CHANDRASEKHAR PILLAI Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are teachers in non-Engineering subjects such as Chemistry, Physical Education, Mathematics etc. in the N. S. S. College of Engineering, Palghat.

(2.) THE reliefs prayed for in the O. P. read as follows: ". . . . . . . pleased to call for, the records in connection with Exts. Pl to P13 be called for, peruse and issue; A) a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction or order declaring that the petitioners and all other non-engineering staff working in the Technical Education Department are entitled to get all service benefits such as protection in equal pay, promotion, retirement benefits etc. , with those that are now granted to the Engineering Staff working in the Technical Education Department as ordered in terms of Ext. P10 pay commission report; B) a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, direction directing the Government to consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P12 in accordance with law and after affording an opportunity to the concerned affected associations; C) a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order quashing Ext. P11 & P13 orders passed by the 3rd Respondent and grant him the benefits of the new pay scale applicable to Junior Lecturer in Ext. P10 pay revision order; D) any other writ, direction or order which may just and necessary in the circumstances of the case".

(3.) BEFORE we go into this question it is better to keep in mind the dictum, the Supreme Court has laid down in Federation of A. I. C. & C. E. Stenographers (Recgd.) v. Union of India (AIR 1988 S. C. 1291 ). The dictum reads - " Equal pay for equal work is a fundamental right. But equal pay must depend upon the nature of the work done, 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. One cannot deny that often the difference is a matter of degree and that there is an element of value judgment by those who are charged with the administration in fixing the scale of pay and other conditions of service. So long as such value judgment is made bona fide, reasonably on an intelligible criterion which has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation, such differentiation will not amount to discrimination. It is important to emphasise that equal pay for equal work is a concomitant of Art. 14 of the Constitution. But it follows naturally that equal pay for unequal work will be a negation of that right". In this case admittedly there is differentiation. But the question is whether this differentiation will amount to discrimination. The object sought to be achieved in making this differentiation is to attract more qualified hands to the field of teaching Engineering subjects. Unless such persons are paid well, it is unlikely that the institutions will get the service of qualified persons. May be that the difference in the discharge of duties is only a matter of degree as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioners. May be that the same committee is selecting candidates for being appointed as teachers teaching Engineering subjects as also teachers teaching non-Engineering subjects. That does not however, mean that those who are charged with the administration in fixing the scale of pay has acted arbitrarily if one is to keep in view the object sought to be achieved. To put it differently it cannot be said that the authority concerned acted unreasonably in fixing a higher scale of pay to the teachers teaching engineering subjects. It should in this connection be remembered that the problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a Mathematical formula. If it has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, as observed by the Supreme Court, 'a certain amount of value judgment of the administrative authorities who are charged with fixing the pay scale has to be left with them and it cannot be interfered with by the court unless it is demonstrated that either it is irrational or based on no basis or arrived at mala fide either in law or in fact. It is important always to remember that equal pay for equal work is a concomitant of Art. 14. I therefore may not be justified if I am to say that the differentiation has no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved namely to get proper hands to teach the Engineering subjects.