STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. VS. G. SREENIVASA RAO AND ORS.1989 SCR (1)1000

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS. VS. G. SREENIVASA RAO AND ORS.

1989 SCR (1)1000

FACTS

A bunch of appeals having similar issues were clubbed together. In some of these appeals, employees who were promoted on a later date were being paid a higher salary than those who had been promoted earlier, i.e. juniors were being paid more than seniors in the same cadre. In some other appeals- it was contended junior was receiving higher salary than senior.

The lower courts held that this was violative of the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work.”

CONTENTIONS

Appellant

It was argued that as long as there's a rational basis for higher pay to a junior in the same cadre, seniors shouldn't have grievances and the abstract principle of equal pay is not applicable.

Respondent

It was asserted that granting higher pay to a junior in the same cadre, despite performing the same work and bearing the same responsibilities, is inherently discriminatory and violates the equal pay principle.

Rule 27 of Fundamental Rules: Highlights Rule 27, which allows for pre-mature increments, and argues that authorities should use this rule to rectify the anomaly of juniors earning more than seniors in the same cadre. By exercising their power under Rule 27, they can grant pre-mature increments to such senior employees. Then authorities can use their discretion under Rule 27 to adjust the pay of seniors accordingly.

RELEVANT PROVISIONS

Rule 27 of the Fundamental Rules

Permits the competent authority to grant pre-mature increment to a Government servant on a time-scale of pay. (allows for awarding salary increase before the usual date it is due- typically based on exceptional performance, special circumstances, or as a reward for meritorious service.)

Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India:

The Articles guarantee equality before the law and equal protection of the laws (Article 14)

Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment (Article 16)

Article 39(d)

  1. d) that there is equal pay for equal work for both men and women

ISSUE

Whether payment of less salary to a senior than his junior in the same position having the same pay scale is violative of the Principle of "equal pay for equal work" enshrined in Article 39(d) read with Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.

JUDGEMENT

  • It was acknowledged that pay-fixation for juniors was done under Fundamental Rules with justifiable reasons, in conformity with the rules' validity.
  • Omnibus conclusion by the High Court/Tribunal was criticized, that any instance of a junior receiving higher pay violates the 'equal pay for equal work' doctrine, without considering the specific reasons and scope of the Fundamental Rules.
  • Doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' cannot be put in a straight-jacket. It was affirmed that 'equal pay for equal work' is linked to the equality clauses in Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution, but the doctrine cannot be interpreted in a rigid manner under Article 14.
  • Reasonable classification based on intelligible criteria, having nexus with the object sought to be achieved, is permissible and does not violate the equality principle.
  • Equal pay for equal work” doesn’t mean that all members of a same position must receive the same pay irrespective of their seniority, source of recruitment, educational qualifications and various other incidents of service.
  • Various scenarios were listed where juniors may receive higher pay, such as pay-fixation under valid rules, pay protection for different recruits, efficiency incentives, etc., which are based on intelligible criteria with a rational nexus to the intended objectives.
  • The argument regarding Rule 27 of the Fundamental Rules was not raised before the High Court/Tribunal. No justification or material exists to direct authorities to act under Rule 27. The respondents may if so were advised to approach the appropriate authorities for any such relief.
  • HENCE, the appeals were accepted, and the judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court and Tribunal were overturned.
  • The writ petitions/applications of the respondents before the High Court/Tribunal were dismissed.

WRIT PETITIONS DISMISSED

 

CASES REFERRED BY THE COURT

Federation of All India Customs & Central Excise Stenographers (Recognised) and Ors. v. The Union of India and Ors.:

  • Equal pay is a fundamental right but depends on the nature of work, not just volume.
  • Administrators can use value judgments for pay scales if they are reasonable and based on relevant criteria.

State of U.P. and Ors. v. Shri J.P. Chaurasia and Ors.:

  • Equal pay isn't mechanically applied; it must align with Article 14 and allow reasonable classification.
  • Classification Based on Merit or Experience: Supports classification in service matters based on merit or experience for efficiency in administration. Recognizes higher pay scales to prevent stagnation and frustration due to lack of promotional avenues, stating that such differentiation isn't discriminatory but rather promotes the interest of the service itself.