MANOHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners who are non-diploma holder road inspectors have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution claiming the same scale of pay that is being paid to the diploma holder road inspectors on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. Their grievance is that since they, are doing the same work but are being lower scale of pay, the action of the department is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

(2.) It is common case of the parties that in the Punjab P.W.D. (B&R Branch) there are two types of road inspectors one who are diploma holders and are recruited directly as such while the others like the petitioners who do not hold a diploma but have been promoted or otherwise recruited as road inspectors, in the said department. It is also not disputed that all the road inspectors are made to do similar work but the diploma holders are placed in a higher scale in the pay than the non-diploma holders and this difference in the pay scales is continuing since long. The First Pay Commission in the year 1968 recommended a scale of Rs. 200-450/- for the diploma holders whereas for the non diploma holders the scale recommended was Rs. 110-200/. Even the Second Pay Commission recommended different scales of pay for these two categories of road inspectors. Similarly, the Third Pay Commission also recommended different pay scales.

(3.) It was strenuously urged on behalf of the writ petitioners that since they are doing the same work which the diploma holders are required to do, there is no justification for different scales of pay being fixed and paid to the two categories. This, according to the learned counsel, is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. I find no merit in the contention. The basis for giving different pay scales to the two categories of road inspectors is that diploma holders who possess technical qualifications are placed in a higher pay scale whereas there who do not possess these qualifications are in the lower scale of pay. I need not examine this matter any further as, in my opinion, the matter is squarely covered against the petitioners by a decision of the Apex Court in V. Markendeya and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, 1989 3 SLR 37. In this case different pay scales were provided for the graduate supervisors and non-graduate supervisors and this was held to be a reasonable basis for classifying them for purposes of different pay scales. It was also held that the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' which applies amongst equal was not attracted. In the case before me, the different pay scales have been prescribed keeping in view the technical qualifications and the lack of them in the two categories of road inspectors. The principle of equal pay for equal work would, therefore, not be attracted. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Doordarshan Cameramen s Welfare Association (Regd.) v. Union of India and Anr., 1990 2 JT 118; Jaipal and ors. etc. etc. v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1988 2 SLR 710and of this Court in Ram Phal Thakran etc. v. State of Haryana etc., 1990 5 SLR 97 (P&H). These cases were decided on different facts and are of no help to the petitioners.