Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Misc. Petn. No. 78 of 1964

Advocates

R.K.Tankha
K.K.Dubey
G.M.Chaphekar
A.P.Sen

Judges

P.V Dixit, C.J
R.J Bhave, J.

Acts

rule 7(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rule. 1955."
Rule 7(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1955.
Madhya Pradesh Unification of Pay Scales and Fixation of Pay on Absorption Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred
Rule 7 of the M. P. Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1955.
7 of the M. P. Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service') Rules. 1955
Madhya Pradesh Unification of Pay Scales and Fixation of Pay on Absorption Rules, 1959.
M. P. Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1955
Section 2 of Schedule 2 of the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954;
M. P. Unification of Pay Scales and Fixation of Pay on Absorption Rules, 1959,
provisions of Section 115 of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956,
Section 2 of Schedule 2 of the I. A. S. (Pay) Rules, 1954.
Section 2 of Schedule 2 of the I. A. S. (Pav) Rules, 1954.
Section 115(7) of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956
Section 2, Schedule 2, of the I. A. S. (Pay) Rules, 1954.
Rule 4(4) of the I. A. S. (Pay) Rules, 1954
Rule 2 (a) of the I. A. S. (Pay) Rules, 1954,
provisions contained in Rule 7,
STATES REORGANISATION ACT 1956
State". Rule 4 of the rules
Rule 4 of the Rules.
Rule 9 of the Rules,
Rule 4 or Rule 6
S. (Pay) Rules, 1954,
1958. Rule 2(k)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner was serving as a District and Sessions Judge in the former State of Madhya Bharat on 1 November 1956. When the new State of Madhya Pradesh was formed by the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, he was absorbed into the service of the new State and continued as a District and Sessions Judge until his retirement on 30 December 1960.

The petitioner claimed that upon absorption his pay should have been fixed under the unified scale (the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) Senior Scale) and, specifically, that his initial pay should have been fixed according to the principles in Section 2 of Schedule 2 of the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954. He alleged that, had that been done, he would have received an increment increasing his basic salary by Rs. 320 from 1 April 1958.

The Government did not grant the increment. By a Law Department memorandum dated 13 July 1964 the Government stated that judicial officers drawn from units other than the old Madhya Pradesh who were promoted as District and Sessions Judges on or after 1 April 1958 would be allowed the benefit of pay fixation in the IAS Senior Scale in accordance with Illustration II below Schedule II to the IAS (Pay) Rules, 1954 (i.e., Section 2 of Schedule 2). The petitioner challenged the memorandum and sought a declaration that it was void and unconstitutional as repugnant to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and an order directing the Government to fix his pay from 1 April 1958 according to Section 2 of Schedule 2 of the IAS (Pay) Rules, 1954.

The court considered statutory and administrative materials including: the States Reorganisation Act, 1956; the Madhya Pradesh Unification of Pay Scales and Fixation of Pay on Absorption Rules, 1959 (which came into force on 1 April 1958); Rule 7(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1955; Notification No. 3563-1029/I-Integ. dated 5 October 1960 (published 7 October 1960) fixing the IAS Senior Scale as the unified scale for District and Sessions Judges; and Memorandum No. 25065-3048/XXI-B dated 13 July 1964.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Memorandum dated 13 July 1964 (insofar as it withheld the benefit of initial pay fixation from District and Sessions Judges promoted prior to 1 April 1958) is void and unconstitutional as repugnant to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Whether the petitioner, being an allocated permanent District and Sessions Judge absorbed from the former Madhya Bharat, was entitled to have his initial pay in the unified IAS Senior Scale fixed in accordance with Section 2 of Schedule 2 of the IAS (Pay) Rules, 1954 (i.e., whether Rule 4(4) of the IAS (Pay) Rules, 1954 applied to him).
Whether the fixation of initial pay for an allocated Government servant in the unified scale must be governed by Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Unification of Pay Scales and Fixation of Pay on Absorption Rules, 1959, and whether application of Rule 9 produced any unconstitutional discrimination under Articles 14 or 16.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The petitioner contended that upon absorption into the new State his pay should have been fixed under the unified IAS Senior Scale from the date that he had been promoted as District and Sessions Judge and, in particular, fixed in accordance with Section 2 of Schedule 2 of the IAS (Pay) Rules, 1954, resulting in an increment of Rs. 320 from 1 April 1958.
He argued that by denying him fixation under Section 2 of Schedule 2 and by limiting that benefit (through the Government's memorandum) to judicial officers promoted on or after 1 April 1958, the Government discriminated against those allocated from units other than old Madhya Pradesh and thereby violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
He described the alleged discrimination as lacking reasonable basis and as disclosing partiality and mala fides on the part of the Government.

Respondent (Government) Position as Appears in the Opinion

The Government applied the Madhya Pradesh Unification of Pay Scales and Fixation of Pay on Absorption Rules, 1959, which came into force on 1 April 1958, to allocate and fix pay in the unified scale; Rule 9 governed fixation of initial pay in the unified scale for allocated Government servants.
The Government's Notification of 7 October 1960 fixed the IAS Senior Scale as the unified scale for District and Sessions Judges but did not state that the IAS (Pay) Rules, 1954, applied mutatis mutandis for fixation of initial pay to those promoted before or after 1 April 1958.
By memorandum dated 13 July 1964 the Government allowed fixation in accordance with Section 2 of Schedule 2 of the IAS (Pay) Rules, 1954 only to judicial officers promoted as District and Sessions Judges on or after 1 April 1958; allocated judges who were already permanent judges before the unified scale came into force were to have their pay fixed according to the Unification Rules (Rule 9).

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Bhaiyalal Shukla v. State of M.P., (1962) Supp 2 SCR 257; AIR 1962 SC 981; 1964 MPLJ 864	Supports the principle that differentiation arising from historical reasons and geographical classification based on historical reasons cannot be held violative of Article 14.	The court relied on this line of authority to support the view that pay differences traceable to historical pay regimes in predecessor regions do not amount to unconstitutional discrimination under Article 14.
State of M.P. v. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd., 1962 (2) SCR 619	Authority for the same proposition on historical/geographical differentiation not violating Article 14.	Used as part of the jurisprudential basis to reject the petitioner's claim of discrimination arising from historical pay-scale differences.
Prithvi Raj v. State of Rajasthan, Civil Appeals Nos. 327 & 328 of 1956 (Dec. 2, 1960)	Referenced among decisions holding that historical reasons for differential treatment do not necessarily infringe Article 14.	Applied to the factual matrix to conclude that the petitioner could not complain of unequal treatment where historical differences explain the pay disparity.
Anant Prasad Lakshminivas v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 853	Another decision cited for the proposition that historical/geographical differentiation may be permissible under Article 14.	Relied on to reinforce the court's conclusion that the pay disparity did not constitute forbidden discrimination.
State of M.P. v. Bhopal Sugar Industries, AIR 1964 SC 1179; 1964 MPLJ 857	Also cited as authority for the principle that historical differences may justify differential treatment without violating Article 14.	Included in the line of cases supporting the court's application of historical-differentiation reasoning to deny the Article 14 challenge.
Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1139	Establishes that the abstract doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is not equivalent to a right under Article 14.	The court invoked this authority to explain that Article 14 does not require identical treatment of persons who are not similarly situated in law and fact, and therefore the petitioner could not claim equality merely on the basis of the nature of the work performed.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court proceeded by first establishing the factual and regulatory matrix: the new State of Madhya Pradesh comprised territories from four predecessor regions with differing pre-existing pay scales for District and Sessions Judges. The Madhya Pradesh Unification of Pay Scales and Fixation of Pay on Absorption Rules, 1959 (effective 1 April 1958) defined "unified scale" and "allocated Government servant" and provided by Rule 4 that the pay scale applicable on 1 April 1958 (or such earlier date fixed by order) shall be the unified scale, subject to Rule 7; Rule 9 prescribed the method for fixation of initial pay in the unified scale.

The Government, by Notification dated 5 October 1960 (published 7 October 1960), fixed the IAS Senior Scale as the unified scale for District and Sessions Judges; however, that Notification did not state that the IAS (Pay) Rules, 1954, applied mutatis mutandis for initial pay fixation for District and Sessions Judges.

The petitioner accepted that his initial pay had been fixed under Rule 9 when the unified scale applied to him from 1 April 1958 but contended that Rule 4(4) of the IAS (Pay) Rules, 1954 — which prescribes that the initial pay of a promoted officer who had held or was holding continuously a cadre post in an officiating capacity be fixed in accordance with Section 2 of Schedule 2 — should apply to him. The court rejected this contention for the following reasons, using only the materials and principles in the record:

The IAS (Pay) Rules, 1954, do not, in terms, apply to persons holding the posts of District and Sessions Judges in the new State; they did not apply even to District and Sessions Judges in the old State of Madhya Pradesh. Where application was intended, it had been provided specifically by separate state orders and rules (for example, Rule 7 of the M.P. Judicial Service Rules, 1955, which made IAS pay rules apply mutatis mutandis in the old M.P.).
By absorption as a District and Sessions Judge in the new State, the petitioner could not claim to have been promoted to the IAS in the sense contemplated by the IAS (Pay) Rules, nor that prior to that he had continuously held a cadre post in an officiating capacity as defined in Rule 2(a) of the IAS (Pay) Rules, 1954. Therefore Rule 4(4) of those Rules did not apply to him.
The fixation of the petitioner's initial pay in the unified scale was governed by Rule 9 of the Unification Rules; he could not assert entitlement to have the unified scale treated as having applied to him from a date earlier than 1 April 1958 (i.e., from the date of his promotion), because the Unification Rules themselves made the unified scale applicable from 1 April 1958 and the Rules were not retrospective.
Although a disparity arose between the petitioner's pay from 1 April 1958 and pay received by (a) District and Sessions Judges promoted earlier in the Mahakoshal (old M.P.) region and (b) persons promoted on or after 1 April 1958, that disparity was explained by pre-existing differences in pay scales (in the old M.P. the scale was already the IAS Senior Scale) and by differing rules (e.g., Rule 7 of the M.P. Judicial Service Rules, 1955) governing pay fixation in those predecessor regions.
On constitutional analysis, the court held that the pay difference arising from historical reasons and differing geographical antecedents did not amount to discrimination violative of Articles 14 or 16. The court relied on a line of Supreme Court authorities recognizing that historical/geographical differentiation in pay does not necessarily violate Article 14, and on the principle (from Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi) that the abstract doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is not itself an Article 14 command.

The court therefore concluded that the petitioner's challenge to the memorandum and his claim for pay fixation under Section 2 of Schedule 2 of the IAS (Pay) Rules, 1954 was unsustainable on both statutory and constitutional grounds.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The petition is dismissed. The court's core ruling is summarized as:

DISMISSED WITH COSTS.

Implications (direct effect on the parties):

The petitioner's claim for fixation of his initial pay under Section 2 of Schedule 2 of the IAS (Pay) Rules, 1954 was rejected; his pay fixation as carried out under Rule 9 of the Madhya Pradesh Unification of Pay Scales and Fixation of Pay on Absorption Rules, 1959 stands.
Costs were imposed: counsel's fee fixed at Rs. 150. The outstanding amount of the security deposit, after deduction of costs, was ordered to be refunded to the petitioner.

Broader implications: The opinion applies established principles (including Supreme Court authority) that pay disparities traceable to historical and geographical antecedents do not necessarily contravene Article 14; the court did not announce any novel principle of law beyond applying those precedents to the facts. The decision does not purport to set a new precedent beyond its application to the statutory scheme and the facts before the court.

End of summary — all content strictly derived from the provided opinion.

Show full summary ...

Ramchandra Kotasthane v. State Of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal And Others

1. The petitioner in this case, who was in the service of the former Madhya Bharat State as District and Sessions Judge on 1st November 1956 when the new State of Madhya Pradesh comprising of the Madhya Bharat State came into existence, continued to serve in the State of Madhya Pradesh as District and Sessions-Judges till he retifed on 30th December 1960. His case is that when he was integrated and absorbed in the new State as District and Sessions Judge, he became entitled under the Madhya Pradesh Unification of Pay Scales and Fixation of Pay on Absorption Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) to have his pay fixed according to the Indian Administrative Service Senior Scale and the pay rules governing the service according to the Government's Notification No. 356.3-1029/I-Integ., published in the Gazette dated 7th October 1960; that the Unified Scale of pay, namely, the L A. S. Senior Scale, was made applicable to all the District and Sessions Judges in the new State from 1st April 1958, and, therefore, from that date he was entitled to get his pay fixed in accordance with the principles laid down in Section 2 of Schedule 2 of the Indian Administrative Service (Pay) Rules, 1954; and that if this had been done, he would have got an increment of Rs. 320 in his basic salary and would have thus received a monthly salary of Rs. 1120 from 1st April 1958.

The grievance of the applicant is that the Government denied him this increment and that when he and some other District and Sessions Judges similarly placed as he was made a representation, a memorandum was issued by the Law Department of the Government (No. 25065-3048/XXI-B dated 13-7-1964) saying that

"judicial officers drawn from units other than the old Madhya Pradesh, who were promoted as District and Sessions Judges on or after 1st April 1958 and are hereinafter promoted as District and Sessions Judges, be allowed the benefit of pay fixation in the I. A. S. Senior Scale in accordance with illustration II below Schedule II to the I. A. S. (Pay) Rules, 1954, which benefit is permissible to officers of the old Madhya Pradesh by virtue of rule 7(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rule. 1955."

2. The petitioner says that by refusing to fix the initial pay of a permanent allocated District and Sessions Judge drawn from units other than the old Madhya Pradesh area in accordance with the principles laid down in Section 2 of Schedule 2 of the I. A. S. (Pay) Rules, 1954, and by giving the benefit of that fixation of pay only to those judicial officers from units other than the old Madhya Pradesh who were promoted as District and Sessions Judges on or after 1st April, 1958 according to the Memorandum dated 13th July 1964, persons who were serving as permanent District and Sessions Judges in units other than the old Madhya Pradesh and who were integrated and absorbed as permanent District and Sessions Judges in the new State of Madhya Pradesh were discriminated against in the matter of pay fixation and that persons from the old Madhya Pradesh area who were promoted before and even on or after 1st April 1958 as District and Sessions Judges were given a higher salary. The petitioner has described this discrimination as

"without any reasonable basic, disclosing vividly partiality and mala fides on the part of the Government and purposeful"

He seeks a declaration that the Memorandum dated 13th July 1964 in so far as it withholds the benefit of initial pay fixation from District and Sessions Judges promoted prior to 1st April 1958 be declared to be void and unconstitutional as repugnant to articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. His further prayer is that a direction be issued to the opponents to fix his pay from 1st April 1958 according to the principles laid down in Section 2 of Schedule 2 of the I. A. S. (Pav) Rules, 1954.

3. Before dealing with the petitioner's contention it is necessary to state that the new State of Madhya Pradesh formed by the States Reorganisation Act, 1956 comprised of certain Districts of the old State of Madhya Pradesh, the State of former Madhya Bharat, the territories of the former Vindhya Pradesh and the territories of the former State of Bhopal. In these four regions, different scales of pay for the District and Sessions Judges serving in those states prevailed before 1st November, 1956. In the Mahakoshal region, all posts in the cadre of District and Sessions Judge carried the senior time-scale of pay of the Indian Administrative Service, namely, Rs 800-1800 and the rules regulating the pay of State Civil Service Officers (executive) promoted to the Indian Administrative Service applied mutatis mutandis in regard to the fixation of pay of officers promoted to the cadre of District and Sessions Judges. This was provided by Rule 7(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1955. In the State of Madhya Bharat the time-scale of pay of District and Sessions Judges was Rs 800-1200 (ordinary) and Rs. 1250-1500 (Select Grade).

In the State of Vindhya Pradesh and Bhopal the scale of pay of District and Sessions Judges was Rs. 800-1800 and Rs. 500-850 respectively With a view to bring about uniformity in the pay scales of civil servants drawn from different regions who were integrated and absorbed in the new State of Madhya Pradesh, the Madhya Pradesh Unification of Pay Scales and Fixation of Pay on Absorption Rules, 1959, were made by the Governor in exercise of the powers conferred on him by the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution read with the proviso to Section 115(7) of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956 These rules came into force from 1st April 1958. Rule 2(k) of these rules de-

fined "Unified scale" as meaning "a scale of pay fixed by Government, and so described, by a general or special order in this behalf whether passed before or after the coming into force of these rules". An "Allocated Government servant" has been defined by Rule 2 (a) as "a person in the service of a former State allotted or deemed to have been allotted to serve the State of Madhya Pradesh, under the provisions of Section 115 of the State Reorganisation Act, 1956, and continued in the service of the new State". Rule 4 of the rules lays down:--

''Subject to the provisions contained in Rule 7, the pay scale applicable to an allocated Government servant on 1st April 1958 or on such earlier date as may have been fixed in this behalf by a general or special order, shall be unified scale applicable to his post of absorption.

Provided that such allocated Government servant may elect to retain the existing scale applicable to the post held by him in a substantive, officiating or temporary capacity on the 31st October, 1956 so long as he holds the post or a post corresponding to the one which he was holding." Rule 7 provides that a Government servant may, instead of coming on the unified scale, as specified in Rule 4 or Rule 6 elect to come on the said scale at his option on a date indicated in the table given in the rule. Rule 9 deals with the fixation of initial pay of a Government servant in the unified scale. It is as follows:--

"The initial pay of a Government servant in the unified scale shall, except where Government by a special order otherwise direct, be fixed as follows: --

He shall draw as initial pay, the pay of the stage in the unified scale which is equal to his basic pay in the present scale or if there is no such stage the stage next below that pay plus personal pay equal to the difference to be absorbed in subsequent increments and in either case he shall continue to draw that pay until such time as he would have received an increment in the present scale or for the period after which an increment is earned in the unified scale, whichever is less, but if the minimum pay of the unified scale is higher than his basic pay in the present scale, he will draw that minimum as initial pay".

by the Notification No. 3563-1029/I-Integ. dated the 5th October, 1960. published in the Gazette dated 7th October, 1960, the Government fixed the I. A S. Senior Scale as the Unified Scale of pay for District and Sessions Judges in the new State The Notification said that the application of the unified scale would be regulated by the Madhya Pradesh Unification of Pay Scales and Fixation of Pay on Absorption Rules, 1959. It is important to note that the afore-said Notification while saying that the unified scale of pay for District and Sessions Judges would be I. A. S. Senior Scale did not say that in the fixation of the initial pay of persons promoted as District and Sessions Judges before or after 1st April, 1958, the I. A. S. (Pay) Rules, 1954, would apply mutatis mutandis.

Now, there is no dispute that on 1st November, 1956 the petitioner was serving as a permanent District and Sessions Judge in the old State of Madhya Bharat and on the formation of the new State he became an allocated Government servant within the meaning of Rule 2(a). The unified scale of pay, namely, the I. A. S. Senior Scale, became applicable to him from 1st April 1958 as provided by Rule 4 of the Rules. The applicability of the unified scale being regulated by the Madhya Pradesh Unification of Pay Scales and Fixation of Pay on Absorption Rules, 1959, the fixation of the initial pay of the applicant in the unified scale could only be in accordance with Rule 9.

4. The applicant does not contest that the fixation of his initial pay in the unified scale, when that scale was made applicable to him on 1st April 1958, was actually in accordance with Rule 9. What he contends is that when the I. A. S. Senior Scale was made applicable to him, the fixation of his initial pay in this scale should have been in accordance with Rule 4(4) of the I. A. S. (Pay) Rules, 1954 That rule is in the following terms:--

"4(4) The initial pay of a promoted officer who on the date of his appointment to the Indian Administrative Service had held or is holding continuously a cadre post in an officiating capacity shall be fixed in accordance with the principles laid down in Section 2 of Schedule 2.

* * * * * In our judgment, there is no substance in this contention The I. A. S. (Pay) Rules, 1954 do not in terms apply to persons holding the posts of District and Sessions Judges in the new State They did not so apply even to the District and Sessions Judges in the old State of Madhya Pradesh. It is because of this position that it was specifically provided by separate orders and rules of the State Government that the scale of pay of the District and Sessions Judges would be the I. A. S. Senior Scale and that the rules regulating the pay of the State Civil Service officers (executive) promoted to the Indian Administrative Service shall apply mutatis mutandis in regard to the fixation of pay of officers promoted as District and Sessions Judges (vide R 7 of the M. P. Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service') Rules. 1955 For the same reason, the Government specifically provided by the Notification published on 7th October 1960 that the scale of pay of District and Sessions Judges would be the I. A. S. Senior Scale and further laid down by Memorandum No. 25065-3048/XXI-

B, dated the 13th July, 1964, that judicial officers drawn from units other than the old Madhya Pradesh, who were promoted as District and Sessions Judges on or after 1st April, 1958 would be allowed the benefit of pay fixation in the I. A. S. Senior Scale in accordance with Section 2, Schedule 2, of the I. A. S. (Pay) Rules, 1954. By his absorption as District and Sessions Judge in the new State of Madhya Pradesh the petitioner cannot claim that he was promoted to the Indian Administrative Service and prior to that was holding continuously a cadre post as defined in Rule 2 (a) of the I. A. S. (Pay) Rules, 1954, in an officiating capacity. That being so, Rule 4(4) of the I. A. S. (Pay) Rules, 1954, does not in terms apply to the applicant and is of no assistance to him whatsoever in supporting his claim for fixation of pay in accordance with Section 2 of Schedule 2 of the I. A. S. (Pay) Rules, 1954.

5. According to the Memorandum dated 13th July 1964 the benefit of pay fixation in accordance with Section 2 of Schedule 2 of the I. A. S. (Pay) Rules, 1954, can be given only to those judicial officers who were promoted as District and Sessions Judges on or after 1st April 1958. The Applicant cannot clearly be regarded as a person who was promoted as District and Sessions Judge on or after 1st April 1958. He was promoted as District and Sessions Judge and became a permanent District and Sessions Judge in the State of Madhya Bharat itself and even before 1st April 1958. He was on 1st November 1956 and after absorption in the new State in the category of an "allocated permanent District and Sessions Judge". The petitioner's contention that he should have been given the benefit of fixation of pay in accordance with Section 2 of Schedule 2 of the I. A. S. (Pay) Rules, 1954, in effect amounts to saying that the unified scale of pay, namely, the I. A. S. Senior Scale, should have been made applicable to him not from 1st April 1958 but from an anterior date, namely, from the date on which he was promoted as District and Sessions Judge. This contention cannot be accepted for the simple reason that when the unified scale of pay was made applicable from 1st April 1958 under the M. P Unification of Pay Scales and Fixation of Pay on Absorption Rules, 1959, the petitioner cannot claim that he is entitled to the benefit of the unified scale in any way even before the unified scale came into force. He cannot claim as of right that the unified scale should have been made applicable to him from a date earlier to 1st April, 1958.

6. It if true that as the petitioner's initial pay in the unified scale was fixed in accordance with Rule 9, a disparity arose between the pay received by him from 1st April 1958 and the pay received from that date by persons promoted as District and Sessions Judges before 1st November 1956 in the Mahakoshal region and persons who were promoted as District and Sessions Judges on or after 1st April 1958. But this difference in the matter of pay is not voila-tive of article 14 or article 16 of the Constitution. As stated earlier, after 1st November 1956 the petitioner was in the category of an allocated permanent District and Sessions Judge. The M. P. Unification of Pay Scales and Fixation of Pay on Absorption Rules, 1959, and the Notification dated 5th October 1960 themselves do not draw any distinction in the matter of pay scale of allocated permanent District and Sessions Judges. The difference that arose after 1st April 1958 in the pay of allocated permanent District and Sessions Judges was not because of the 1959 Rules or the Notification dated 5th October 1960 but because of the fact that in the old Madhya Pradesh the pay scale of permanent District and Sessiona Judges was already the I. A. S. Senior Scale, and, therefore, the fixation of their initial pay was governed by Rule 7 of the M. P. Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1955.

In the Madhya Bharat region from where the petitioner failed, the scale of pay was Rs. 800-1200 (ordinary) and Rs. 1250-1500 (Select Grade). Now, it is well settled by numerous decisions of the Supreme Court that a differentiation arising from historical reasons and geographical classification based on historical reasons cannot be held to be violative of article 14. (See Bhaiyalal Shu-kla v. State of M. P. (1962) Supp 2 SCR 257 = AIR 1962 SC 981 = 1964 MPLJ 864; State of M. P. v. Gwalior Sugar Co. Ltd., 1962 (2) SCR 619; Prithvi Ra1 v. State of Raiasthan, Civil Appeals Nos. 327 and 328 of 1956 D/- 2-11-1960 (SC); Anant Prasad Lakshminivas v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1963 SC 853 and State of M. P. v. Bhopal Sugar Industries, AIR 1964 SC 1179 = 1964 MPLJ 857.

If, therefore, a person who was a permanent District and Sessions Judge in the old State of Madhya Pradesh before 1st November 1956 and who continued to serve in that capacity in the new State drew a higher salary than the petitioner even after the application of the unified scale of pay to the applicant on 1st April 1958, the petitioner cannot complain that there has been any discrimination as between him and the District and Sessions Judges from the old State of Madhya Pradesh. An allocated District and Sessions Judges from the old State of Madhya Pradesh drew a higher salary because of the fact that in the old State of Madhya Pradesh the pay scale of District and Sessions Judges was already the I. A. S. Senior Scale and the fixation of their pay was governed by the M. P. Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules 1955 and not because of any different application of the unified scale of pay. In regard to the difference in the petitioner's salary after 1st April 1958 and the salary of a person under the unified scale promoted as District and Sessions Judge after 1st April 1958, the differentiation is not between persons similarly placed.

The petitioner belonged to a class of persons who had already been promoted as District and Sessions Judges before the unified scale came into force. Equal protection under article 14 means a right to equal treatment, in similar circumstances. That article does not require things or persons of different type and nature in fact to be treated in law as though they were the same. As an allocated permanent District and Sessions Judge he could not claim that he should have been treated in the same way as a person who was promoted after 1st April 1958 as a District and Sessions Judge. It is no doubt true that the petitioner did the same kind of work as allocated permanent District and Sessions Judges from the old State of Madhya Pradesh and the persons promoted as District and Sessions Judges after 1st April 1958 did. But as has been pointed out by the Supreme Court in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India, AIR 1962 SC 1139, the abstract doctrine of equal pay for equal work has nothing to do with article 14.

Government could have no doubt made the unified scale applicable from 1st November 1956 instead of 1st April 1958; but if it did not choose to do so, the applicant cannot complain that there has been a violation of article 14. It was within the discretion and right of the Government to fix any date for bringing the unified scale into force. The Unification of Pay Scales and Fixation of Pay or Absorption Rules came into force on 1st April 1958. They did not have any retrospective operation. The question whether a law offends article 14 does not depend upon whether it is prospective or retrospective. A law operating retrospectively as well as prospectively can contravene the provisions of that article. The rules in question do not bring about any inequality among those equally circumstanced In our opinion, the petitioner's contention that by the fixation of his initial pay in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules, thp Government discriminated between him on the one hand and the allocated permanent District and Sessions Judges from thp old State of Madhya Pradesh. as also persons promoted as District and Sessions Judges on or after 1-4-1958. on the other is untenable

7. For the foregoing reasons, our conclusion is that this petition must be and is dismissed with costs Counsel's fee is fixed at Rs. 150. The outstanding amount of the security deposit after deduction of costs shall be refunded to the petitioner

Ramchandra Kotasthane v. State Of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal And Others

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

Respondent (Government) Position as Appears in the Opinion

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Ramchandra Kotasthane v. State Of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal And Others

Comments