posts  and  the scales  of pay attached to the two posts.  The order of  the Administrative  Tribunal  in Thimmaiah’s case was  also  not challenged further and has become final and binding.

     The  respondents  have  also   pointed  out  in  their affidavit that since all these posts are in the work charged establishment  they  shall cease to exist immediately  after the  retirement of the incumbents.  There is no  promotional avenue  in the work charged establishment.  There is also no fresh  recruitment.   It is only in the case  of  absorption that  the persons in the work charged establishment will  be fitted  into  appropriate  posts.    Looking  to  all  these circumstances, we do not see any reason to disagree with the view  taken by the Tribunal in the present case.  The  State Government  may consider the question of recovery of arrears in  the light of the directions given by the Tribunal.   The appeal is accordingly dismissed.  There will, however, be no order as to costs.