- Court
- Supreme Court of India
- Decided
- 5 September 1994
- Bench
- K. Ramaswamy, N. Venkatachala
- Result
- Appeals dismissed.
Headnote
Constitution of India, 1950 :
Articles 14, 39(d)-Equal pay for equal work-Differentiation in pay-scale fJased on different educational qualifications-Held ·valid-However difference not to be recovered since the persons have already retired-Service Law.
. The appellants who were Village Assistants were non-SSLC an.d . the Talatis were SSLC qualified. For Talatis pay scale of Rs. 90-200 was provided for and the appellants were in the scale of Rs. 80-145. Unable to succeed before the State Administrative Tribunal, the appellants preferred the present appeals, claiming parity.
Dismissing the appeals, this Court HELD : 1. The Government made a distinction between Talatis and Village Assistants who possessed of SSLC qualification and those who are non-SSLC eandidates. For the Candidates who are .having SSLC qualification, pay scale of Rs. 90-200 has been provided for. Admittedly, the appellants are not in that category as they are non-SSLC ca~dates. The Government, therefore, thought it expedient to make a. distinction between qualified and unqualified persons and prescribed different scales of paY· Hence, there is no invidious discrimination made between the two categories to club together and grant them same scale of pay of Rs. 90-200. [106-F-G]
2. Since the appellants have already been paid the scale of pay of Rs. 90-200 while ,they were in service and are retired now, it would be appropriate that the Government may not recover from them the salary which they had already received though they are not eligible to the scale of pay of Rs. 90-200. [106-H; 107-A]
Headnote as published in the Digital Supreme Court Reports by the Supreme Court of India. Paragraph references point to the judgment below.
Judgment
Leave granted.
It is contend~d for the appellants that as per the directions, issued by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 1173/62, dated March 4, 1965, the High Court had struct down the rules holding that there c~ot be any distinction between the Talatis and Village Accountants. They cannot be clubbed together and they constitute different eategories and that, there-fore, they are entitled to separate scales of pay. When they claimed the scale of pay on the basis of revised pay scales at Rs. 90-200 instead of Rs. 80-145, the Tribunal l;tas committed illegality in not considering the distinc-tion and that therefore, the ~ppellants are not entitled to the benefit of the payment of scale of pay of Rs. 90-200 as per 1970 Rules w.el. January 1, 1970.
It would appear that the Government made a distinction between Talatis and Village Accountants. who possessed SSLC qualification and those who are non-SSLC candidates. For the candidates who are having SSLC qualification, pay scale of Rs. 90-200 has been provided for. Admit-tedly, the appellants are not in that category as they are non-SSLC can- . didates. I The Government, therefore, thought it expedient to make a distinction between qualified and unqualified persons and prescribed dif-ferent scales of pay. Hence, we do not find any invidious discriinination made between the two categories to club together and grant them same scale of pay of Rs. 90-200. However, since the appellants have already been paid the scale of pay of Rs. 90-200 while they were in service and are retired now, it would be appropriate that the Government may not recover from them the salary which they had already received though they are not eligible to the scale of pay of Rs. 90-200.
· The appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Case details
Arising from
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 6238-39 of 1994.
· From the Judgment and Order dated 31.12.92 of the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal at Bangalore, in Applications Nos. 1040 and 4408 of 1990.
Appearances
N. S. Hedge and K.R. Nagaraja for the Appellants.
M. Veerappa for the Respondents.
Source: Supreme Court of India, Digital Supreme Court Reports, via the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open dataset (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.