- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Chandigarh Administration And Others v. Naurang Singh And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The respondents are storekeepers employed in Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh. By a 1966 notification, the Chandigarh Administration was required to follow the Punjab Government pay pattern, under which storekeepers and clerks shared an identical scale (Rs 60–175, later revised to Rs 110–250). In 1975, however, acting solely on a letter from the College Principal, the Administration upgraded the storekeepers’ scale to Rs 160–400— a scale actually meant for the promotional post of Assistant. Five incumbent storekeepers consequently drew the higher scale.
When the Second Pay Revision Committee recommendations were implemented in 1978-79, the proper scale for storekeepers was fixed at Rs 400–600, while the earlier erroneous scale translated to Rs 570–1080. Respondents 1-5, appointed between 1983 and 1987, entered service on the correct Rs 400–600 scale. They later claimed the higher Rs 570–1080 scale on the basis of “equal pay for equal work.” The Administration rejected their representation, prompting an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which allowed their claim. The present appeal challenges that Tribunal decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether storekeepers appointed after 1978-79 are entitled, under the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work,” to the higher pay scale (Rs 570–1080) mistakenly granted to five earlier incumbents.
Arguments of the Parties
Chandigarh Administration’s Arguments
- The 1975 grant of the higher scale was an “unscheduled and unwarranted” revision based on a mere letter, and therefore a mistake.
- The Rs 570–1080 scale properly belongs to the post of Assistant, which is a promotion post for storekeepers; both posts cannot share the same scale.
- The Pay Revision Committee corrected the mistake; the higher scale was retained only as personal pay for the five incumbents, not as a precedent.
- Respondents, appointed years later, cannot rely on that mistake to claim parity.
Respondents’ Arguments
- Invoked the constitutional principle of “equal pay for equal work,” asserting that they perform identical duties to the earlier storekeepers who enjoy the higher scale.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court held that an admitted administrative mistake cannot be transformed into a continuing entitlement. It emphasized:
- The 1975 revision was “unscheduled,” lacking any policy basis, and effected through a single administrative letter.
- While the Administration could have withdrawn the erroneous benefit altogether, its decision to preserve the higher scale as personal pay for the five incumbents did not create a right for future appointees.
- The doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” is inapplicable where the higher remuneration arises from an aberration or is expressly treated as personal to specific employees.
- Personal pay, whether granted for higher qualifications or other reasons (e.g., family-planning incentives), does not ground a claim for parity by others.
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; Tribunal’s order set aside.
As a result, Respondents 1-5 remain on the Rs 400–600 scale, and no costs are awarded. The judgment underscores that courts and tribunals will not compel an employer to perpetuate an acknowledged pay-fixation error, thereby limiting the reach of the “equal pay for equal work” doctrine where the comparators’ higher scale stems solely from a historical mistake and is preserved only as personal pay.
B.P Jeevan Reddy, J.— This appeal is preferred against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh allowing the original application filed by Respondents 1 to 5 herein. The respondents are storekeepers in the Punjab Engineering College. Their claim before the Tribunal was that they are entitled to the pay scale of Rs 570-1080 as has been given to five other storekeepers in the same college. The respondents invoked the principle “equal pay for equal work”. The Tribunal has upheld their claim.
2. By Notification dated 1-11-1966 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, the Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh was required to follow the pattern of Punjab Government with respect to the nature of the post, pay scale and the revision of pay scales. According to the Punjab pattern, the scale of pay of storekeeper was the same as that of the clerks namely Rs 60-175 which was later revised to Rs 110-250. However, on the basis of a letter written by the Principal of the Punjab Engineering College, Chandigarh, the Chandigarh Administration revised the pay scales of three categories including that of storekeeper. As against the pay scale of Rs 110-250, the pay scale of Rs 160-400 was extended to the storekeepers. Because of this proceeding, the five storekeepers working in the College at that time got the benefit of the said higher pay scale.
3. In 1978-79, the Chandigarh Administration accepted and brought into force the recommendations of the Second Pay Revision Committee. According to this recommendation, the pay scale of the storekeeper was kept at the same level as that of the clerk. (By that date the pay scale of Rs 160-400 was revised to Rs 570-1080.) The Pay Revision Committee recommended the pay scale of Rs 400-600 for the post of storekeeper.
4. Respondents 1 to 5 herein were appointed between the years 1983 to 1987 i.e long after the Second Pay Revision Committee's recommendations were accepted and enforced. They were appointed in the pay scale of Rs 400-600. After they were so appointed, they made a representation for extending the pay scale of Rs 570-1080 to them also. This was rejected whereupon they approached the Tribunal.
5. The case of the Administration before the Tribunal was that the decision of the Chandigarh Administration contained in its letter dated 19-9-1975 extending the higher pay scale to storekeepers was a mistake. It was an unscheduled and unwarranted revision. The higher pay scale then given to storekeepers was the pay scale actually given to Assistants, which is a promotion post for storekeepers. This mistake was corrected by the Pay Revision Committee whose recommendations were accepted. At the same time it was thought that taking away the said higher pay scale from the five persons (to whom it was already given) would not be proper and advisable and, therefore, the said higher pay was treated as personal pay to the said five storekeepers. Inasmuch as Respondents 1 to 5 were appointed after the acceptance of recommendations of the Second Pay Revision Committee, the Administration said, the respondents cannot treat the said mistake as a precedent nor can they make it a basis for claiming equal pay. The Tribunal refused to accept this case.
6. We are, however, of the opinion that a mistake committed by the Administration cannot furnish a valid or legitimate ground for the court or the tribunal to direct the Administration to go on repeating that mistake. The proceedings placed before us clearly show that the pay revision of 19-9-1975 was an unscheduled one, effected merely on the basis of a letter written by the Principal of the College. The Administration no doubt could have rectified that mistake. That would have been the most appropriate course but their failure to do so cannot entitle the respondents to say that that mistake should form a basis for giving the higher pay scale to them also. The proceedings of the Administration dated 19-8-1982 clearly show that the said higher pay scale was treated as personal to the then existing incumbents. As stated above that was really the pay scale admissible to the post of Assistants which was a promotion post to storekeepers. Both these posts cannot be given the same pay scale.
7. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the claim of the respondents could not have been allowed by the Tribunal. The doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” has no application in such a situation. An evident mistake cannot constitute a valid basis for compelling the Administration to keep on repeating that mistake. Personal pay is granted to employees on various grounds. In certain services where matriculation is the minimum educational qualification for a particular post, and a graduate joins that post, additional increments are given to him to start with. Increments are also given to male employees for undergoing family planning operation. Such personal pays cannot furnish a ground for invoking the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work”. Because it was a mistake it was treated as personal pay for existing incumbents. And for future incumbents, the appropriate pay scale was given.
8. For the above reasons the appeal is allowed and the order of the Tribunal is set aside. No order as to costs.
Alert