Gujarat High Court
Manishkumar Prahladbhai Patel vs State Of Gujarat on 5 May, 2023
Bench: Niral R. Mehta
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 336 of 2022
In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15708 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 336 of 2022
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 360 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15709 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 361 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15718 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 363 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15710 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 365 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15701 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 366 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15717 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 367 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15712 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 368 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15713 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 369 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15705 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 370 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15720 of 2016
With
Page 1 of 38
Downloaded on : Mon May 08 20:40:25 IST 2023
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 371 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15707 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 373 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15716 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 372 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15714 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 374 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15715 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 375 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15703 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 376 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15721 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 377 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15704 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 362 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15719 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 364 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15702 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 908 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15711 of 2016
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 936 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12769 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 909 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11242 of 2020
Page 2 of 38
Downloaded on : Mon May 08 20:40:25 IST 2023
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 938 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9828 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 926 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9867 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 943 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4707 of 2021
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 940 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13662 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 918 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3847 of 2022
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 934 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12529 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 930 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12470 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 916 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12590 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 927 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9885 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 929 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1841 of 2021
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 942 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12888 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 944 of 2022
In
Page 3 of 38
Downloaded on : Mon May 08 20:40:25 IST 2023
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9875 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 937 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9882 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 935 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9887 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 924 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3753 of 2022
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 931 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9886 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 923 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14488 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 939 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9830 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 925 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12715 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 933 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9881 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 941 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12610 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 911 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9865 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 922 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13797 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 932 of 2022
Page 4 of 38
Downloaded on : Mon May 08 20:40:25 IST 2023
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12718 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 921 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12716 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 917 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14151 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 919 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14208 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 920 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3791 of 2022
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 914 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12937 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 913 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14147 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 915 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11400 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 912 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12938 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 928 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14100 of 2020
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1162 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12798 of 2018
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 360 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15709 of 2016
Page 5 of 38
Downloaded on : Mon May 08 20:40:25 IST 2023
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 361 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15718 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 363 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15710 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 365 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15701 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 366 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15717 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 367 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15712 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 368 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15713 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 369 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15705 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 370 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15720 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 371 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15707 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
Page 6 of 38
Downloaded on : Mon May 08 20:40:25 IST 2023
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 373 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15716 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 372 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15714 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 374 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15715 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 375 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15703 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 376 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15721 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 377 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15704 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 362 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15719 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 364 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15702 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 908 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15711 of 2016
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 936 of 2022
In
Page 7 of 38
Downloaded on : Mon May 08 20:40:25 IST 2023
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12769 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 909 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11242 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 938 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9828 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 926 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9867 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 943 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4707 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 940 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13662 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 918 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3847 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 934 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12529 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 930 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12470 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 916 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12590 of 2020
With
Page 8 of 38
Downloaded on : Mon May 08 20:40:25 IST 2023
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 927 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9885 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 929 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1841 of 2021
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 942 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12888 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 944 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9875 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 937 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9882 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 935 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9887 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 924 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3753 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 931 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9886 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 923 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14488 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 939 of 2022
Page 9 of 38
Downloaded on : Mon May 08 20:40:25 IST 2023
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9830 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 925 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12715 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 933 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9881 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 941 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12610 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 911 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9865 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 922 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13797 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 932 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12718 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 921 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12716 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 917 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14151 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 919 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14208 of 2020
Page 10 of 38
Downloaded on : Mon May 08 20:40:25 IST 2023
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 920 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3791 of 2022
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 914 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12937 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 913 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14147 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 915 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11400 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 912 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12938 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 928 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14100 of 2020
With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2022
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 1162 of 2022
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12798 of 2018
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed Yes
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy No
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question No
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
MANISHKUMAR PRAHLADBHAI PATEL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR YATIN OZA with MS SRUSHTI A THULA(5014) for the Appellant(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3,4,5
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA
Date :05/05/2023
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)
This batch of Letters Patent Appeals preferred under
Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, wherein the appellants are
original petitioners, is directed against common judgment and
order dated 18.2.2022 of learned single Judge dismissing all
Special Civil Applications. Thereby the prayer of the petitioners
for applying the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' in respect
of pay-band for them came to be rejected holding that there was
a valid and reasonable classification for the purpose of extending
different pay scales based on the educational qualifications.
1.1 Amongst the group of the above petitions in some cases
the pay scales were reduced on the ground that higher pay
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
scales was given by mistake and consequently recovery orders
were passed. Learned single Judge set aside the recovery but
denied the application of 'equal pay for equal work.'
2. As the factual setting in all the cases are similar, the
representative facts are drawn from the record of Letters Patent
Appeal No.926 of 2022 relatable to Special Civil Application
No.9867 of 2020, which was treated as main by both the sides to
make submissions.
3. The following prayers were made in the petition.
"(i) Declare the action of the respondents as
arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to law so
far as it relates fixation of pay in relation to
secondary school teachers and further be
pleased to direct the concerned respondents to
pay the same salary to the petitioner as is being
paid to other secondary teachers and direct the
respondents to pay to the petitioner salary in the
pay scale of Rs.9300- 34800 (Grade Pay 4200).
(ii) Set aside the order dated 16.4.2009 by which
the petitioner is paid salary in the pay scale of
5200-20200 and thereby direct the respondents
to pay to the petitioner salary in the pay scale of
9300-34800 (Grade Pay 4200) with effect from
10.6.2007.
(iii) Declare that the petitioner is entitled to get
equal pay / salaries, allowances and benefits at
par with the other Secondary Teacher of
equivalent grade, employed by the respondents
authorities doing similar nature of work
retrospectively from the date on which the
petitioner has given the status of regular
employment."
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
3.1 In other words, the prayers in different petitions related to
direct the respondents to pay the same salary to the petitioners
as paid to other secondary Teachers. The Office Order and the
Notification dated 16.4.2009 whereby the petitioners were paid
salary in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 with grade pay of
Rs.2800/- instead of in the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 with
grade pay of Rs.4200 was prayed to be set aside. The petitioners
who are the Drawing Teachers thus wanted themselves to be
treated at par with other secondary teachers by applying the
principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.
3.2 The petitioners hold Diploma of five years in Applied Arts,
Arts Teacher Diploma and course of Computer Concepts. The
petitioners applied pursuant to the advertisement dated
7.3.1999 published in the newspaper whereby the applications
for the posts were invited. The qualifications for the post for
Teacher in Drawing or Arts were SSC and Art Teachers Diploma
(Drawing). By order dated 10.6.2002, the petitioner of Special
Civil Application No.9867 of 2021 was appointed. All the
petitioners were accordingly appointed. Initially they were on
probation for five years and were paid fixed salary of Rs.4,000/-.
At the end of five years they were made permanent in the pay
scale of Rs.4500-125-7000 with the basic salary which is
Rs.4000/-. Thereafter pursuant to the Gujarat Civil Services
(Revision of Pay) Rules, 2009, the pay band of the petitioner was
fixed at Rs.8560/- with effect from 9.6.2007 in the pay scale of
Rs.5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs.2800/-.
3.2.1 The grievance raised by all the petitioners in their
respective petitions was that though they were in the secondary
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
section imparting education in Drawing subject, they were not
paid the same salary as was paid to other secondary school
teachers teaching other subjects. It was the contention that the
subject of drawing or arts was a subject recognized in the
secondary school teaching, in the same way as other subjects
like Mathematics, Science, English etc. were recognized. They
pleaded that though they had been working for equal number of
hours, they were paid salary in the lower pay scale.
3.2.2 The petitioners contended that as per the appendix
to Notification dated 16.4.2009 issued by the State Education
Department, the Teachers who possessed degree of B.A in Fine
Arts, are accorded higher pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 with grade
pay, whereas those Teachers holding qualification of SSC and
Art Teachers Diploma (Drawing) were kept in lower pay scale of
Rs.5200-20200. It was submitted that the Fine Art Teachers
were paid salary in higher pay scale, whereas the petitioners
were deprived of the same. The petitioners further contended
that the Kendriya Vidyalaya and Navodaya Vidyalaya Teachers
are also given the scale of Rs.9300-34800. It was stated that one
similarly situated teacher made representation dated 4.7.2016,
but nothing yielded.
3.2 The crux of the case and the gist of the grievance is that
the other secondary teachers are given higher pay scale of
Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4200, whereas the
petitioners are kept in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 with
grade pay of Rs.2800/- and that it amounted to discrimination,
also violated the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
3.3 Affidavit-in-reply was filed in the lead petition in which it
was submitted inter alia that the claim of the petitioner was
unsupported by any material. It was contended that the petition
was barred by delay and latches. The petitioner was appointed,
it was contended, in the year 2002 and has been getting the
same pay scale as fixed on the basis of the educational
qualification possessed by him. It was further contended that
doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' could not be pressed into
service since the petitioner could be classified in different
category for applying pay band amongst the secondary teachers
on the basis of the educational qualification. It was submitted
that the petitioner got the qualification of Diploma in Drawing
whereas the other secondary teachers possessed the degree
qualification.
3.3.1 In the affidavit-in-reply, it was stated by the
respondent that the case of the petitioners to seek to equate
themselves with Fine Arts teachers was also misconceived. It
was stated that the Fine Arts teachers had different
qualifications. They are Arts teachers with B.A. (Fine Arts)
Degree. It was contended that similarly other secondary
teachers from different discipline were the degree holders in
their respective subjects.
3.3.2 It was contended that Government Resolution dated
16.4.2009 in its schedule indicated different educational
qualifications for various subjects and the difference in pay was
accordingly prescribed. It was contended that the pay-scales for
the secondary teachers are prevalent since 1973. It was
contended that the petitioner upon the expiry of the probation
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
period was confirmed in the pay-scale of 4500-7000 which he
accepted throughout. It was thus contended that the
differentiation in pay scale of secondary teachers was based
upon educational qualification. About the comparison sought to
be made by the petitioners with the Teachers in the Kendriya or
Navodaya Vidyalaya, it was contended that such comparison was
misconceived as the Kendriya and Navodaya teachers are
governed by Central Civil Services Rules.
3.4 Learned Single Judge elaborately discussed and delved
into principles relating to equal pay for equal work, by referring
to and relying on the decisions in State of U.P and others vs.
J.P. Chaurasia and Others[(1989) 1 SCC 121], in
Government of W.B. vs. Tarun K. Roy [(2004) 1 SCC 347],
in S.C. Chandra and Others vs. State of Jharkhand [(2007)
8 SCC 279], in Steel Authority of India and Others vs.
Dibyendu Bhattacharya [(2011) 11 SCC 122], in State of
Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh [(2017) 1 SCC 148] and
other decisions to conclude that in the facts of the case, the
petitioners were not entitled to seek the benefit of equal pay for
equal work vis-a-vis the other secondary teachers, in different
subjects who had the qualification of the degree whereas the
petitioners were Diploma holders teaching the subject of
drawing. The petitions seeking the benefit of equal pay for equal
work were dismissed.
3.4.1 The other batch of petitions, as stated above, were by
the Drawing teachers against whom the orders of reduction of
pay from Rs. 5000-8000/- to Rs.4500-7000/- were passed.
According to these petitioners the pre-revised pay-scale granted
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
to them as Rs. 5000-8000/- ought to have been translated into
6th pay in the scale of Rs.9300-34800/-, Grade Pay Rs. 4200/-,
however their pay-scale was reduced. In other words, these
petitioners also wanted their pay-scale to be at par with other
secondary teachers in the pay band of Rs.9300-34800. The
orders reducing the pay-scale were challenged. Their claim of
pay-scale of Rs.9300-34800/- with grade pay was not believed
and therefore, they were also declined to be extended 'equal pay
for equal work' principle. Thus, the petitions were dismissed in
which the core issue was also entitlement of higher pay-scale on
the footing of equal pay for equal work.
3.4.2 Learned Single Judge held, extracting from
paragraph 5.1 of the order,
"What is evident from the various appointment
orders that have been produced along with the
petition is that the petitioners came to be appointed
in the year 2002 on probation basis and were
confirmed in the year 2007. It is not for the first
time in the year 2002 or at the time of their
confirmation, that there was a valid differentiation of
scales of the petitioners, art teachers who are
holding ATD and teachers of other secondary
sections. As is evident from the notifications
produced in the respondent government's affidavit-
in-reply, the initial pay-scale of those who were
appointed as art teachers with a qualification of a
degree had their pay-scale fixed in Rs.440-750 which
was subsequently revised to Rs.1400-2600 whereas
in the case of incumbents who are lower qualified,
having qualification less than a degree had their
pay-scales fixed at Rs.440-640 which was revised to
Rs.1400-2300 and then the subsequent revisions in
their pay-scales respectively for the purposes of
graduates was from Rs.1400-2600 to Rs.5000-8000
and those with a diploma had their pay-scales fixed
at Rs.4500-7000. It, therefore, clearly indicates that
it is not a case when a sudden disparity and pay-
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
scales appeared post the petitioners appointment."
3.4.3 The conspicuous aspect was noticed that the case of
the petitioners was not one of creation of sudden disparity in the
pay-scale, which may have occurred post appointment. The
classification for pay-scale based on the different qualification
existed from the year 1973, it was observed further in the same
paragraph,
"The classification of pay-scales based on
qualification existed right from 1973 and was
reflected in consequential and subsequent pay
revisions. From the notification dated 14.08.1978
produced alongwith the reply, what is also evident
is that this inter-se differentiation in pay-scales not
only existed amongst the art teachers holding
degree or diploma but also was the case in the
other faculties, such as Music teachers, P.T
teachers etc. For instance, in the case of teachers
of music, those who had a degree of Visharad were
given a higher pay-scale of Rs.440-750 which was
then revised to Rs.1400-2600 whereas those who
did not have a Visharad but had a lower
qualification in Music were given Rs.440-640
revised to Rs.1400-2300 and corresponding
revision of 6th pay inasmuch as the pay-scales of
the certificate holders was Rs.5000-8000 and
revised to Rs.9300-34800 but those with a lower
qualification than a degree qualification were
placed in the scale of Rs. 5200-20200, which the
petitioners at present are drawing."
3.4.4 It was noted by learned Single Judge that the
petitioners were appointed in the year 2002 and came to be
regularised in service in 2007. The petitions were filed in the
year 2020 and 2022. Learned Single Judge also observed that in
order to claim the benefit of equal pay for equal work,
incumbent has to bring evidence or proof to show that there was
similarity in the nature of work, quantum of work, quality of
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
work, nature of duties and similarity in qualification.
3.4.5 The view taken by the learned Single Judge that the
onus to prove all those aspects would lie on the person seeking
the application of principle of equal pay for equal work, was the
correct approach in view of the proposition of law in this regard
laid down by the Supreme Court in Orissa University of
Agriculture & Technology and Anr. Vs. Manoj K. Mohanty,
JT [(2003) 4 SC 104] and other decisions in which it was held
that the onus to prove about parity in duties and responsibilities
attached to the post while pleading 'equal pay for equal work'
lies on the person who claims it. It was held by learned Single
Judge that nothing was shown about parity of work, quality of
work, quantum of work and nature of duties to be similar.
3.4.6 It was stated in paragraph 5.4,
"Parity is sought viz-a-viz graduates in the
respective disciplines of Science, Maths etc to
suggest that they must be given the pay-scale that
has been given to teachers teaching Science, Maths
or other subjects inasmuch as arts or drawing is
also a subject and based on such artificial
classification, the petitioners cannot be entitled to
pay-scale as is given to graduate teachers in other
subjects. What is evident from the contents of the
affidavit-in-reply is that the classification of pay of a
secondary teacher based on the subject is largely
based upon qualifications. Two different types of
pay-scales were prescribed for art teachers holding
diploma and/or a degree."
3.4.7 It was further observed that diploma holder and
degree holder could not be compared and that there could not
be a competition between them to secure equal treatment,
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
"A teacher holding a diploma in Arts and Drawing
would not be able to compete shoulder to shoulder
with a degree holder in language or Science. What
is also made out is that the work load of teachers
holding a diploma in arts as compared to other
subject teachers holding a graduation degree is
different. A table of the allotment of work annexed
to the affidavit-in-reply would suggest that as far as
a diploma holder in art subject and teacher of
drawing is concerned, an incumbent has to take at
the most two to three classes a week which is not
the case in context of subject teachers whose
workload is far more higher than that of an art
teacher. These aspects would indicate that the
classification of pay between an art teacher and
other secondary teacher is reasonable and based
upon intelligible differentia. The classification is
done while taking into consideration the
qualifications to be taken into consideration at the
time of recruitment and the content of work."
4. Learned senior advocate Mr. Yatin Oza assisted by learned
advocate Ms. Shrusti Thula for the appellants and learned
Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Manan Mehta for the
respondent State in all the appeals reiterated the same
contentions, which were canvassed before the learned Single
Judge.
4.1 What was harped by learned senior advocate for the
appellants was that the appellants-petitioners and other
secondary teachers were selected without any difference in the
selection process or the eligibility criteria. It was submitted that
Fine Arts could not be said to be different subject than other
subjects. It was submitted that though the salary is paid to the
present petitioners, in the new advertisement for new
recruitment of teachers in which several posts of Drawing
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
Teachers are vacant, the salary declared is in the pay-scale of
Rs. 9300-34800 even with qualification of Diploma in Drawing.
Learned senior advocate also submitted that the teachers
serving in Navodaya Vidhyalaya are getting higher pay-scale as
also the P.T. Teachers.
4.1.1 On the basis of all these submissions, learned senior
advocate thereafter elaborated the grounds raised in the
memorandum of the Letters Patent Appeal to contend that the
secondary teachers teaching in other disciplines or subjects and
the petitioners, on the other hand could not be divided into two
classes to differentiate them in the matter of granting pay-scale
and that the petitioners are entitled to draw the same salary
along with other secondary teachers on the footing of principle
of equal pay for equal work. Learned senior advocate heavily
relied on two decisions of the Supreme Court in State of
Punjab vs. Senior Vocational Staff Members
Association[(2017) 9 SCC 379].
4.2 Learned Assistant Government Pleader raised the
following succinct submissions to support the judgment and
order of learned single Judge.
(a) The petitioners are seeking equal treatment in the matter
of the pay scale and seeking equality with secondary teachers.
While the petitioners and other similarly situated persons are
the Art Teachers, appointed on the qualification of the diploma
holder and not the degree holder. While seeking such benefit,
the petitioners have overworked the aspects of not possessing of
equivalent education qualification to a secondary teacher who
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
are degree holders and bachelors, as prescribed under
Regulation 20 (3) of Gujarat Secondary Education Regulation,
1974.
(b) The principle and doctrine of equal pay for equal work could
not be applicable in the case on hand because the same principle
would only be applicable in cases of two identical classes of
employment. While on case on hand, there cannot be any
similarity of the Diploma Holder and Degree Holder. It is well
settled legal position that the pay fixation can always be made
subject to the reasonable classification, which could be
experience, educational qualification, nature of work,
responsibilities. If there are two separate classes, the doctrine of
disparity cannot be pressed into service.
(c) The educational qualification of secondary teachers are
prescribed in regulation 20 of the Gujarat Secondary And Higher
Secondary Education Regulation, 1974 and as prescribed
therein, the case of the present petitioners cannot be considered
simply because they are diploma holder and the secondary
teachers are Trained Graduates in respective discipline, in which
they impart education like science teacher, mathematics
teacher.
(d) The educational qualification of a teacher would have much
bearing upon the original fixation and subsequent revision. The
petitioners being SSC+ATD are not the only class, who are
getting the pay scale which cannot be compared to a secondary
teacher, who is a Trained Graduated degree holder.
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
(e) The same pay scale and different classification, which are the
present petitioners getting, are also applied to Music teachers,
PT Teachers and few other language teachers, who are not
Trained Graduate/Degree holders.
(f) The comparison pressed into service by the petitioners of the
pay scale of teachers of Kendriya Vidyalay and Navoday
Vidyalay, is misplaced as the same are governed by Central Civil
Service Rules and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2008
10 SCC page 1, a comparison between subject post and
reference post, under the principle of equal pay for equal work,
cannot be made, where the subject post and the reference post
are different in establishments, having a different management.
(g) The pay scales payable to teachers teaching at Diploma
Centres and fine Arts Colleges cannot be equated with the
Teachers Of Secondary School/Diploma Holders. The level,
standard of education of both cannot be equated with.
4.2.1 Learned Assistant Government Pleader took the
Court through the decisions of the Supreme Court in Jagjit
Singh (supra), Tarun K. Roy (supra), Dibyendu
Bhattacharya (supra), which were also referred to by the
learned Single Judge to submit that the classification of the
petitioners and other secondary teachers on the basis of
different educational qualification was reasonable classification
and it was permissible for the State to extend different pay-
scales. It was submitted that the petitioners who are Diploma
holders and other secondary teachers in different subjects
holding degree could not be compared and the distinction is
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
based on intelligible differentia. Learned Assistant Government
Pleader defended the Resolution dated 16.04.2009 of the
Government to further highlight that the pay-scales of class of
secondary teachers has been prevailing since 1973.
5. Having considered the facts and rival submissions, it is to
be observed at the outset that the ground raised by the
respondents that the petitions suffer from vice of delay, could
not be brushed aside. The petitioners were appointed in the
year 2002 on the basis of their qualification of S.S.C. and
Diploma in Arts. As per the conditions of appointment, their
services came to be regualrised upon satisfactory passage of five
years. In the year 2007, petitioners were placed in the scale for
which they have been not raising grievance. There is no
gainsaying that since 2002, and even after 2007, no grievance
was raised by the petitioners seeking parity in pay with other
secondary teachers-degree holders. It was rightly contended by
respondent, that when in Special Civil Application No.15701 of
2016 to 15721 of 2016, interim order was passed, the petitioners
jumped into the fray, therefore, could be termed as fence-sitter.
Notably, the said group of petitions came to be dealt with in the
very impugned judgment and order, and are dismissed by
learned Single Judge. Entire edifice of the case of the petitioners
was grounded as without substance. The petitions would have
been dismissed on the ground of delay, laches and acquiescence
alone on the part of the petitioners.
5.1 The moot question is whether the difference in the
educational qualifications amongst the Secondary Teahcers
would form a valid basis for classifying them differently for the
purpose of giving them different pay-scale. While learned Single
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
Judge has highlighted the principles in that regard taken from
judicial pronouncements, surveying other and further judgments
in addition, would be useful.
5.2 It is trite that in order to make the classification to be
reasonable and valid classification in terms of Article 14, it must
be backed by intelligible differentia and a rational distinguishing
aspect. In P. Narasinga Rao [AIR 1968 SC 349], it was
observed that,
"It is well settled that though Article 14 forbids
class legislation, it does not forbid reasonable
classification for the purpose of legislation.
When any impugned rule or statutory provision
is assailed on the ground that it
contravenes Article 14, its validity can be
sustained if two tests are satisfied. The first test
is that the classification on which it is founded
must be based on an intelligible differentia
which distinguishes persons or things grouped
together from others left out of the group, and
the second test is that the differentia in
question must have a reasonable relation to the
object sought to be achieved by the rule or
statutory provision in question. In other words,
there must be some rational nexus between the
basis of classification and the object intended to
be achieved by the statute or the rule. (para 16)
5.3 Law is categorically settled that the classification based on
educational qualification is a reasonable and acceptable
classification, when the different pay-scales are prescribed on
the basis of such classification, it can be said to have rational
nexus with the objects as sought to be achieved.
5.4 In Tarun K. Roy (supra), the facts were that the
Irrigation Department of the West Bengal there existed the post
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
of Operators cum Mechanics and Sub-Assistant Engineer. The
sub-assistant engineer were directly recruited whereas for the
purpose of appointment to the post of Operators cum Mechanics,
there was no such procedure envisaged. The minimum
qualification required for Operators-cum-Mechanics was pass in
school final examination and certificate from ITI, whereas for
sub-assistant engineer, in addition to the passing in the school
final examination, a Diploma from Polytechnic was necessary. In
the West Bengal Services (Revision of Pay and Allowances)
Rules, the pay scale for the post of Operators cum Mechanics
were prescribed to be Rs.230-425 with effect from 1.4.1970,
while the pay scale for the post of sub-assistant engineer was
prescribed at Rs.300-600 with a higher initial start with effect
from the same date.
5.4.1 The Supreme Court examined the concept of parity in
employment and application of principles on 'equal pay for equal
work'. It was held that source and applicability of doctrine that
'equal pay for equal work' envisages with Article 39(d) read with
Article 14 of the Constitution is not automatically applicable
merely on the basis of identical of work irrespective of
educational qualification and other relevant considerations.
5.4.2 It was held that the holders of higher educational
qualifications can be treated as separate class and can be
treated deferentially. The following was observed,
"Article 14 read with Article 39 (d) of the
Constitution of India envisages the doctrine of
equal pay for equal work. The said doctrine,
however, does not contemplate that only
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
because the nature of the work is same,
irrespective of an educational qualification or
irrespective of their source of recruitment or
other relevant considerations the said doctrine
would be automatically applied. The holders of
a higher educational qualification can be
treated as a separate class. Such
classification, it is trite, is reasonable.
Employees performing the similar job but
having different educational qualification
can, thus, be treated differently."
(para 14)
(emphasis supplied)
5.5 In State of Jammu & Kashmir Vs. Triloki Nath Khosa,
[AIR (1974) SC 1], it was propounded that, 'Educational
qualifications have been recognized by this Court as a safe
criterion for determining the validity of classification.' (para 35)
Similarly also in State of West Bengal Vs. Debdas Kumar
and Other, [1991 Supp. (1) SCC 138], referred in Tarun K.
Roy (supra), it was observed that giving lower time scale to
operators cum mechanics against Sub-Assistant Engineer, who
are accorded higher scale was not a result of anamoly and it was
not denial for 'equal pay for equal work'. Negativing such
contention, it was reiterated that, 'It is well settled that
difference in pay of employees belonging to the same cadre post
or educational qualification is constitutionally valid and
permissible and is not violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution.'
5.6 In M.P. Rural Agriculture Extension Officers
Association Vs. State of M.P. and Another [(2004) 4 SCC
646], the applicability of doctrine was considered by the Apex
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
Court in context of two different pay scales provided in the same
cadre of Rural Agriculture Extension Officers Association. The
different pay scales were given to the Rural Agriculture
Extension Officers by classifying them on the basis of
educational qualification namely graduates and non-graduates.
The submission was advanced that different pay scales to the
employees belonging to the same cadre was not permissible,
"...Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant, would submit that the Tribunal
as also the High Court went wrong in passing the
impugned judgments and orders insofar as they
failed to take into consideration that as by
reason of the impugned rule no new post or
cadre was created, sanction of different pay
scale to the employees belonging to the same
cadre was impermissible. The purported
classification between the two sets of employees
whose posts are interchangeable and who are
carrying out the same work and have undergone
the same training could not have been placed in
two different classes only on the basis of
educational qualification, the learned Counsel
submitted." (para 6)
5.6.1 It was emphasized,
"Educational qualification, ... can be a valid
criteria only where new cadre is created and
where no minimum qualification was fixed at the
time of initial appointment, but in a situation
where the employees irrespective of their
qualification had been performing the same
functions in the same grade, the doctrine of
equal pay for equal work would be applicable."
(para 6)
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
5.6.2 The Supreme Court held that the classification which
was based on the educational qualification, was reasonable and
valid. It was held that recommendations of the Pay Commission
were not biding to the State and cannot be enforced by issuing
writ of mandamus. The classification based on the educational
qualification is held to be reasonable and valid classification.
5.7 In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Rameshchandra
Bajpayee [(2009) 13 SCC 635], the respondent who was
physical training instructor in Government Ayurvedic College
had been claiming the UGC pay scale. The court held that it was
well settled that the doctrine for 'equal pay for equal work' could
only be invoked when the employees were similarly
circumstanced in every way. Mere similarity of designation or
similarity in quantum of work was not determinative of equality
in the matter of pay scales, the court has to consider the host of
the relevant factors. After extensive survey of the decisions on
the applicability of 'equal pay for equal work' the criteria for
classification becoming reasonable for the purpose of extending
the equal pay, the Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit
Singh [(2017)1 SCC 148], summarized the principles.
5.8 In Union of India, through Secretary, Department Of
Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension & Anr. [(2015) 3
SCC 653], the Supreme Court highlighted that classification of
posts and determination of pay structure exclusively falls within
the domain of Executive. The Courts and Tribunal, it was stated,
cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Executive in
prescribing certain pay structure and grade in particular
service. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work was viewed
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
not to be an abstract doctrine to be capable of being enforced in
Court of law. In the State of Punjab and Others Vs.
Charanjit Singh [(2006) 9 SCC 321], the Supreme Court
observed that the principle of equal pay for equal work has no
mechanical application. If the educational qualification are
different, then also the doctrine may have no application. It was
stated that even though the persons may be in the same work,
their quality of work may differ. It was reiterated that
classification based on different in educational qualifications
justify difference in pay-scales.
5.9 In State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Seema Sharma
[(2022) SCC OnLine SC 809], the Supreme Court allowed the
appeal of the State and refuse to extend the equal pay for equal
work principle. In that case, pertinently, the eligibility criteria
for appointment of Museum Assistant cum Librarian under the
1987 Rules, were different from the eligibility criteria from
appointment of Librarian under the 1990 Rules. Under the 1987
Rules, the minimum qualification for the post of Museum
Assistant cum Librarian was graduate but under the 1990 Rules,
the minimum qualification was post graduate degree. The
Supreme Court also observed that there can be no equality to a
wrong or illegality. It was stated that just because a Librarian
may have been erroneously granted the UGC pay scale, that
would not entitle the others to claim the UGC pay scale.
6. The decision in Senior Vocational Staff Members
Association (supra), stands valid for the principles laid down
on its own facts and the context. In that case both degree
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
holders and diploma holders were appointed as Vocational
Masters pursuant to common selection process. They were
treated as same classes and were doing the same work.
Subsequently, the authorities made artificial distinction by re-
designating degree holders and post graduates as Vocational
Lecturers despite there being no change in responsibilities and
financial matters between the degree holders and diploma
holders. There was no distinction between Vocational Lectures
and Vocational Masters as they formed unified cadre and class.
It was held that there was no rational behind making
classification between the two, more particularly when these two
categories were treated as one in past since 1978. It was in
above background of facts that it was held that the Vocational
Masters were entitled to pay-scale of Vocational Lecturers. The
facts of the present case are entirely different, to which the
above decision could hardly be applied.
7. In recent decision of the Apex Court in Union of India
and Others Vs. Rajib Khan and Others [2023 SCC OnLine
SC 28], the respondents- Nursing Assistants working in various
hospitals under the establishment of Border Security Force were
getting Hospital Patient Care Allowance. The original petitioners
claimed allowance at par with nursing staff which was opposed
by the appellants contending that they were paid the special
allowance. The question was the original writ petitioners who
were the nursing Assistants were entitled to nursing allowance
at par with Staff Nurses. The qualification of staff nurses was
four years course and sofar as the Nursing Assistants were
concerned, they had completed one year course, which was the
requirement for the post of Nursing Assistants. The extension of
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
benefit of Nursing Allowance to the Nursing Assistants was
opposed on the ground that the educational qualification of both
were different. The Guwahati High Court took the view that
educational qualification cannot be a ground for denying the
Nursing Allowance at par with the Staff Nurse who can also be
said to be an integral part of the nursing service in general.
7.1 The Apex Court disapproved the view and it was observed,
"The view taken by the High Court is just
contrary to the decisions of this Court in the case
of Punjab State Cooperative Milk Producers
Federation Limited [(2021) 8 SCC 784]
(supra), Pramod Kumar Sahoo [(2019) 10
SCC 674](supra) and T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna Rao
(supra). In the case of T.V.L.N. Mallikarjuna
Rao [(2015) 3 SCC 653] (supra) it is observed
by this Court that the classification of posts and
determination of pay structure comes within the
exclusive domain of the Executive and the
Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of
the Executive in prescribing certain pay
structure and grade in a particular service. In
the case before this Court, this Court upheld the
different pay scales/pay structure based on
different educational qualifications. It is
observed and held that considering the
educational qualifications prescribed for
appointment to the post of Data Entry Operators,
Grade B and the order assigning duties, the
classification of Data Entry Operators in different
grades, does not violate any right of equality
guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution nor does it violate the constitutional
protection against hostile or arbitrary
discrimination. In the case of Punjab State
Cooperative Milk Producers Federation
Limited (supra), it is observed and held by this
Court that different educational qualification and
experience prescribed for appointment can be a
ground to have different pay scales/pay
structures."
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
7.1.1 The aspect of academic qualification was also
highlighted,
"In the case of Pramod Kumar Sahoo (supra) it
is observed and held that nature of work may be
more or less the same but the scale of pay may
vary based on academic qualification or experience
which justifies classification. It is further held and
observed that inequality of men in different groups
excludes applicability of the principle of 'equal pay
for equal work' to them. In the case before this
Court, this Court upheld the classification based
upon the higher educational qualification for grant
of higher pay scale to a trained person or a person
possessing higher qualification."
7.1.2 It was finally held,
"Applying the law laid down by this Court in the
aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand
the view taken by the High Court that the
educational qualification cannot be a ground for
denial of Nursing Allowance to the Nursing
Assistants is unsustainable. In the present case
the respective Nursing Assistants are being paid
'Hospital Patient Care Allowance'. The Nursing
Assistants in the BSF neither have relevant
experience for appointment as Staff Nurse nor
they possess any educational qualification for
appointment as Staff Nurse. Therefore, the case of
Nursing Assistants cannot be compared with that
of the Staff Nurses as both carry different
educational qualification. Under the
circumstances, the High Court has committed a
serious error in holding and directing that the
Nursing Assistants serving in the Assam
Rifles/BSF are entitled to Nursing Allowance at
par with the Staff Nurses." (para 5)
8. Turning back to the facts of the present case, the
petitioners who are secondary teachers, teaching the subject of
drawing and holding diploma in drawing, want themselves to be
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
grouped with the other secondary teachers teaching the subjects
of math, science, english, etc., who are the degree holder in
their respective discipline, for instance the secondary teacher in
science subject holds the degree of Bachelors in science stream,
as prescribed. By virtue of different qualifications of Diploma
and Degree, the secondary teachers became divisible in two
class of such intelligible differentia of different qualifications.
The different pay-scales are applied since 1973.
8.1 Educational qualifications of the secondary teachers are
prescribed in the statutory Regulations in particular, Regulation
20 of the Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Educational
Regulations, 1974. The secondary teachers other than the
petitioners in their respective subjects are trained graduates and
degree holders. They are extended the pay-scale of Rs. 9300-
34800 with grade pay of Rs. 4200, whereas the petitioners' pay
scale is fixed at Rs. 5200-20200/- with the grade pay of Rs. 2800.
It will not be open for the petitioners to compare themselves
with other trained graduate degree holder secondary teachers to
seek parity in the pay-scales.
8.2 The case put forth by the petitioners on the basis of the
secondary teachers in Kendriya Vidhyalayas or Navodaya
Vidhyalayas is misplaced inasmuch as the Central Civil Services
Rules apply to those teachers. Therefore, the class of Kendriya
Vidhyalaya teachers and the petitioners are governed under
different Rules. The Supreme Court in Official Liquidator Vs.
Dayananad & Ors [(2008) 10 SCC 1], has observed that a
comparison between the subject post and the reference post
under the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be made
where the subject post and the reference post are in different
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
establishments having different management. In the similar
way, petitioners could not have compared themselves to seek the
higher pay-scale with Art teachers who are also degree holders.
They are Arts Teacher possessing degree with B.A. (Fine Arts)
constituting class on the basis of rational consideration of
difference in educational qualifications to justify the grant of
different pay-scales.
9. The reasons supplied by learned Single Judge in dismissing
the petitions to deny the petitioners the benefit to equal pay for
equal work could be said to be eminently legal. On the basis of
those reasons as well as the discussions supplied herein,
highlighting the position of law with regard to the doctrine of
equal pay for equal work, the challenge to the learned Single
Judge's common judgment and order stands meritless.
9.1 In some cases, the authorities proceeded to recover the
amount pursuant to lowering of the pay-scale effected for the
petitioners concerned. In this regard, in paragraph 16 of the
impugned judgment, it was stated thus and orders of recovery
were set aside,
"As far as the orders of reduction having
consequentially caused financial recovery from the
petitioners' pay is concerned, it is well established
position of law especially in the case of State of
Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)
reported in (2015) 4 SCC 334, that if the pay-scale
is recovered on the ground that there is no
misconduct based on which the incumbents were
granted higher payscale and that the recovery
would cause undue hardship to the petitioners
especially when in some cases they were about to
retire and that such recovery causes financial
stress, the orders of recovery need to be set aside."
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
10. The above direction and order setting aside the recovery is
eminently just and proper and the decision of the Supreme Court
in State of Punjab & Ors. Vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer)
[(2015) 4 SCC 334] has been rightly relied on by the learned
Single Judge.
11. Resultantly, the common judgment and order of the
learned Single Judge dated 18.02.2022 does not book any error
whatsoever, requiring no interference. All the Letters Patent
Appeals are hereby dismissed.
In view of disposal of the Appeals, the Civil Applications
will not survive. They are accordingly disposed of.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
FURTHER ORDER
At this stage, learned advocate Ms. Shrushti Thula for the
appellants requested that since the interim stay was granted
initially in some of the Special Civil Applications, and as the
same was also extended by learned single Judge, the stay may
be continued for four months in order to enable the appellants-
petitioners to approach the higher forum. She submitted that
longer time of four months is prayed for in view of intervening
summer vacation.
C/LPA/336/2022 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 05/05/2023
The above request was opposed by learned Assistant
Government Pleader Mr. Manan Mehta.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, when the relief
was earlier granted and has operated throughout, the court is
inclined to consider the request of the appellants. Therefore, it is
directed that in whichever Special Civil Applications, stay was
granted and has remained in operation, the same shall continue
to operate till 17.8.2023.
(N.V.ANJARIA, J)
(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J)
Manshi
