Delhi High Court
Giri Raj Sharma vs The Director, Consortium For ... on 12 November, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 5842/1998
% 12th November, 2013
GIRI RAJ SHARMA ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. V.Shekhar, Sr. Adv. With Mr.
Vishal Sharma and Mr. S.Rana,
Advocates
VERSUS
THE DIRECTOR, CONSORTIUM FOR EDUCATIONAL
COMMUNICATION & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Ms. Mamta Tiwari, Adv. for Mr.
Amitesh Kumar, Adv. for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. On 4.10.2013, the following order was passed:-
"1. Petitioner is a Technical Assistant with respondent No. 1 and
claims parity with an Engineering Assistant working with
Doordarshan.
2. Though a Grievance Redressal Committee states that
qualifications are identical for the two posts, however, what are the
qualifications of a Technical Assistant for being appointed as such
with respondent No. 1 and what are the qualifications required for
being appointed as an Engineering Assistant with Doordarshan are not
found in the record of this case.
WPC 5842/1998 Page 1 of 6
3. Of course, I may state that even after the same qualification and
parity of work is there, however, it is not necessary that every
institution or every instrumentality of a State must necessarily have
identical salary structure for its employees as compared to employees
of the central government because an independent organization has its
limitations with respect to the finances which are sanctioned to it.
Different departments of the same Government when prescribe same
qualifications etc. for the different posts, doctrine of „equal pay for
equal work‟ will come in, however, prima facie there cannot be a
comparison between a Government Department and an
independent/autonomous organization of the Government.
4. Counsel for the petitioner seeks time to file necessary
documents to show at least equality of qualifications for appointment
of a Technical Assistant of respondent No. 1 and Engineering
Assistant of Doordarshan.
5. Learned counsel will also have to show judgments that there
can be parity in pay between the posts of a Government Department
and an equivalent post of an autonomous organization.
6. List on 21st October, 2013."
2. In view of the aforesaid order, a specific query was put to the
counsel for the petitioner yesterday as also today as to whether there is any
judgment of the Supreme Court or of any other Court which shows that
doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟ will apply to persons who are posted
in different organizations. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner had to
concede that there is no judgment, much less of the Supreme Court, which
says that doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟ will come into effect with
respect to different posts in different organizations. In my opinion, doctrine
WPC 5842/1998 Page 2 of 6
of „equal pay for equal work‟ by its very nature cannot come into play for
similar posts in different organizations because each organization has its
own peculiarities with respect to its financial position, and therefore, even all
autonomous organizations do not have identical salary structures. Also there
is no law that salary structures of independent organizations have to be same
as those posts which are found in government departments inasmuch as
employees of autonomous organizations and PSUs cannot necessarily as of
legal right demand parity for monetary emoluments and salary structures
with government servants.
3. In view of the above, the claim of the petitioner for being
granted equal pay for equal work to an Engineering Assistant working with
Doordarshan on the ground that petitioner‟s post of Technical Assistant with
the respondent no.1/CEC has identical qualifications and work/duties cannot
be accepted because doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟ cannot be
invoked to grant of parity of pay-scales between two posts of two separate
organizations. I may also state that on the record of this Court there are no
rules which are filed of the respondent no.1 and of Doordarshan to show that
what are the qualifications for the posts of Technical Assistant of the
respondent no.1 and an Engineering Assistant of Doordharshan.
WPC 5842/1998 Page 3 of 6
4. Counsel for the petitioner placed great stress and reliance upon
the Grievance Redressal Committee Meeting Minutes dated 29.4.1999
which states that there is parity between the posts of a Technical Assistant
with respondent no.1 and of an Engineering Assistant working with
Doordarshan, and which argument is sought to be buttressed by legal
opinion given on 1.7.1979 by an Advocate that the Expert Committee‟s
stand is correct and doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟ can be
legitimately applied. However, In my opinion the arguments urged on
behalf of the petitioner by placing reliance upon Grievance Redressal
Committee Meeting Minutes and legal opinion of an Advocate cannot help
the petitioner because this Court has to act in accordance with law and not
any Minutes of Meeting of Grievance Redressal Committee or an opinion of
an Advocate. As already stated above, there is no law for application of the
doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟ in different organizations including
those organizations which may be instrumentalities of State. In fact, even
between two instrumentalities of State or two autonomous organizations or
two public sector undertakings even if the posts are identical, legally and
necessarily it must be held that both the posts must have the same pay-
packages.
WPC 5842/1998 Page 4 of 6
5. In fact the Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of Indian
Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workmen, Indian Drugs &
Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007) 1 SCC 408 has held that Courts substitute
themselves for the administrative authorities in deciding what should be the
terms of employment, the salary, how promotion should be granted etc of
the employees. The relevant paras of this judgment read as under:-
"16. We are afraid that the Labour Court and the High Court have
passed their orders on the basis of emotions and sympathies, but cases
in court have to be decided on legal principles and not on the basis of
emotions and sympathies.
18. In State of M.P. v. Yogesh Chandra Dubey this Court held that
a post must be created and/or sanctioned before filling it up. If an
employee is not appointed against a sanctioned post he is not entitled
to any scale of pay. In our opinion, the ratio of the aforesaid decision
squarely applies to the facts of the present case also.
37. Creation and abolition of posts and regularisation are purely
executive functions vide P.U. Joshi v. Accountant General. Hence,
the court cannot create a post where none exists. Also, we cannot
issue any direction to absorb the respondents or continue them in
service, or pay them salaries of regular employees, as these are purely
executive functions. This Court cannot arrogate to itself the powers of
the executive or legislature. There is broad separation of powers
under the Constitution, and the judiciary, to, must know its limits.
WPC 5842/1998 Page 5 of 6
40. The Courts must, therefore, exercise judicial restraint, and not
encroach into the executive or legislative domain. Orders for creation
of posts, appointment or these posts, regularisation, fixing pay scales,
continuation in service, promotions, etc. are all executive or
legislative functions, and it is highly improver for Judges to step into
this sphere, except in a rare and exceptional cases. The relevant case-
law and philosophy of judicial restraint has been laid down by the
Madras High Court in great detail in Rama Muthuramalingam v. Dy.
Supdt. Of Police and we fully agree with the views expressed
therein."
6. In view of the above, there is no legal basis or legal cause of
action to claim application of the doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟
much less in the facts of the present case. It was always open to respondent
no.1 to grant a particular higher salary structure to its Technical Assistants,
if it so wanted, but, once respondent no.1 itself has not granted a particular
higher salary structure, this Court in view of the ratio in the case of
I.D.P.L's case (Supra) cannot order payment of a particular salary or
particular pay package to an employee.
7. In view of the above there is no merit in the petition, and the
same therefore dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
NOVEMBER 12, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
