http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: SRI DEB KUMAR MUKHERJEE & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/03/1995

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1995 AIR 1889            1995 SCC  Supl.  (2) 640  JT 1995 (3)   333        1995 SCALE  (2)430

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT: KULDIP SINGH, J.: 1.The  Calcutta  High Court, in the impugned  judgment,  has struck down the categorisation of inspectors in the  Housing Department  as Grade I and Grade II, on the ground  that  it violated  the principle of ’equal pay for equal work’.   The High  Court  further  directed that the  Inspectors  in  the Housing  Department be given the pay-scale which  was  being drawn  by the Inspectors in the Animal Husbandry  Department of the Government of west Bengal.  This appeal by the  State of West Bengal is against thee judgment of the High Court. 2.We  may briefly state the necessary facts, The  Government of  West Bengal by order dated June 4 , 1965 bifurcated  the cadre  of  Inspectors in the Housing Department  in  to  two grades.  The said order is reproduced here under:               "I  am  directed to say that the  question  of               improvement  in the prospects of promotion  of               the  Inspector employed under 24 parganas,  in               connection  with  implementation  of   Housing               Schemes   had  bean  under  consideration   of               Government   for   some   time   past    After               considering  the question hi all its  aspects,               the   Governor   has   pleased   to   sanction               formation,  with  effect  from  10.8.1964,  of               cadre  of these Inspectors under  the  Housing               Department with the following two grades.               Inspector   Grade  I  -Rs.   175-7-245-8-325/-               Inspector Grade II Rs. 150-5-250/-               2.    Of  the  total number of posts  in  this               Cadre  of Inspectors 20% were  converted  into               Grade I posts.  As there are 9(nine) posts  in               the  Cadre, 2 posts belong to Grade I and  the               others to Grade H. The two posts of inspectors               on Grade I should be filled up by promotion of               Grade  II  Inspectors according to  the  usual               rules  governing promotion of candidates  from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

             lower to higher Grade." 3.   According  to  the Government, the  Inspectors  in  the Housing  Department prior to bifurcation, were equated  with the Clerks.  The bifurcation was done with a view to  remove stagnation  and provide a channel of promotion in  the  same line.  As a result of the report of die First pay Commission in  the year 1971, the pay-scale of RS.300-600 was given  to Inspectors  Grade I and the pay-scale of Rs. 230-425 to  the Inspectors Grade H. It is no doubt correct that the Chairman of the, First Pay Commission recommended a unified cadre  of the  Inspectors, but the Government accepted the  report  of the majority of the members and maintained the two Grades in the  cadre of Inspectors.  The Second Pay Commission in  the year 1981 examined the question thoroughly and on the  basis of the material placed before it recommended the continuance of  the two Grades in the cadre of Inspectors.   The  Second Pay   Commission  recommended  Rs.  380-910  for  Grade,   I Inspectors  and  Rs. 340-75O for Grade 11  Inspectors.   The Third Pay Commission in the year 1990 further maintained the status  quo regarding the Inspectors.  Keeping in  view  the recommendations of various Pay Commissions constituted  from time  to time, the State Government came to  the  conclusion that  the two Grades in the cadre, of Inspectors were to  be maintained. 4.   It has been further averred by the State Government dud the  Pay  Commissions recommended different  pay-scales  for Inspectors  in  different departments.  Thee  Pay  Scale  of Inspectors  in  the Food and Civil Supplies  Department  was Rs.175-325 which 335 was revised in the year 1981 to that of Rs.350-600. The pay- scale  of Inspectors in the Co-operative Department was  Rs. 200-400,  which was revised to that Rs.425-1050.   Similarly the  Inspectors  in  the Bureau the  Applied  Economics  and statistic  were  in the pay-scale of  Rs.300-600  which  was revised to Rs. 380-910. 5.   The main contention of the respondents before the  High Court  was  that the maintenance of the two  Grades  in  the cadre of Inspectors was violative of the principle of ’equal pay  for equal work’ as the Inspectors Grade I and Grade  II were   performing  similar  duties  and  their  posts   were interchangeable.  The other contention ruled before the High (loud Ass that the Inspectors in the Housing Department  are entitled  to the pay-scale of Rs. 425-1050 which  was  being drawn  by the Inspectors in the Animal Husbandry  Department on  the ground that the Inspectors in both  the  departments were   performing   almost  identical  duties.    The   same contentions have been raised before us. 6.   The  Government  Order dated June 4,  1965,  reproduced above, makes it clear that the higher grade in the cadre  of Inspectors  was created with a view to provide a channel  of promotion  and to remove stagnation in the said cadre.  200% of  the  posts in the cadre were upgraded and  given  higher pay-scale.  The higher grade posts were to be filled by, way of  promotion from amongst the Inspectors holding the  lower grade.   We see no infirmity in up-grading 20% of the  posts in  the cadre to be filled-up from amongst the,  senior  and meritorious  members of the cadre.  The duties performed  by the  Inspectors in two grades may be the same, but no  fault can  be found with the classification.  It is settled  by  a string  of authorities of this Court that classification  in the  cadre  on  the ground of selection based  on  merit  is permissible.  It is well-known in service jurisprudence that selection grade and super time-scale based on seniority cum- merit  are  permissible.  The High Court  fell  into  patent

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

error  in setting aside the classification on die ground  of discrimination. 7.   The High Court was equally unjustified in accepting die second contention of the respondents.  The State  Government has  categorically stated that the pay-scales of  Inspectors in  different departments of the State arc not uniform.   We have noted some of the instances in the earlier part of  the judgment.  The High Court has held that since the Inspectors in  the Animal Husbandry Department were given the  payscale of Rs425-1050, the Inspectors in the, Housing Department are also  entitled to the same.  There is patent fallacy in  the reasoning.    There  is  nothing  common  in   the   Housing Department  and  the Animal Husbandry Department.   The  two departments  stand  apart.   Neither  the  judgment  of  the learned  single Judge nor that the Division Bench  indicates any  factual  material to show that the duties  of  the  In- spectors in the two departments arc similar.  The  reasoning and  the findings of the High Court, on the face of it,  are untenable and cannot be sustained. 8.   As mentioned above, the three Pay Commission during the last  three decades examined the revision of  pay-scales  of various Cadres in the State of West Bengal.  On the basis of the  material  placed  before the  Pay-Commissions  the  two grades  in respect of Inspectors in the  Housing  Department were maintained.  Similarly the 336 Pay-Commissions   recommended   different   pay-scales   for Inspectors in different Departments of the State Government. The High Court, in its writ jurisdiction, was not  justified in  reaching  the findings different than that of  the  Pay- Commissions. 9. We therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the  learned single Judge and of the Division Bench  of  the High  Court  and  dismiss the writ  petition  filed  by  the respondents before the High Court.  We, however, direct that while  implementing this judgment, the appellants shall  not recover any amount of money already paid to the  respondents in  terms of the impugned judgments of the High  Court.   No costs. 337