Page No.# 1/23 vs The State Of Assam
2025 Latest Caselaw 7768 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/23 vs The State Of Assam on 14 October, 2025

                                                                Page No.# 1/23

GAHC010005312018




                                                           2025:GAU-AS:13683

                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                        Case No. : WP(C)/189/2018

         AJOY CHOUDHURY
         S/O LATE PARAMANANDA CHOUDHURY,
         R/O VILLAGE OLD BONGAIGAON (BHATIPARA),
         UNDER PO BONGAIGAON,
         DISTRICT BONGAIGAON, ASSAM,
         PIN- 783380,
         PRESENTLY WORKING AS DISTRICT PROJECT ENGINEER,
         SSA, DISTRICT BONGAIGAON,

         2: SRI NOMAL CH. GOGOI
          S/O LATE BAGENDRA GOGOI

         R/O LAKHI NAGAR
         BYE LANE 2

         UNDER P.O. CR BUILDING
         MILAN NAGAR

         DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH
         ASSAM

         PIN- 786003

         PRESENTLY WORKING AS DISTRICT PROJECT ENGINEER

         SSA
         DISTRICT DIBRUGARH


         3: SRI RAFIQUL HOQUE
          S/O LATE MOKSED ALI

         R/O VILLAGE AND P.O. CHAGAL CHARA
                                                  Page No.# 2/23

UNDER P.S. DHUBRI
DISTRICT DHUBRI
ASSAM

PIN- 783324

PRESENTLY WORKING AS DISTRICT PROJECT ENGINEER

SSA
DISTRICT DHUBRI


4: SRI PORITOSH ROY

S/O LATE PARESH ROY

R/O VILLAGE SANTIPARA
WARD NO. 14

UNDER P.O. KHUMATI

DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM

PIN 787031

PRESENTLY WORKING AS DISTRICT PROJECT ENGINEER

SSA
DISTRICT LAKHIMPUR


5: SRI DEVAJIT KALITA
 S/O SRI GIRISH KALITA

R/O VILLAGE KAMARMATI GAON

UNDER P.O. MOUT GAON

DISTRICT JORHAT
ASSAM

PIN 785101

PRESENTLY WORKING AS DISTRICT PROJECT ENGINEER

SSA
DISTRICT JORHAT
                                                  Page No.# 3/23


6: SRI DHRUBA JYOTI THAKUR

S/O LATE BIREN THAKUR

R/O VILLAGE AND P.O. MAJULI BONGAON

DISTRICT MAJULI
ASSAM

PIN 785110

PRESENTLY WORKING AS DISTRICT PROJECT ENGINEER

SSA
DISTRICT MAJULI


7: SRI LACHIT CHOUDHURY
 S/O PRAFULLA CHOUDHURY

R/O VILLAGE MIRZA (NARAYANPUR)

UNDER P.O. MIRZA
P.S. PALASBARI

DISTRICT KAMRUP (M) ASSAM

PIN 781125

PRESENTLY WORKING AS DISTRICT PROJECT ENGINEER

SSA
DISTRICT KAMRUP (RURAL)


8: SRI BIJIT GOGOI
 S/O- SRI TOSHESWAR GOGOI

R/O DHAMESWAR BORDOLOI PATH

PEOLI NAGAR
WARD NO. 13

P.O. NAMTIYAL PATHAR

UNDER P.S. SIVASAGAR
ASSAM
                                                  Page No.# 4/23


PIN- 785640

PRESENTLY WORKING AS DISTRICT PROJECT ENGINEER

SSA
DISTRICT GOLAGHAT


9: SRI JOYGNESWAR BORA
 S/O LATE GHANAKANTA BORA

R/O VILLAGE BHAGANIA GAON

UNDER P.O. NAMCHUNGI
P.S. TITABAR

DISTRICT JORHAT
ASSAM

PIN 785616

PRESENTLY WORKING AS DISTRICT PROJECT ENGINEER

SSA
DISTRICT TINSUKIA


10: ABDUL MANNAN
 S/O SAHED ALI MUNSHI

R/O VILLAGE TENGNAMARI
WARD NO. 04

TOWN ABHAYAPURI

UNDER P.O. AND P.S. ABHAYAPURI

DISTRICT BONGAIGAON
ASSAM

PIN 783384

PRESENTLY WORKING AS DISTRICT PROJECT ENGINEER

SSA
DISTRICT GOALPARA
                                                  Page No.# 5/23


11: SRI MILAN SAIKIA

S/O SRI NAREN SAIKIA

R/O VILLAGE KOTHARA

UNDER P.O. JAMTOLA

DISTRICT KAMRUP
ASSAM

PIN 781354

PRESENTLY WORKING AS DISTRICT PROJECT ENGINEER

SSA
DISTRICT BARPETA


12: SRI NAGEN BAGLARY
 S/O LATE MOHENDRA BAGLURY

R/O VILLAGE UTTAR LUTUMARY

UNDER P.O. LANGHIN TINIALI
P.S. DOKMOKA

DISTRICT KARBI ANGLONG
ASSAM

PIN 782441
PRESENTLY WORKING AS DISTRICT PROJECT ENGINEER

SSA
DISTRICT KARBI ANLONG


13: MUSA HAQUE ALI

S/O LATE BAHAU ALI

R/O VILLAGE BAMUNBARI

UNDER P.O. KALITAKUCHI
P.S. HAJO

DISTRICT KAMRUP (R)
                                                   Page No.# 6/23

ASSAM

PIN 781102

PRESENTLY WORKING AS DISTRICT PROJECT ENGINEER

SSA
DISTRICT DARRAN

VERSUS

THE STATE OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPARTMENT,
DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006,

2:THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
AXOM SARBA SIKSHA ABHIYAN MISSION
ASSAM


3:THE MISSION DIRECTOR
AXOM SARBA SIKSHA ABHIYAN MISSION
 KAHILIPARA
 GUWAHATI- 781019
ASSAM


4:THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
AXOM SARBA SIKSHA ABHIYAN MISSION
ASSAM

5:THE CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER
AXOM SARBA SIKSHA ABHIYAN MISSION
 KAHILIPARA
 GUWAHATI
ASSAM


6:THE DISTRICT MISSION CO-COORDINATORS

SSA
BONGAIGAON

7:THE DISTRICT MISSION CO-COORDINATORS

SSA
DIBRUGARH
                                           Page No.# 7/23


8:THE DISTRICT MISSION CO-COORDINATORS

SSA
DHUBRI

9:THE DISTRICT MISSION CO-COORDINATORS

SSA
LAKHIMPUR

10:THE DISTRICT MISSION CO-COORDINATORS

SSA
JORHAT

11:THE DISTRICT MISSION CO-COORDINATORS

SSA
MAJULI

12:THE DISTRICT MISSION CO-COORDINATORS

SSA
KAMRUP

13:THE DISTRICT MISSION CO-COORDINATORS

SSA
GOLAGHAT

14:THE DISTRICT MISSION CO-COORDINATORS

SSA
TINSUKIA

15:THE DISTRICT MISSION CO-COORDINATORS

SSA
GOALPARA

16:THE DISTRICT MISSION CO-COORDINATORS

SSA
BARPETA

17:THE DISTRICT MISSION CO-COORDINATORS
                                                                        Page No.# 8/23

              SSA
              KARBI ANGLONG

          18:THE DISTRICT MISSION CO-COORDINATORS

              SSA
              DARRAN

     Advocate for the petitioners    : Dr. R. Sarmah

     Advocate for the respondents     : Mr. P.N. Sarma, SC, Ele Edu;

Mr. B. Choudhury, SC, SSA.

     Date of hearing                : 04.09.2025


     Date of judgment               : 14.10.2025



                                    BEFORE
                       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN

                           JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

Heard Dr. R. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.N. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the respondent No. 1, being the authority in the Elementary Education Department and Mr. B. Choudhury, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 18, being the authorities in the SSA.

2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the notification dated 14.12.2017, issued by the respondent No. 3, insofar as the same is pertinent to the infringement of the fundamental as well as constitutional rights of the petitioners, as the said respondent has created two separate categories of the same post and same Page No.# 9/23

cadre without having any justified reason, depriving the petitioners of their legitimate rights and dues, despite knowing it well that such illegal and unauthorized acts on their part are violative of fundamental and other legal rights of the petitioners and are also violative of Article 39(d) of Constitution of India and the provisions of the Service Regulations & Financial Regulations, 2003 of Axom Sarba Siksha Abhijan Mission, Assam; and also for setting aside and quashing the resolution (decision), if any, which was purportedly adopted by the respondent No. 2 (as reflected in the impugned notification dated 14.12.2017); and also to issue direction to the respondent authorities for carrying out necessary amendment/correction in the so-called ROP, 2017.

3. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are briefly stated as under:

"The thirteen petitioners herein are engaged in Axom Sarba Siksha

Abhiyan Mission, Assam, under Department of Elementary Education, Government of Assam, in the post of District Project Engineers in thirteen different districts, on the basis of selection done as per advertisement (Annexure-A) issued by the Mission Director, Axom Sarba Siksha Abhiyan Mission, Kahilipara, Guwahati in conformity with the relevant provisions laid down in the Service Regulations & Financial Regulations, 2003 of Assam Sarba Siksha Abhijan Mission, Assam (Annexure- B).

The petitioners have been working in the department as District Project Engineers enjoying their regular pay and other benefits with due increments from time to time. However, the Mission Director, SSA, vide its notification dated 14.12.2017 (Annexure-C) has resorted to discriminate against the petitioners by way of creating two separate categories among the same set of District Project Engineers by dividing the same into two Page No.# 10/23

separate categories with two separate pay bands, while the very nature and volume of the works as well as duties and responsibilities of both the categories have remained the same.

It is stated that the petitioners have been blatantly discriminated by the respondent authorities, more particularly by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, by issuing the said impugned notification, whereby they have sought to create an unreasonable classification/ distinction among the same set of employees who are entrusted with the same nature and volume of duties, responsibilities and obligations and that too in the same official capacity/designation, in gross violation of the Constitution of India and laws, rules, regulations framed thereunder, and on such count, the action of the respondent authorities have violated Article 14, 21, 39 (d) of the Constitution of India and also violated Service Regulations & Financial Regulations, 2003 of Assam Sarba Siksha Abhijan Mission, Assam (Annexure- B), "(Service Regulation 2003," for short).

Being aggrieved by impugned notification dated 14.12.2017, the petitioners had filed one representation dated 19.12.2017, to the respondent No. 3, but the same failed to evoke any response.

Therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present petition."

4. The respondent Nos. 2 to 18 have filed their affidavit-in-opposition, wherein they have taken a stand that in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause 17(b)(IV) of the Memorandum of Association of Axom Sarba Siksha Abhiyan Mission, the Executive Committee of SSA abolished the range of remuneration in case of engagement of District Project Engineer on contractual Page No.# 11/23

basis as per provision of the A.S.S.A.M. Service Regulations, 2003 and bifurcated the cadre of District Project Engineer into two separate categories on the basis of requisite qualification; and that the incumbents having B.E. (Civil) degree are made equivalent to the Assistant Engineers serving in the PWD, Government of Assam, and on the other hand, those incumbents having qualification below the B.E. (Civil) degree i.e. diploma in Civil Engineering are made equivalent to the Junior Engineer, Senior Grade of PWD, Government of Assam; and this was done with a view to rationalize the posts so as to commensurate with the two separate scales of pay prevailing in the PWD, Government of Assam. It is also stated that this step has been taken in furtherance of the spirit of equality as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and not to discriminate the petitioners and single them out for unequal treatment in preference to their colleagues similarly situated.

4.1. It is also stated that in order to maintain parity in pay/salary structure of the employees under SSA, Assam, the same was modified and the system of ROP based fixed pay were brought in force; and further, every post of SSA were identified to be equivalent to that of a post of State Government, on the basis of qualification and nature of responsibilities, as indicated; and that on due approval of Executive Committee, SSA, Assam, the restriction of salary was brought in force, vide notification dated 03.07.2012, issued under memo No. SSA/Esstt/MISC/33/2003 /2152-A, by the respondent No. 3, and under the above notification, on the basis of minimum requisite qualification, the posts of District Project Engineer are categorized as:

i) The District Project Engineers having minimum requisite qualification of B.E. (Civil) Degree are recommended to enjoy benefit of pay at par with Assistant Engineers of PWD, Government of Assam.

Page No.# 12/23

ii) The District Project Engineers having qualification below B.E. (Civil) degree i.e. Diploma in Civil Engineering are recommended to enjoy the benefit of pay at par with the Junior Engineers, Senior Grade, PWD, Government of Assam.

4.2. It is also stated that the impugned notification dated 14.12.2017, drawing classification among the District Project Engineers is not a sudden act of the SSA authorities, in fact the classification was done way back in 2012 and the petitioners were receiving the restructured pay scale since 2012, without any objection.

4.3. It is also stated that the post of District Project Engineer under SSA, Assam, has already been categorized into two separate cadres on the basis of minimum requisite qualifications as stated above, and the said categorization was made as per the decision of the Executive Committee, SSA, Assam, which is the highest decision making body, having the power and competence to make rule(s) governing the service conditions of the employees of SSA as per Clause 12(VI), read with Clause 17(b)(IV) of Memorandum of Association of SSA, Assam.

4.4. It is also stated that though the petitioners claim that they being Grade-A officers are required to report before the State Project Engineer, who is supposed to be a Grade-A officer of higher rank as per the Service Regulations, 2003, but the present State Project Engineer (In-charge) is a Grade-B Officer, who is much lower in rank than the petitioners. Under such circumstances, it is contended that this petition may be dismissed as there is no merit in the same.

5. The petitioner No. 1 has filed an additional affidavit reiterating the same facts as mentioned in the petition that the respondent authorities have Page No.# 13/23

resorted to discrimination against them by way of creating two separate categories amongst the same Project Engineers with two separate pay bands, which is in gross violation of Article 14, 21 and 39 of the Constitution of India.

6. Dr. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that vide impugned notification dated 14.12.2017, the respondent authorities have discriminated among District Project Engineers by diving them into two separate categories with two separate pay bands, although the nature and volume of work as well as the duties and responsibilities in both the categories remain the same. Dr. Sarmah also submits that the petitioners are diploma holders in Civil Engineering with fifteen years of experience, and as such, they are equal to the District Project Engineers with B.E. degree in Civil Engineering and the justification, given by the respondent authorities in their affidavit-in-opposition, is ill founded justification, and that there is no difference in the subject post and reference post, and as such, by making undue classification and recommending different pay band to the petitioners, who have been performing the same work like the District Project Engineers, who are B.E. degree holders in Civil Engineering, the impugned notification is liable to be interfered with.

6.1. In support of his submission, Dr. Sarmah has referred to the following decisions:

(i) Randhir Singh vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in (1982) 1 SCC 618.

(ii) State of U.P. and Ors. vs. J.P. Chaurasia and Ors., reported in (1989) 1 SCC 121.

(iii) Narendra Kumar Das vs. State of Tripura and Ors., reported in 2001 (3) GLT 39.

(iv) The Registrar, Anna University and Anr. vs. S. Page No.# 14/23

Paramasivan and Anr., in W.A. (MD) No. 1715 of 2018.

(v) Mrinmay Kumar Das and Anr. vs. The Gauhati High Court and Ors., in WP(C) No. 7021/2018.

7. Per contra, Mr. Choudhury, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 18, being the authorities in the SSA, submits that the impugned notification was issued on the basis of the notification dated 03.07.2012 (Annexure-1 of the affidavit-in-opposition), but the same has not been challenged and the petitioners remained silent from 2012 till 2017.

7.1. By referring to a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director of Elementary Education, Odisha and Ors. vs. Pramod Kumar Sahoo, reported in (2019) 10 SCC 674, Mr. Choudhury has pointed out that classification based on academic qualifications and experience is permissible, and that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" cannot be applied in mechanical manner and classification made by body of experts after full study and analysis of work should not be disturbed except for strong reasons, which indicate classification made to be unreasonable.

7.2. By referring to another decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Gujarat and Ors. vs. Dr. P.A. Bhatt and Ors., reported in (2023) 15 SCC 257, Mr. Choudhury has pointed out that classification based upon educational qualification is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and as such, persons appointed to the same post in a cadre can be given different scales of pay on the basis of educational qualification.

7.3. Mr. Choudhury has further pointed out that in the instant case, the petitioners are diploma holders in Civil Engineering and on the other hand, the other District Project Engineers are B.E. degree holders in Civil Engineering, and Page No.# 15/23

based upon their educational qualification, different pay bands are recommended by the highest decision making body of the SSA, and that there is no merit in this petition and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the same.

8. In reply to the aforesaid submission, Dr. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are diploma holders in Civil Engineering, yet they have fifteen years of experience and as such, they are equal with the other District Project Engineers, possessing B.E. Degree in Civil Engineering and on such count, they are entitled to the same pay band.

9. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also gone through the decisions referred by learned counsel for both the parties.

10. The basic facts, herein this case, are not in dispute. The petitioners are District Project Engineers in the SSA and their educational qualification is diploma in Civil Engineering with fifteen years of experience, whereas the other District Project Engineers are B.E. degree holders in Civil Engineering, and they have been given different pay band by the impugned notification dated 14.12.2017. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners and the other District Project Engineers are performing the same work, duty and responsibility; and the categorical contention of the petitioners is that their rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India has been violated, which is being denied by the respondent authorities.

11. Now, the issue before this Court is whether the petitioners, who are appointed in the same cadre with the District Project Engineers having B.E. degree in Civil Engineering, and Diploma Holders in Civil Engineering can be Page No.# 16/23

granted different pay band on the basis of their educational qualification.

12. While dealing with this issue in the case of Pramod Kumar Sahoo(supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"12. The Trained Matric Teacher is the one who has been trained for the purposes of teaching. In the absence of such training, the respondent cannot be said to be a Trained Matric Teacher entitled to the pay scale meant for such teachers. The classification based upon educational qualification for grant of higher pay scale to a trained person or a person possessing higher qualification is a valid classification. It has been so held in Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India [Shyam Babu Verma v. Union of India, (1994) 2 SCC 521 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 683] , wherein this Court held as under: (SCC p. 525, para 9) "9. ... The nature of work may be more or less the same but scale of pay may vary based on academic qualification or experience which justifies classification. The principle of "equal pay for equal work" should not be applied in a mechanical or casual manner. Classification made by a body of experts after full study and analysis of the work should not be disturbed except for strong reasons which indicate the classification made to be unreasonable.

Inequality of the men in different groups excludes applicability of the principle of "equal pay for equal work" to them."

13. The said decision has been quoted by another Bench of this Court in Chhattisgarh Rural Agriculture Extension Officers Assn. v. State of M.P. [Chhattisgarh Rural Agriculture Extension Officers Assn. v. State of M.P., (2004) 4 SCC 646 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 667] , wherein this Court held as under: (SCC p. 656, para 22).

"22. Furthermore, as noticed hereinbefore, a valid classification based on educational qualification for the purpose of grant of pay has been upheld by the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Mysore v. P. Page No.# 17/23

Narasinga Rao [State of Mysore v. P. Narasinga Rao, AIR 1968 SC 349 : (1968) 1 SCR 407] ."

13. This issue was dealt with by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. P.A. Bhatt (supra), wherein discussing its earlier decisions in the cases of State of Mysore vs. P. Narasinga Rao, reported in 1967 SCC OnLine SC 103; C. Girijambal vs. State of A.P., reported in (1981) 2 SCC 155; Mewa Ram Kanojia vs. AIIMS, reported in (1989) 2 SCC 235; Shyam Babu Verma vs. Union of India, reported in (1994) 2 SCC 521; and also considering the decision in the case of Pramod Kumar Sahoo (supra), which has been relied upon by Mr. Choudhury, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 to 18, being the authorities in the SSA, has held that a classification based upon educational qualification is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

14. In the case in hand, vide impugned notification dated 14.12.2017, different pay bands have been recommended on the basis of educational qualification. While the petitioners are diploma holders in Civil Engineering and the other District Project Engineers are B.E. degree holders in Civil Engineering, and therefore, the qualification of the petitioners with the other District Project Engineers is different and there is no dispute about it.

15. The respondent authorities have equalized the pay band of the District Project Engineers having B.E. degree in Civil Engineering with the Assistant Engineers serving in the PWD, Government of Assam, and the petitioners with the Junior Engineers, Senior Grade of PWD, Government of Assam. Being the classification based on educational qualification is permissible in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. P.A. Bhatt (supra), this Page No.# 18/23

Court is of the view that the submission, so advanced by Dr. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioners, is devoid of merit.

16. Though Dr. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out that the petitioners are having fifteen years of experience and as such, they are equal to the District Project Engineers having B.E. degree in Civil Engineering, yet in view of the settled proposition of law in the case of Dr. P.A. Bhatt (supra), this Court is unable to agree with Dr. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioners.

17. I have also carefully gone through the decisions referred by Dr. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioners. In the case of Randhir Singh (supra), the petitioner was serving as the driver-constables of the Delhi Police Force, who performed no less arduous duties than drivers in other departments. The respondents in their counter affidavit had admitted that the duties of the driver-constables of the Delhi Police Force were onerous. Under the said factual backdrop the issue before Hon'ble Supreme Court was- what then is the reason for giving them a lower scale of pay than others?

17.1. Hon'ble Supreme Court then held as under:-

"8. It is true that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a constitutional goal. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims "equal pay for equal work for both men and women" as a directive principle of State Policy. "Equal pay for equal work for both men and women" means equal pay for equal work for everyone and as between the sexes, directive principles, as has been pointed out in some of the judgments of this Court have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation. Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the Page No.# 19/23

State not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws and Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. These equality clauses of the Constitution must mean something to everyone. To the vast majority of the people the equality clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal pay. Whether the special procedure prescribed by a statute for trying alleged robber-barons and smuggler kings or for dealing with tax evaders is discriminatory, whether a particular governmental policy in the matter of grant of licences or permits confers unfettered discretion on the Executive, whether the take- over of the empires of industrial tycoons is arbitrary and unconstitutional and other questions of like nature, leave the millions of people of this country untouched. Questions concerning wages and the like, mundane they may be, are yet matters of vital concern to them and it is there, if at all that the equality clauses of the Constitution have any significance to them. The Preamble to the Constitution declares the solemn resolution of the people of India to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Democratic Republic. Again the word "socialist" must mean something. Even if it does not mean 'to each according to his need', it must at least mean "equal pay for equal work". "The principle of "equal pay for equal work" is expressly recognized by all socialist systems of law, e.g., Section 59 of the Hungarian Labour Code, para 2 of Section 111 of the Czechoslovak Code, Section 67 of the Bulgarian Code, Section 40 of the Code of the German Democratic Republic, para 2 of Section 33 of the Rumanian Code. Indeed this principle has been incorporated in several western Labour Codes too. Under provisions in Section 31 (g. No. 2d) of Book I of the French Page No.# 20/23

Code du Travail, and according to Argentinian law, this principle must be applied to female workers in all collective bargaining agreements. In accordance with Section 3 of the Grundgesetz of the German Federal Republic, and Clause 7, Section 123 of the Mexican Constitution, the principle is given universal significance"

(vide International Labour Law by Istvan Szaszy, p. 265). The Preamble to the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation recognises the principle of 'equal remuneration for work of equal value' as constituting one of the means of achieving the improvement of conditions "involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled". Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Article 39 (d), we are of the view that the principle "equal pay for equal work" is deducible from those Articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer." 17.2. Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that there cannot be the slightest doubt that the drivers in the Delhi Police Force perform the same functions and duties as other drivers in service of the Delhi Administration and the Central Government. If anything, by reason of their investiture with the "powers, functions and privileges of a police officer", their duties and responsibilities are more arduous. There is no reason for giving them a lower scale of pay than others. Though the respondents had taken a stand that the drivers of the Delhi Police Force and the other drivers belong to different departments and that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is not a principle which the courts may recognise and act upon, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the answer is unsound and the clarification is irrational and then it has allowed the writ Page No.# 21/23

petition and direct the respondents to fix the scale of pay of the petitioner and the driver-constables of the Delhi Police Force at least on a par with that of the drivers of the Railway Protection Force.

17.3. The same principle is re-iterated in the case of J.P. Chaurasia (supra), and there Hon'ble Supreme Court went on to observe as under:-

"23. The learned Judge however, observed that a differential treatment in appropriate cases can be justified when there are two grades based on reasonable grounds: (SCC p. 622, para 7).

It is well known that there can be and there are different grades in a service, with varying qualifications for entry into a particular grade, the higher grade often being a promotional avenue for officers of the lower grade. 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 Article 14 if sought to be applied to them."

17.4. In the instant case, the ground of classification is higher qualification i.e. B.E. in Civil Engineering, where as in respect of the petitioners, the qualification is Diploma Holders in Civil Engineering. There is vast difference in the same. And as held in the case of J.P. Chaurasia (supra), that 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. And as such, this decision would not advance the argument of Dr. Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner.

Page No.# 22/23

17.5. Also this Court has gone through the other three decisions referred by Dr. Sarmah, the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no quarrel at the bar about the proposition of law laid down in the said decisions. However, the said decisions proceed on their own facts, which are different from the facts of the present case, and as such, said decisions also would not advance the argument of Dr. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioners and would not be applicable in all force to the facts and circumstances herein this case, in view of the decision of Constitutional Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Mysore vs. P. Narasinga Rao, reported in AIR 1968 SC 349, wherein a valid classification based on educational qualification for the purpose of grant of pay has been upheld.

18. In the case of P. Narasinga Rao(supra), the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was - the respondent was employed as a Tracer in the Engineering Department in the erstwhile Hyderabad State where the cadre of Tracers consisted of both matriculates as well as non-matriculates and no distinction was made between them. As a result of the re-organization of States in 1956, he was allotted to the appellant Mysore State where the cadre of Tracers was reorganised into two, one consisting of matriculate Tracers in a higher scale of pay and the other of non-matriculates in a lower scale. The respondent was given the option either to remain in his old Hyderabad scale of pay or to accept the new scale applicable to non-matriculates. He refused to exercise the option and claimed that the cadre of Tracers should not have been divided into two grades and that no distinction should have been made between matriculates and non-matriculates. His claim was rejected by the Superintending Engineer on March 19, 1958 and he filed a writ petition in the High Court praying that the order of the Superintending Engineer be quashed and for the Page No.# 23/23

issue of writ in the nature, of mandamus to fix his pay in the scale prescribed for matriculate Tracers. The High Court allowed the petition, holding that there was no valid reason for making a distinction as both matriculate and non- matriculate Tracers were doing the same kind of work and the distinction made was in violation of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. On appeal, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"In our opinion, therefore, higher educational qualifications such as success in the S.S.L.C. examination are relevant considerations for fixing a higher pay scale for tracers who have passed the S.S.L.C. examination and the classification of two grades of tracers in the new Mysore State, one for matriculate tracers with a higher pay scale and the other for non-matriculate tracers with a lower pay scale is not violative of Arts. 14 or 16 of the Constitution."

19. Under such circumstances, this Court finds no merit in this petition, and accordingly, the same stands dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant