K B SIDDAPPA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was District and Sessions Judge, Gr.II at the relevant point of time worked as Chairman, Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad during the period 8-6-1990 to 11.3.1992. The appointment was made by the Government under Section 7 of the Industrial Disputes Act on the basis of the proposals sent up by the High Court. While working as Chairman, Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner got promotion as District and Sessions Judge, Gr. I with effect from 7-3-1991. In the revised pay scales of 1986, the post of Chairman, Industrial Tribunal was assigned the revised pay scale of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,200/- as against the existing scale of Rs. 2,500/- to Rs. 2,700. The said pay scale in the same as applicable to D.J., Gr. I. A special pay of Rs.250/- was also payable under the revised pay scales. The District and Sessions Judges, Gr. II were given the pay scale of Rs. 3,580/- to Rs. 5,380/- as against the former pay scale of Rs. 1,800/- to 2,500/-. As the Gr. II D.Js. as well as Gr.I.D. Js. were being posted as Chairman of Industrial Tribunal, the State Government thought it fit it to amend the A.P. Revised Scales of Pay, 1986 with retrospective effect from 1-7-1986. G.O.Ms.No. 223 (Finance and Planning) dt. 29-8-1988 was issued to that effect. The relevant part of the schedule referred to in the amended rules is as follows:

(2.) The Constitutionality of the amended rule has been challenged by the petitioner and a consequential direction has been sought to give the petitioner the benefit of the pay scale of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,200/- apart from the special pay of Rs. 250/- from 8-6-1990 to 6-3-1991 during which period the petitioner drew the pay scale applicable to the post of District and Sessions Judge, Gr. II. It appears that the petitioner got the arrears of differential pay pursuant to the interim direction of this Court.

(3.) In Krishna Rao vs. State of A.P. a learned single Judge of this Court struck down the impugned rule introduced by G.O.223, dt. 29-9-1988 declaring the same as arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. That writ petition was filed by a similarly situated D.J. Gr.II posted as Chairman, Industrial Tribunal. Naturally, this decision has been relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The ratio of that decision is discernible from the following passage in paragraph 14- "In the instant case, it is not in dispute that when a District Judge, Grade I is appointed as a Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal, he gets the scale of Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 6,200/-, but at the same time when the same post is held by the District Judge, Grade II, the said Grade II District Judge is entitled to Rs. 3,580/- to Rs. 5,380/-. When the G.O. specifically states the Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal shall have the scale of Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 6,200/- it becomes immaterial whether Grade II District Judge or Grade I District Judge is posted to the said post. The issue can also be tested from yet another angle. It is not the case of the Government that when Grade I District Judge is posted as Chairman of the Industrial Tribunal, he discharges the functions in a different manner. So long as it is conceded that the duties that are performed by the Chairman, Industrial Tribunal either Grade I or Grade II District Judge are equal, similar, and identical, denying the scale attached to the post of Chairman occupied by Grade II District Judge, is wholly arbitrary and without any basis. The discrimination is writ large". Earlier, the learned Judge referred to the principle of "equal pay for equal work".