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

PETITIONER: TARSEM LAL GAUTAM & ANOTHER

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE BANK OF PATIALA AND OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/10/1988

BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH BENCH: MISRA RANGNATH RANGNATHAN, S.

CITATION:  JT 1988 (1)   346        1988 SCALE  (2)924

ACT:     Constitution  of India, I950: Articles I4, I6  and  32-- ’Equal   pay  for  equal   work’--Doctrine   of--Qualitative differences   in  regard  to  degrees  of  reliability   and responsibility--Applicability  of  Categorisation  of  posts under various new categories--Regulations 6 and 7 State Bank of    PATIALA    (Officers)   Service    Regulations    1979 Constitutional validity of. %     State  Bank of Patiala (Officers)  Service  Regulations, 1979- Schedule I Regulation 7--Constitutional validity  of-- Fitment  of existing officers of the Bank in new grades  and scales  of pay--Whether violates doctrine of ’equal pay  for equal work’.

HEADNOTE:     The petitioners were working as Grade A officers on  the appointed  date,  i.e.,  1.10.1979 when the  State  Bank  of Patiala  (Officers’) Service Regulation, 1979 pertaining  to the  placement and fitment of existing officers in  the  new grades  and  scales of pay became effective.  By  virtue  of Regulation 7 read with Schedule 1, the pre-existing Grade  A officers   were  placed  in  two  different   grades--Senior Management  Grade and Middle Management Grade--Depending  on their  date  of promotion to Grade A being before  or  after 31.12.1975.     The petitioners who were placed in the Middle Management Grade  have challenged in their writ petition to this  Court the  validity  of Regulation 7 read with Schedule I  of  the Regulations  on the grounds that (i) the Regulations  merely brought  about a revision of pay scales; (ii) to divide  the officers of the same cadre and doing the same nature of work into  two  groups for the purposes of mere revision  of  pay scales purely on the basis of the fortuitous circumstance of the date of their promotion to the existing Grade A would be arbitrary and violative of Article 14; and (iii) the  number of posts in the revised senior grade were far more than  the officers  arbitrarily cut-off and initially placed  in  that grade.     P.  Savita v. Union of India, [1985] Suppl I S.C.R.  101 and  Randhir  Singh  v. Union of India, [1982]  3  SCR  298, relied upon.                                                   PG NO 479

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

                                                 PG NO 480     On  behalf  of the Bank it was contended that:  (i)  the Regulations did not contemplate revision simpliciter of pay- scales  of  the  existing  cadres  of  officers;  (ii)   new categories of posts and new scales of pay not  corresponding to the pre-existing categories of posts and scales had  been created  and, therefore, new criteria had to be evolved  and applied  for  the  placement and  fitment  of  the  existing officers  into the new  categories of posts and  scales  of pay;  (iii) all the officers of any particular  pre-existing category could not, en-bloc, be grafted on a particular  new category  or  scale of pay; and (iv) there  was  a  rational differentia  in  placing  certain  officers  in  the  Senior Management Posts as the cut-off date was fixed having regard to the number of posts vacant in that grade on the appointed date.               Dismissing the petition, it was,     HELD:  (l)  The Regulations did not bring about  a  mere revision of pay. [490B-C]     (2) This was not a case to which the principle of ’equal pay for equal work’ could straight away be applied. [490E]     (3) The qualitative differences in regard to degrees  of reliability  and  responsibility could not be put  aside  as irrelevant. There could not be any Thumb-Rule to decide  the invalidity  of the provisions which recognised and  provided for  differentiation  on  the basis  of  higher  experience, reliability and responsibility. [490E-F]     Randhir  Singh v. Union of India, [1982] 3 SCR 298;  All Customs & Central Excise Stenographers (recognised) v. Union of    India,[1988]   2   JT   519   and   State   of    U.P. v.J.P.Chaurasia,C.A.No 56 of 1987 dated 27.9.1988,  referred to.     P.  Savita  v. Union of India [1985] 1  SUPP.  SCR  101; distinguished.     (4) The principle of classification amongst the existing Grade  A  officers  for  purposes  of  fitment  in  the  new dispensation  brought  about by  the  statutory  regulations could not be said to be unreasonable and arbitrary requiring to be struck down as violative of Article 14. [492C-D]     (5)  If  more  number of posts  were  categorised  under Senior  Management  Grade  Scale  IV‘  than  the  number  of existing-officers  placed into the higher scale pursuant  to                                                   PG NO 481 Regulation  7  read with Schedule 1, those extra  number  of posts  in  the higher scale would have to  be  filled-up  by promotion  under  Regulation  17 and  not  by  a  continuing process of placement and fitment. [492F]

JUDGMENT:     ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.  13369 of 1984     (Under  Article 32 of the Constitution of India).     M. K. Ramamurthi and Uma Datta for the Petitioners.     Shanti Bhushan and R.P. Kapur for the Respondents.     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     VENKATACHALIAH,  J. This Writ Petition under Article  32 of  the  Constitution of India raises the  question  of  the validity of Regulation 7 read with Schedule I of State  Bank of   Patiala   (Officers’)   Service   Regulations,1979    ( Regulations  ’ for short) pertaining to the place- ment  and fitment  of  existing officers in the service of  the  State Bank  of Patiala in the new grades and scales of pay.     2.  In the year 1959, all "State Banks"--State  Bank  of

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

Patiala was one of them--were made subsidiaries of the State Bank of India under (Subsidiary Banks) Act 1959. Section  63 of this Act provided:     "63. Power of the State Bank to make regulations:     (I) The State Bank may with the approval of the  Reserve Bank, make in respect of a subsidiary bank regulations,  not inconsistent with this Act and the rules made thereunder, to provide for all matters for which provision is, necessary or expedient for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of this Act.     (2)   In  particular  and  without  prejudice   to   the generality  of  the foregoing power,  such  regulations  may provide for--     (a)     to     (I) . . Omitted as unnecessary                                                   PG NO 482     (m) the conditions and limitations, subject to which the subsidiary  bank  may appoint officers, advisers  and  other employees  and  fix their remuneration and other  terms  and conditions of service;     (n)     to     (y) . . Omitted as not necessary     Pursuant to and in exercise of the powers of Section  63 State Bank of Patiala (Officers’) Service Regulations,  1979 were   promulgated.  On the pattern of  the  recommendations made in regard to the Rationalisation and Standardisation of pay-scales  of nationalised banks made by what is  known  as the  "Pillai  Committee", the pay scales in  State  Bank  of Patiala  were also revised and restructured introducing  new grades and scales. The Regulations were to take effect  from 1st  October,  1979.  Regulation  7  read  with   Schedule-I provided the placement and fitment of the existing  officers of  the  bank in the new grades and scales Of  pay.  In  the present  case,  we  are concerned  with  the  placement  and fitment  of  existing officers "Grade A" to which  both  the petitioners  Sri  Tarsem  Lal Gautam and Sri  C.  V.   Madan belong.     3.  The "Regulations" were promulgated. in  exercise  of the powers conferred by the State Bank of India  (Subsidiary Banks)  Act.1959, by the Central Board of Directors  of  the State  Bank  of  India in consultation  with  the  Board  of Directors  of  State Bank of Patiala and with  the  previous approval  of  the  Reserve Bank of  India.  Regulation  4(1) introduced  the following new grades and scales of  pay  for the officers in the Bank:     "4(1)  There  shall  be the following  tour  grades  for officers  with the scales of pay specified against  each  of the grades: (A) Top Executive     Scale VII ---  Rs.3000-125-3500     Grade             Scale VI  ---  Rs.2750-125-3250 (B) Senior Management Scale V   ---  Rs.2500-100-2700     Grade             Scale IV  ---  Rs.2000-100-2400 (C) Middle Management Scale III ---  Rs.1800-75-     Grade                               2250                       Scale II  ---  Rs. 1200-70-                                      1550-75-2000                                                   PG NO 483     (D) Junior Management Scale I  -- RS.700-40-900-         Grade                         50-1 100-EB-                                       1200-60- 1800     The  petitioners  were  "existing officers"  as  on  the appointed  date  i.e.  on 1.10.1979  in  Grade  A.  Existing Officers  in  Grade A were placed in the  corresponding  new

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

grades  and  scales  of pay. The  officers  in  the  earlier existing  Grade A in the pay-scale of RS.1200-60-50-75-  950 were placed in two different cadres and scale of pay,  viz., "Senior  Management  Grade Scale IV" with the  pay-scale  of RS.2000-100-2400,  and "Middle Management Grade  Scale  III" with  the pay-scale of Rs. 1800-75-2250, on the  sole  basis whether the officers had been promoted to the existing Grade A  on or prior to 31.12.1975 or there- after. The effect  of Regulation  7  read with Schedule I was  that  all  existing Grade  A officers who had been promoted to that grade  prior to  31.12.1975  were  placed  in  the  new  scale   ("Senior Management  Grade  Scale IV":  RS.2000-100-2400)  and  those existing Grade A Officers who are promoted as such after 31. 12.1975  were placed in the new scale of "Middle  Management Grade Scale Ill: RS.1800-75-2250".     Petitioners challenged this classification of  existing- officers  belonging to same grade and scale of pay into  two different  categories for fitment in the revised  pay-scales solely on the basis of date of their promotion as  arbitrary and violative of Article l4 of the Constitution of India. Regulation 7 reads:     "Subject  to  the provisions of Regulation  6,  existing officers  serving in the grades and scales of pay  mentioned in  column  I  of the table given in  schedule  I  to  these regulations shall be placed as on the appointed date in  the grades and scale specified there against in column ’ of  the said schedule.     Provided that any difficulties or anomalies arising  out of  the above placement shall be referred to a committee  of such persons as the Board or Executive Committee may appoint and  the decision of that committee in this regard shall  be final."     Relevant entries in Schedule I are:                                                   PG NO 484 Schedule I [See regulation 7]     Placement  of  existing Officers in the new  grades  and scales in the State Bank of Patiala Grade and scale              Grade and scale immediately before the       in which placed appointed date 1.  Omitted as unnecessary 2.  -do- 3.  Officers ’A’ Grade       Senior Management     promoted as such on or   Grade Scale IV     December, 1975 Scale     Rs.2000- 100-2400     Rs.1200-60- 1500-     75- 1950 4.  Other Officers ’A’       Middle Management     Grade Scale Rs.1200-60-  Grade Scale III     1500-75-1950             Rs.1800-75-2250 5.  Omitted as not necessary 6.  -do-     Sri Tarsem Lal Gautam was promoted as Grade A Officer on 1.12.1978.  Sri. C.V. Madan was promoted as Grade A  Officer on  1.12.1976.  Both  of them  having  been  promoted  after 31.12.1975  in  the  matter  of  their  placement  they,  by circular dated 23.7.1980 of the First respondent, were  held to fall outside entry 3 of Schedule I and within entry 4  of that  Schedule and, accordingly, placed them in the  ’Middle Management  Grade Scale III" and not in the  higher  revised scale,"Senior Management Grade Scale IV".     It  is to be mentioned here that second  petitioner  Sri C.V.  Madan was removed from service on 30.12.1977. But  the prayers  in the petition, to the extent they bear  upon  the correctness of his placement in so far as the benefits  that

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

he may be entitled to on that basis up to 30.12.1977,  shall survive.     The  main grievance of the petitioners is that  the  new Regulations  merely brought about a revision  of  pay-scales and that the differentiation amongst the existing  "Grade-A" Officers  who  were doing the same nature of  work  and  who                                                   PG NO 485 would continue even after the placement in the new cadre  to do  the same work into two grades with different  scales  of pay based purely on the fortuitous circumstance of the  date of  their promotion to the existing "Grade-A" is  aroitrary. The  effect of this is illustrated by the  possibility  that two officers doing the same duty both in the existing grades and in the revised grades are placed in two different scales of pay by reason alone that one of them had been promoted to "Grade-A"  on  31st December, 1975, would go to  the  Higher Grade  and scale of pay in the revised scale and  the  other would  be placed in the lower scale by reason alone  of  the fact  that  he was promoted to the existing Grade  the  next day.     In the memorandum of writ petition, petitioners  contend that  existing officers belonging to Grade-A are split  into two  groups  with reference to their date  of  promotion  to Grade-A  and this differentium is an irrational one.  It  is averred:     ".....       Thus,  the  same  class  of  officers  i.e. Officers  "A"  Grade,  were bifurcated  into  two  different categories  with  reference to wholly  irrational,  illegal, inequitable,  unreasonable and arbitrary criteria  like  the fortuitous event of promotion to "A" Grade on or before 31st December, 1975 ....."     "The  number of posts in SMGS IV were far more than  the officers  were  arbitrarily cut-off and intially  placed  in SMGS IV at that time ......"     In  counter  affidavit  dated  15.3.1985  filed  by  the General Manager of the first-respondent-bank it is stated:     "......  It  is  denied that  ’A’  grade  officers  were bifurcated  into two different categories with reference  to irrational, illegal, inequitable, unreasonable and arbitrary criteria like the fortuitous event of promotion as  alleged. This  date  was fixed having regard to the number  of  posts vacant  with the respondent No. I in the  Senior  Management Grade  Scale IV and the number of such posts came to 32  and it  was further found that 26 officers had been promoted  to then officer Grade ’A’ on or before December 31, 1975 ...... The  seniority  of  the officers  for  placement  in  Senior Management  Grade  Scale IV was strictly maintained  and  no officer  junior  to  the petitioner was  placed  in   Senior                                                   PG NO 486 Management  Grade  Scale  IV. Thus,  there  was  a  rational differentia in placing certain officers in Senior Management Grade  Scale IV and there was rational relationship of  such placement  to the objects sought to be  achieved,  procuring the  services  of senior most experienced officers  for  the senior management Grade Scale IV posts......"     Setting out the antecedents and the background for  this restructuring of the cadres and pay-scales it is averred:     "It  is  submitted that in the year  1973,  a  Committee known as Pillai Committee was appointed by the Government of India  for  bringing uniformity and standardisation  in  the conditions   of   service  of  the   officers   of   various nationalised  Banks.  The  recommendations  of  the   Pillai Comrnittee  were later on sought to be applied to the  State Bank  of  India  and  its  associate  banks  with   suitablc modifications having regard to their special features ...."

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

   I  say  that  the new structure  of  grades  and  scales created  by  State  Bank  of  Patiala  [Officers‘]   Service Regulations,  1979,  does  not lay down  grades  and  scales corresponding to the earlier grades and scales, but it is an entirely   new   structure   created   on   the   basls   of recommendations of the Pillai Committee suitably adopted for the  subsidiary banks of the State Bank of India  with  some modifications  and there have been bifurcations, which  have resulted  in  intermediate grades and scales.  As  such,  it cannot be said that the new grades and scales correspond  to gold  grades  and scales and they cannot be construed  in  a manner that a person who was in a particular grade or  scale earlier,  would automatically get entitled to be  placed  in some  specified  corresponding grade and scale  without  any reference  to the date of his promotion in an earlier  grade or scale. It is very likely that whenever reorganization  of cadres  takes place in service, some grades may have  to  be split up into more than one grade or class of posts,or  more than  one grade or class of posts may have to be  merged  to form a single cadre and as long as the inter-se seniority of the officers is not disturbed, it would be quite permissible to  do so in law. In the present case also, the  grades  and scales  were reorganised, but the inter-se seniority of  the vis-a-vis  the petitioner was not disturbed and  no  officer                                                   PG NO 487 junior  to the petitioner got higher grade or scale  in  the reorganised structure ......"     We  have  heard  Shri M.K.  Ramamurthy,  learned  Senior Counsel   in   support   of   the   petitioners   and   Shri Shantibhushan,   learned  Senior  Counsel  for   the   first respondent-bank.     Though   in   addition   to   the   challenge   to   the unconstitutionality of the classification of the existing A- Grade Officers into two classes for purposes of fitment into the revised scales of pay, petitioner, Sri Tarsem Lal Goutam has  alleged  mala fies on the part of senior  officers.  It would  appear,  that he had appeared  before  the  Selection Committee for purposes of promotion from ’Middle  Management Grade  Scale III’ to the ’Senior Management Grade Scale  IV’ and  was allegedly, over-looked for promotion owing to  what according  to him was a hostile bias against him. There  are lengthy averments in the memorandum of petition in regard to these grievances and equally lengthy reputations thereof  in the counter-affidavit.     At the hearing, Sri Ramamurthy, did not rest the case on mala  fides  and  bias but confined  the  arguments  to  the question   of   constitutionality   of   the   criteria   of classification  in  Entry 3 of Schedule  I.  Sri  Ramamurthy contended that the exercise contemplated by the Regulations. in so far us pay-scales were concerned, was a mere  revision of  the  scales of pay and that when in the year  1983,  the placements  and fitments were undertaken with  retrospective effect  from  1.10.1979,the two  sets  of  existing-officers Grade  A, who were earlier doing the same kind of  work  and who even thereafter continued to do same kind of work,  were bifurcated  into two classes on the mere fortuitous line  of demarcation  of the respective dates of their  promotion  to the Existing Grade-A post. Sri Ramamurthy submitted that the line of demarcation was irrational in fact and impermissible in  law.  Those  who had put in longer number  of  years  of service,  learned  counsel submitted, would, of  course,  be entitled  to and get higher pay in the same  pay-scale;  but dividing the Officers of the same cadre into two groups  for purposes  of  the benefit of revision of pay merely  on  the basis  of  the  date of their promotion  would  be  palpably

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

arbitrary and violative of Article 14.     Shri  Ramamurthy contended even on the avowed  basis  of justification  of  the choice of the cut-off  date  line  of 31.12.1975,  namely, that it was intended to bring  about  a uniformity   in  all  the  subsidiary-banks   would,   apart altogether  from its legality, by itself negate and  detract                                                   PG NO 488 from the feebly suggested stand of the First-Respondent that the cut-off date was intended to secure the requisite number of senior and more experienced officers to man certain posts which  were  to be categorised  against  "Senior  Management Grade-Scale  IV".  Sri Ramamurthy submitted that  the  words ’promoted as such on or before 31.12.1975’ occurring in item 3 of the Schedule I of the Regulations, which has the effect of bringing about this hostile discrimination, would require to  be struck down. With those words so deleted from item  3 of  Schedule I, it was urged, the provision would be  purged of the vice of unconstitutionality.     In  support  of his contention that  mere  seniority  of service  cannot  support a classification  for  purposes  of higher pay-scales, Sri Ramamurthy placed particular reliance on the pronouncement of this Court in P. Savita v. Union  of India, [1985] 1 Supp. SCR 101. In that case, Senior Draughts men who were holding the posts as on 31.12. 1972, were alone held  entitled to a higher pay-scale and those who had  been promoted  after  31.12.1972 were denied the benefit  of  the revision  of  the  pay-scale. The High  Court  did  not  see substance  in  the challenge of the Senior  Draughtsmen  who were denied the benefit to the Rule; but this Court  relying on the principle of "Equal pay for Equal work" as recognised and effectuated in Randhir Singh v. Union of lndia, [1982] 3 SCR  298  held  that  the classification  to  be  bad.  Shri Ramamurthy invited our particular attention to the following observations  of  this court made while  striking  down  the basis of the classification.     ".... The explanation is that this division is based  on seniority. This cannot be accepted as sufficient to meet the requirements of law. By seniority, a Senior Draughtsman will get   higher   pay  with  the  increments  that   he   earns proportionate to the number of years he is in service.  Here that is not the case. It is the classification of the Senior Draughts-men  into two groups, that is responsible  for  the higher  pay .......In view of the total absence of any  plea on the side of the respondents, that the Senior Draughts-men who  are  placed in the advantageous group. do  not  perform work  and  duties more onerous or different  from  the  work performed  by the appellants group, it will have to be  held that this grouping violates Article 14 of the Constitution .     "For the purposes of the case on hand, it is sufficient                                                   PG NO 489 to note that the classification between two groups of Senior Draughtsmen  is  without any basis. They do the  same  work, they  perform the same duties, and as such the ratio of  the decision  in Randhir Singh’s case applies to this case  with greater force ....." Shri Ramamurthy submitted that this is a full answer to  the First-Respondent’s  contention  and stated that  the  proper authority  to  plead  any  tenable  justification  for   the purported  classification  in item 3 of Schedule  I  of  the Regulations  was the State Bank of India, which  has  framed and  promulgated  the regulations and said that  though  the State  Bank  of India was impleaded as a party, it  did  not enter   appearance  and  seek  to  justify   the   principle justifying the classification.     Shri   Shanti  Bhushan,  however,  submitted  that   the

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

petitioners’  approach  to  the matter on  the  strength  of Savitha’s case some what misconceived as the former case was one of Revision of pay scales simpliciter while the  present Regulations do not contemplate a mere revision of pay-scales of the existing cadres of officers but an exercise involving Rationalisation,  Standardisation and Re-structuring of  the whole Administrative set-up of the management-cadres of  the Subsidiary-Banks   of   the  State  Bank  of   India.   Shri Shantibhushan submitted  that where, as here, new categories of  posts  and new Scales of Pay, not corresponding  to  the pre-existing  categories  of posts and scales  are  created, criteria  will  have  to  be evolved  and  applied  for  the subsumption  and fitment of the existing officers  into  the new  categories of posts and scales of pay. It might  happen that  all  the  Officers  of  any  particular   pre-existing category,  it  was urged, cannot. en-bloc, be grafted  on  a particular  new  category  or scale of pay and  a  fair  and reasonable   criteria  would,  therefore,  require   to   be formulated which, while protecting the inter-se seniority of the  existing-officers would also make for their  absorbtion and  distribution  in the new- cadres and scales of  pay  on some  reasonable basis. Shri Shanti bhushan  submitted  that the  Regulations  4, 6 and 7 read with Schedule  I  envisage such  an exercise and that, indeed, similar  exercises  have been  undertaken and implemented both in the State  Bank  of India   and  in  all  the  other  subsidiary   banks.   Shri Shantibhushan   submitted   that  any  acceptance   of   the contentiones  urged  for by the petitioners would  have  the effect  of introducing new and unforeseen complications  and unsettlements   in  respect  of a large  number  of  similar cases.     Referring to Savita’s case, Shri Shantibhushan submitted that  that was a case of a mere unreasonable withholding  of the  benefits  of  pay-revision to some of the  members  who                                                   PG NO 490 were part of a well-defined class. That apart, that was case where Senior Draughtsmen were divided into two pay-scales of Rs.330-560  and  Rs.425-700 respectively and  the  important factor was that under the same pay-revision the lesser grade of  "Draughtsmen"  had the benefit of revised pay  scale  of Rs.330-560.  The unreasonableness and injustice of the  case were writ large and set it apart.     On  a  careful  consideration  of  the  matter,  we  are pursuaded  to the view that the ’Regulations’ did not  bring about  a  mere  revision  of pay and  that  the  analogy  of precedents dealing with revision of pay would not be  wholly determinative  and  that  1he  contentions  urged  by   Shri Shantibhushan  are not without force. Regulation 6  required the categorisation of posts under the various new categories of posts. At the hearing, Shri Shantibhushan brought to  our notice that about 32 posts had been categorised against  the ’Senior  Management Grade IV" by the  statutorily  envisaged committee constituted for the purpose. It has been urged for the  First-Respondent-Bank that the  seniority  and  greater experience  of  the existing-Officers in Grade-A  have  been taken into account by the Regulations in the placement   and fitment  of the existing officers in the "Senior  Management Grade Scale IV".     This,  we  think,  is  not  an  instance  to  which  the principle of equal pay for equal work could straight away be applied.  Indeed, the qualitative differences of  regard  to degrees  of  reliability and responsibility  cannot  be  put aside  as  irrelevant.  There cannot be  any  Thumb-Rule  to decide the invalidity of the provisions which recognise  and provide   for  differentiation  on  the  basis   of   higher

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

experience, reliability and responsibility.     Indeed,  the  observations of this Court All  Customs  & Central  Excise  Stenographers (recognised)  and  Others  v. Union of India, [1988] 2 JT 519 are apposite|     "There   may  be  qualitative  difference   as   regards reliability  and responsibility. Functions may be  same  but the responsibilities make a difference. One cannot deny that often the difference is a matter of degree and that there is an  element of value judgment by those who are charged  with the  administration  in fixing the scales of pay  and  other conditions  of  service. So long as such value  judgment  is made  bona  fide,  reasonably on  an  intelligible  criteria which   has   a   rational  nexus   with   the   object   of                                                   PG NO 491 differentiation,  such  differentiation will not  amount  to discrimination .."      "The same amount of physical work may entail  different quality  of work, some more sensitive, some  requiring  more tact,  some  less--it  varies from  nature  and  culture  of employment.  The  problem about equal pay cannot  always  be translated into a mathematical formula. If it has a rational nexus with the object to be sought for, as reiterated before a  certain  amount of value judgment of  the  administrative authorities who are charged with fixing the pay scale has to be  left with them and it cannot be interfered with  by  the Court unless it is demonstrated that either it is irrational or  based on no basis or arrived mala fide either in law  or in fact." In Randhir Singh’s case itself it was recognised thus:      " ..... The higher qualifications for the higher grade, which  may be either academic qualifications. or  experience based   on   length  of  service  reasonably   sustain   the classification   of  the  officers  into  two  grades   with different  scales  of pay. The principle of  equal  pay  for equal work would be an abstract doctrine not attracting Art. 14 if sought to be applied to them. "      In  a  recent pronouncement, this Court dealt   with  a case,  the facts of which, in comparison with those  of  the present  one,  would   render  the  latter  as  a   fortiori position. In State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia and Ors, (Civil Appeal  No. 56  of 1987 dated 27.9.1988 this  Court  noticed the question thus:      " The question is whether it is permissible to have two pay-scales in the same cadre for persons having same  duties and having same responsibility ?      Reversing  the decision of the High Court which in  the facts  of  the  case answered in  the  negative  this  Court observed:      ’’The   second   question  formulated   needs   careful examination.  The question is not particular to the  present case.  It  is pertinent to all such cases. It  is  a  matter affecting  the  civil services in general. The  question  is whether there  could be two scales of pay in the same  cadre                                                   PG NO 492 of  persons performing the same or similar work  or  duties. All  Bench  Secretaries in the High Court of  Allahabad  are undisputedly   having  same  duties.  But  they  have   been bifurcated into two grades with different pay scales . . ."      ".... In service matters, merit or experience could  be the proper basis for classification to promote efficiency in administration. He or she learns also by experience as  much as  by other means. It cannot be denied that the quality  of work  performed by persons of longer experience is  superior than the work of new comers .... "      We  think that the principle of classification  amongst

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

the existing officers Grade A for purposes of fitment in the new dispensation brought about by the statutory  regulations cannot be said to be unreasonable and arbitrary requiring to be struck down as  violative of Article 14.      Some  arguments  were advanced on the question  if  the number of pots categorised against "Senior Management Grade- Scale  IV" was higher than those filled-up by  the  initial- fitment under Regulation 7 read with Schedule I, the  excess number of posts would automatically go, by way of placement, to the existing officers in Grade A without the  requirement of "promotion". The categorisation of posts under Regulation 6  is  an  exercise  which is not in  any  way  fettered  by Regulation 7. If more number of posts are categorised  under ’Senior  Management  Grade  Scale IV’  than  the  number  of existing-officers  placed into the higher scale pursuant  to Regulation  7 read with Schedule I, the proper  construction to  be placed on the scheme of the Regulation is that  these extra number of posts in the higher scale would have  to  be filled-up  by  promotion under Regulation 17 and  not  by  a continuing process of placement and fitment.      There  is thus, no merit in the writ petition which  is accordingly dismissed. But in the circumstances, we make  no order as to costs. R.S.S.                          Petition dismissed.