R.B. Subrahmanyam and Others vs Andhra Pradesh State Electricity Board, Hyderabad and Another

Eswara Prasad, J.—On merger of two services in the respondents-Electricity Board, namely, Chief Controller of Accounts and Chief Accounts Officers, the employees working in both the offices formed a common cadre and an integrated list of the employees working in both the offices formed a common cadre and an integrated list of the employees, who are merged into a common cadre was published on 17-9-1976. One J. V. Satyanarayana Murthy was shown at serial No. 49 in the said integrated list. The petitioners are all seniors to the said Satyanarayana Murthy as per the integrated list. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are not given the scale of pay as was given to their junior Satyanarayana Murthy, and therefore, they pray for directions to the petitioner on par with the their junior mentioned at serial No. 49 of the integrated list and for further direction to the respondent was to pay all the arrears upto date after fixing pay and allowances. In the counter filed by the respondents, it is contended that Satyanarayana Murthy was given a higher scale of pay for the post of Lower Division Clerk as he possessed higher qualification; being a graduate and that he was given higher scale of pay throughout until merger with the other department. It was further stated that the pay of Satyanarayana Murthy was protected at the time of merger and higher scale of pay was continued and that the petitioner cannot claim the same scale as was given to the said Satyanarayana Murthy.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that once both the departments are merged, the petitioners are entitled to be given the same scale of pay, as was given to their junior an that the fixing of lower scale of pay for the petitioners is discriminatory and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as the work turned-out by both the petitioner as well as their junior is the same and the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is applicable.

The learned standing Counsel for the Board contends that even though both the departments were merged, the initial higher scale of pay given to Satyanarayana Murthy was protected at the time of merger and that he was entitled to receive higher scale of pay on account of the protection of pay given to him and that it will not entitle the petitioners to claim higher scale of pay on par with the junior.

In State of Andhra Pradesh v. G. Sreenivasa Rao 1989 I CLR 631, it was held that the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" cannot doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" cannot be put in a strait-jacket and that the abstract doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" cannot be read in Article 14. Reasonable classification, based on intelligible criteria having nexus with the object sought to be achieved, is permissible. It was further held that the said doctrine does not mean that all the members of a cadre must receive the same pay packet irrespective of their seniority, source of recruitment, educational qualifications and various other incidents of service. It was also observed that ordinarily grant of higher pay to a junior would ex facie be arbitrary, but if there are justifiable grounds in doing so, the seniors cannot invoke the equality doctrine. The Supreme Court illustrated the point by saying that if the persons recruited from different sources are given pay protection when promoted from lower cadre or transferred from another cadre, there is not violation of mandate of equal pay for equal work. The differentia on these grounds are based on intelligible criteria which has rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.

In the present case, it is seen that he junior had higher qualification and was given initially higher pay when he started his service as Lower Division Clerk. Throughout his service in that department, the higher pay was carried by Satyanarayana Murthy. When both the departments were merged, his pay was protected and he continued to draw higher pay. Applying the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the above mentioned decision, there is nothing ex facie arbitrary in the petitioners getting lower pay than Satyanarayana Murthy, who was recruited from a different source and was given pay protection when both departments were merged. The doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is not applicable in this case as contended by learned Counsel for the petitioners.

For all the above said reasons, there are no merits in the writ petition, and it is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.