Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ram Raj Gupta vs Punjabi University Patiala on 9 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103376
CWP-1552-1994 (O&M) & -1- 2023:PHHC:103376
CWP-10105-1994 (O&M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
2403 Date of Decision: 09.08.2023
1. CWP-1552-1994 (O&M)
Ram Raj Gupta .... Petitioner
Versus
Punjabi University, Patiala .... Respondent
2. CWP-10105-1994 (O&M)
Jagmohan Sood .... Petitioner
Versus
Punjabi University, Patiala .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Present: None for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Ajaivir Singh, Advocate
for the respondent (CWP-1552-1994).
Mr. Abhishek Kaushik, Advocate and
Mr. Vikrant Sharma, Advocate
for the respondent (CWP-10105-1994).
*****
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J (ORAL)
1. Vide this common order, two petitions bearing
CWP-1552-1994 and CWP-10105-1994, the details of which have been
given in the heading, are being decided.
2. None has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner(s). On
the previous date of hearing also, none had appeared for the petitioner(s).
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103376
CWP-1552-1994 (O&M) & -2- 2023:PHHC:103376
CWP-10105-1994 (O&M)
3. Brief case set up by the petitioner(s) is for claiming the pay
scale for the post of Library Assistant now designated as Assistant Librarian
claiming that the post held by the petitioner is similar to that of Assistant
Librarian and he is performing the same duties as are of a Library Assistant.
The petitioner possesses the qualifications for the post of Assistant Librarian
but he is being granted the pay scale of the Library Assistant which is
equivalent to Assistant. While the revised pay scale of Rs.1640-2925 was
given to the petitioner as a semi-professional from 01.01.1986, the Library
Assistant has been granted the pay scale of Rs.2200-4000 from 01.01.1986
and thus, the action of the respondents is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India and principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.
4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have
pointed out that the qualification required for the post of semi-professional
i.e. Assistant is different from the qualifications required for the post of
Assistant Librarian. The method of selection is also different. The field of
duties are also different.
5. Learned counsel relies upon the judgments passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Punjab State Electricity Board and
another Vs. Thana Singh and others' (2019) 4 SCC 113 and Hukum
Chand Gupta Vs. Director General, ICAR and others, (2012) 12 SCC 666.
6. I have considered the submissions and examined the case file
carefully.
7. In Thana Singh's case (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court held as
under:-
"20. The person claiming parity must produce material before the
court to prove that the nature of duties and functions are similar and
that they are entitled to parity of pay scales. After referring to
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103376
CWP-1552-1994 (O&M) & -3- 2023:PHHC:103376
CWP-10105-1994 (O&M)
number of judgments and observing that it is the duty of an employee
seeking parity of pay to prove and establish that he had been
discriminated against, this Court, in SAIL, held as under:-
"22. It is the duty of an employee seeking parity of pay under
Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India to prove and
establish that he had been discriminated against, as the
question of parity has to be decided on consideration of
various facts and statutory rules, etc. The doctrine of "equal
pay for equal work" as enshrined under Article 39(d) of the
Constitution read with Article 14 thereof, cannot be applied
in a vacuum. The constitutional scheme postulates equal pay
for equal work for those who are equally placed in all
respects. The court must consider the factors like the source
and mode of recruitment/appointment, the qualifications, the
nature of work, the value thereof, responsibilities, reliability,
experience, confidentiality, functional need, etc. In other
words, the equality clause can be invoked in the matter of pay
scales only when there is wholesome/wholesale identity
between the holders of two posts. The burden of establishing
right and parity in employment is only on the person claiming
such right. (Vide U.P. State Sugar Corpn. Ltd. and Another
v. Sant Raj Singh and Others (2006) 9 SCC 82, Union of
India and Another v. Mahajabeen Akhtar (2008) 1 SCC
368, Union of India v. Dineshan K.K (2008) 1 SCC 586,
Union of India and Others v. Hiranmoy Sen and Others
(2008) 1 SCC 630, Official Liquidator v. Dayanand and
Others (2008) 10 SCC 1, U.P. SEB and Another v. Aziz
Ahmad (2009) 2 SCC 606 and State of M.P. and Others v.
Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (2009) 13 SCC 635.
21. Burden of establishing parity in pay scale and employment is on
the person claiming such right. There were neither pleadings nor
any material produced by the respondents to prove that the nature of
work performed by the Sub Fire Officers is similar with that of the
Head Clerks and the Internal Auditors to claim parity of pay scale.
As pointed out earlier, the burden lies upon the party who claims
parity of pay scale to prove similarity in duties and responsibilities.
In the writ petition, respondents have only claimed parity of pay
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103376
CWP-1552-1994 (O&M) & -4- 2023:PHHC:103376
CWP-10105-1994 (O&M)
scale with those of the employees working under the Punjab
Government which was not accepted by the learned Single Judge.
Determination of parity or disparity in duties and responsibilities is
a complex issue and the same should be left to the expert body.
When the expert body considered revision of pay for various posts, it
did not revise the pay scale of Sub Fire Officers. When the expert
body has taken such a view, it is not for the courts to substitute its
views and interfere with the same and take a different view."
8. In Hukum Chand Gupta's case (supra), Hon'ble Apex Court
held as under:-
"20. We are also not inclined to accept the submission of the
appellant that there can be no distinction in the pay scales between
the employees working at Headquarters and the employees working
at the institutional level. It is a matter of record that the employees
working at Headquarters are governed by a completely different set
of rules. Even the hierarchy of the posts and the channels of
promotion are different. Also, merely because any two posts at the
Headquarters and the institutional level have the same
nomenclature, would not necessarily require that the pay scales on
the two posts should also be the same. In our opinion, the
prescription of two different pay scales would not violate the
principle of equal pay for equal work. Such action would not be
arbitrary or violate Articles 14, 16 and 39D of the Constitution of
India. It is for the employer to categorize the posts and to prescribe
the duties of each post. There can not be any straitjacket formula for
holding that two posts having the same nomenclature would have to
be given the same pay scale. Prescription of pay scales on particular
posts is a very complex exercise. It requires assessment of the nature
and quality of the duties performed and the responsibilities
shouldered by the incumbents on different posts. Even though, the
two posts may be referred to by the same name, it would not lead to
the necessary inference that the posts are identical in every manner.
These are matters to be assessed by expert bodies like the employer
or the Pay Commission. Neither the Central Administrative Tribunal
nor a Writ Court would normally venture to substitute its own
opinion for the opinions rendered by the experts. The Tribunal or the
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103376
CWP-1552-1994 (O&M) & -5- 2023:PHHC:103376
CWP-10105-1994 (O&M)
Writ Court would lack the necessary expertise undertake the
complex exercise of equation of posts or the pay scales.
20-A. In expressing the aforesaid opinion, we are fortified by the
observations made by this Court in State of Punjab Vs. Surjit Singh.
[4] In this case, upon review of a large number of judicial
precedents relating to the principle of 'equal pay for equal work',
this Court observed as follows:
"19...Undoubtedly, the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work'
is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in
a court of law. But equal pay must be for equal work of equal
value. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has no
mechanical application in every case. Article 14 permits
reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics
of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those
who were left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics
must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be
achieved. In service matters, merit or experience can be a
proper basis for classification for the purposes of pay in
order to promote efficiency in administration. A higher pay
scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of
promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay
differentiation.....A mere nomenclature designating a person
as say a carpenter or a craftsman is not enough to come to
the conclusion that he is doing the same work as another
carpenter or craftsman in regular service. The quality of
work which is produced may be different and even the nature
of work assigned may be different. It is not just a comparison
of physical activity. The application of the principle of 'equal
pay for equal work' requires consideration of various
dimensions of a given job. The accuracy required and the
dexterity that the job may entail may differ from job to job. It
cannot be judged by the mere volume of work. There may be
qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility.
Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a
difference. Thus normally the applicability of this principle
must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert
body. These are not matters where a writ court can lightly
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103376
CWP-1552-1994 (O&M) & -6- 2023:PHHC:103376
CWP-10105-1994 (O&M)
interfere. Normally a party claiming equal pay for equal work
should be required to raise a dispute in this regard. In any
event, the party who claims equal pay for equal work has to
make necessary averments and prove that all things are
equal. Thus, before any direction can be issued by a court,
the court must first see that there are necessary averments
and there is a proof."
9. Similarly, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Union Territory,
Chandigarh and others Vs. Manju Mathur and another', 2011(2) SCC
452, has held as under:-
"7. Considering this report of the Equivalence Committee, the
respondents are not entitled to the same pay scale as that of
Dietician (Gazetted) and Dietician (Non- Gazetted) in the
Directorate of Research and Medical Education, Punjab, as held by
the High Court in the impugned judgment and order. This Court has
held in a recent case State of Madhya Pradesh & Others v. Ramesh
Chandra Bajpai [(2009) 13 SCC 635] that the doctrine of equal pay
for equal work can be invoked only when the employees are
similarly situated and that similarity of the designation or nature or
quantum of work is not determinative of equality in the matter of pay
scales and that the Court has to consider several factors and only if
there was wholesale identity between the holders of the two posts,
equality clause can be invoked, not otherwise. This Court has also
held in State of Haryana & Others v. Charanjit Singh [(2006) 9 SCC
321] that normally the applicability of principle of equal pay for
equal work must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert
body and these are not matters where a writ court can lightly
interfere. This Court has further held in this decision that it is only
when the High Court is convinced on the basis of material placed
before it that there was equal work and of equal quality and that all
other relevant factors were fulfilled, it may direct payment of equal
pay from the date of filing of the respective writ petition. In the
present case, the appellants had seriously disputed the equivalence
between the posts held by the respondents and those held by the
Dietician (Gazetted) and Dietician (Non-Gazetted) under the
Government of Punjab and the High Court instead of referring this
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103376
CWP-1552-1994 (O&M) & -7- 2023:PHHC:103376
CWP-10105-1994 (O&M)
dispute regarding parity of posts under the Union Territory
Administration, Chandigarh, with the posts under the Government of
Punjab to an expert body has erroneously equated the posts under
the Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh, with the posts
under the Government of Punjab on the basis of the pleadings of the
respondents and issued the direction to grant pay scales to the
respondents equal to pay scales of Dietician (Gazetted) and
Dietician (Non-Gazetted) under the Directorate of Research and
Medical Education, Government of Punjab."
10. Keeping in view the above discussion, the claim of the
petitioner(s) is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, both the writ petitions
are dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA)
09.08.2023 JUDGE
D.Bansal
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103376
7 of 7
