Mishri Lal And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 24087 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:175782
 
Court No. - 37
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11676 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Mishri Lal And 5 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Shankar Tripathi,Pankaj Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 10.08.2018 passed by respondent no.1, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-6 to the petition, with a further prayer for a mandamus commanding the respondents to consider and allow the claim of equal pay in terms of judgment and order dated 24.10.2016 passed by learned State Public Service Tribunal in Claim Petition No.1175 of 2016 which was decided in terms of judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1989 (4) SCC 187 (Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association Vs. Union of India) within stipulated period.

3. The case set forth by learned counsel for the petitioners is that all of the petitioners were appointed as Blue Printer under the respondents. Their appointment is governed by the U.P. Town Country Planning Subordinate Technical Service Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 1994'). In the year 2016, the petitioners staked their claim for equal pay for equal work by claiming pay parity with Electrical Mechanics working under the respondents by filing Claim Petition No.1176 of 2016 In Re : Arun Kumar Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. and others, before the learned Uttar Pradesh Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal'). Incidentally, their claim had been rejected by the respondents vide order dated 06.03.2016. The learned Tribunal vide judgement and order dated 24.10.2016 as corrected vide order dated 09.12.2016, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-2 to the petition, set aside the rejection order dated 06.03.2016 in the case of petitioners and directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for equal pay for equal work in terms of the judgement of the Apex Court in the case of Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association Vs. Union of India 1989 (4) (SCC) 187.

4. Respondents vide order impugned dated 10.08.2018, copy of which is Annexure-6 to the petition have rejected the claim of the petitioners and being aggrieved the instant petition has been filed.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that in terms of the Rules 1994, the qualification prescribed for direct recruitment for the post of Electrical Mechanic is a two years Diploma in Electrical Trade from the I.T.I. or equivalent qualification with two years experience as Electrical Mechanic or Electrical Mistri while with respect to the petitioners i.e. Blue Printers, the qualification prescribed is two years Diploma from the I.T.I. or equivalent qualification or five years experience as Blue Printer from the Nagar and Gram Niyojan Department of U.P. It is contended that once the basic qualification is a two years Diploma from the I.T.I. or an equivalent qualification then the mere fact that an experience of two years viz-a-viz the experience of five years, so far as the Electrical Mechanic and Blue Printers is concerned, cannot be a ground for the purpose of discrimination in the pay-scales. 

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that the Rules 1994 themselves indicate the pay-scales of the Electrical Mechanics (Page 65 of the writ petition) as 975-1660 vis-a-vis the pay-scale of Blue Printer which is 950-1500. It is contended that once the qualification prescribed for direct recruitment is one and the same for both the Electric Mechanic as well as the Blue Printers consequently there cannot be any difference in the pay-scales of the Electric Mechanic and the Blue Printers and as such the Blue Printers i.e. the petitioners would be entitled for the pay-scale of Rs. 975-1660 as revised from time to time.

7. It is also contended that the respondents have patently erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioners by means of the impugned order dated 10.08.2018 on two grounds namely : (a) that the post of Electrical Mechanic requires an experience of two years vis-a-vis the experience of five years for the post of Blue Printer and (b) that the work and duty of Electrical Mechanic and Blue Printer is diverse or is not the same.

8. It is orally contended that the work of both the Electrical Mechanic as well as the Blue Printer is one and the same and as such the respondents have patently erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioners for pay parity with that of Electrical Mechanic.

9. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit argues that the recruitment of both the Electrical Mechanics and Blue Printers is governed by the Rules 1994. It is contended that the Rules 1994 have categorically set forth the conditions for recruitment which are required for direct recruits which have already been indicated above. He contends that in case a person is not having an ITI Diploma in the relevant field the same is to be made good on the basis of equivalent qualification read with two years experience so far as it pertains to the post of Electrical Mechanics and five years experience so far as it pertains to the post of Blue Printers. 

10. It is contended that the difference in experience itself, as prescribed under the Rules 1994, is a reasonable criteria for pay differences and consequently, the petitioners cannot be granted the benefit of pay-scale. It is also contended that the work of a Blue Printer is totally diverse and different to that of Electrical Mechanic as has been set forth in the order impugned dated 10.08.2018 to which the petitioners, while filing the instant petition, have not denied or have asserted anywhere in the petition that the work of Electrical Mechanic vis-a-vis the work of the Blue Printers is one and the same.  

11. It is thus contended that once both, the rules for direct recruitment as well as the work of both the posts i.e. the Electrical Mechanic and the Blue Printers are different consequently, there cannot be any occasion for grant of any pay parity to the petitioners. This fact has been considered by the competent authority while passing the order impugned dated 10.08.2018 and as such the said order does not call for any interference.

12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

13. From the perusal of the records as well as arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that the instant petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are working as Blue Printers claiming pay parity with the Electrical Mechanics. Admittedly, the recruitment for both the posts is governed by the Rules 1994.

14. The relevant rules for direct recruitment for both the posts i.e. Electrical Mechanic and Blue Printers provide for a two years Diploma in the relevant field yet so far as the experience is concerned, two years experience is required for an Electrical Mechanic while five years experience is required for the Blue Printers. Admittedly, the pay-scales for both the posts are also different which is Rs.975-1660 so far as the Electrical Mechanic is concerned vis-a-vis the pay scale of Rs.950-1500 for the post of Blue Printer. The petitioners finding themselves doing the same work as is being done by the Electrical Mechanic initially staked their claim for being granted pay parity with that of Electrical Mechanic which was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 06.03.2016. The petitioners, being aggrieved, filed Claim Petition No.1175 of 2016 (Arun Kumar Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal vide judgement and order dated 24.10.2016 as corrected vide order dated 09.12.2016 quashed the order dated 06.03.2016 and required the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for grant of pay parity in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgement of Employees Welfare Association (supra).

15. The respondents, vide order dated 10.08.2018, rejected the claim of the petitioners for pay parity on two grounds namely (a) that the qualification prescribed for direct recruitment is different inasmuch as the experience of two years vis-a-vis five years is required for the post of Electrical Mechanic and Blue Printers respectively and (b) the work and duties of the posts of Electrical Mechanic vis-a-vis Blue Printers are different.

16. The instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated 10.08.2018.

17. As already indicated above, the petitioners are seeking their pay equivalent to that of Electrical Mechanic on the principle of equal pay for equal work.

18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgement passed in Civil Appeal No.8329 of 2011 dated 22.02.2023 In Re : Union of India Vs. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association and another has considered the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and has held as under:

"14. In view of the afore-stated legal position, it clearly emerges that though the doctrine "equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of Law, the equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the Executive and not of the Judiciary. The Courts therefore should 5 not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions which undertake rigorous exercise for job evaluation after taking into consideration several factors like the nature of work, the duties, accountability and responsibilities attached to the posts, the extent of powers conferred on the persons holding a particular post, the promotional avenues, the Statutory rules governing the conditions of service, the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs etc. It may be true that the nature of work involved in two posts may sometimes appear to be more or less similar, however, if the classification of posts and determination of pay scale have reasonable nexus with the objective or purpose sought to be achieved, namely, the efficiency in the administration, the Pay Commissions would be justified in recommending and the State would be justified in prescribing different pay scales for the seemingly similar posts. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues or frustration due to longer duration of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. It is also a well-accepted position that there could be more than one grade in a particular service. The classification of posts and the determination of pay structure, thus falls within the exclusive domain of the Executive, and the Courts or Tribunals cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service."

19. From the perusal of the aforesaid judgement, it emerges that the principle or doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of Law. However, the equation of posts and determination of pay-scales is the primary function of the Executive and not of the Judiciary. The Courts therefore should not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions which undertake rigorous exercise for job evaluation after considering various factors like the nature of work, the duties, accountability and responsibilities attached to the posts, the extent of powers conferred on the persons holding a particular post, the promotional avenues etc.

20. Being armed with the aforesaid principle of law and the parameters on which the Courts can enter into the realm of directing and enforcing the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" this Court now has to consider as to whether the petitioners have made out a case for grant of pay parity with that of Electrical Mechanics.

21. At the very out set the Court is constrained to observe that in the entire petition filed by the petitioners, nowhere have the petitioners controverted the specific stand of the respondents, as emerges from the order impugned dated 10.08.2018, of the work and experience of the Blue Printers being different with that of the Electrical Mechanics. Thus, in the absence of the work and duties of the Electrical Mechanics being different to that of being controverted by the petitioners, the natural corollary is that the work of Electrical Mechanics is in fact different with that of Blue Printers and consequently, keeping in view, the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers (supra) the respondents have not committed any error in prescribing different pay-scales for the two posts.

22. So far as the qualification of the two posts is concerned, no doubt the Rules 1994 provide for a two years Diploma from the I.T.I. in the relevant field with regard to the Electrical Mechanic and Blue Printers but at the same time, in case the two years Diploma in the relevant field is not possessed by the person concerned, the equivalent qualification along with two years experience,so far as it pertains to the Electrical Mechanic vis-a-vis five years experience so far as it pertains to Blue Printers has been prescribed. Thus, it is apparent that the recruitment rules themselves differentiate the qualifications which are prescribed for the post of Electrical Mechanic vis-a-vis the Blue Printers.

23. Thus, keeping in view the difference in the recruitment rules as well as no denial having been made by the petitioners pertaining to the work and duties of the Blue Printers being different with that of the Electrical Mechanic, as the respondents had taken in the impugned order dated 10.08.2018, as such this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the order impugned dated 10.08.2018.

24. Keeping in view of the aforesaid discussions, no case for interference is made out in the order impugned dated 10.08.2018. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 6.9.2023

Jitendra