HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & Anr. v. GULSHAN LAL & Ors.

Judgment

8 S.C.R. 950 A B HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. V. GULSHAN LAL AND ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 3336 of 2009) MAY 06, 2009 [S.B. SINHA AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] Servici~ Law: c Equal pay for equal work - Public employment - Held: For holding public office, employee must possess requisite prescribed qualification, in absence whereof additional reliefs cannot be granted to him on basis of judgment passed in earlier cases - Relief granted by competent courl is binding D on the employer, but, when in a subsequent litigation the absurd result emanating from cascading effect thereof becomes apparent before another courl and and it is found that the said judgment is illegal, by application of Arlicle 14 alone, similar relief cannot be granted - ConstitJtion of India, 1950 - Arlicle 14. E Promotion - Entitlement to - Held: Promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right - If employee while working in a parlicular grade does not acquire experience of working therein, he cannot be promoted to the next higher grade when experience in the immediately below post forms part of essential qualification. , • ~ ;- " . .. ... ,.. Doctrines - Doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work' - Applicability of - Held: Same or similar nature of work, by itself, does not entitle an employee to invoke the doctrine of equal pay for equal work - Qualification, experience etc. would be relevant for the said purpose. ~L ~ .... 950 F G H ~ .. '{ ' .~ ~· ~ ... # •-4 HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. v. GULSHAN LAL AND ORS. 951 Maxims - Maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit" - A Nobody should suffer owing to mistake on part of Court. Appellant has two thermal power plants, one at Faridabad and the other at Panipat. In view of alleged discrepancies in the scale of pay payable to holders of B the same post at the two plants, some employees at the Faridabad plant viz. Anil Kapoor and others, filed suit claiming higher pay scale as paid to their counterparts in the Panipat plant. The suit was decreed. c After passing of the decree in the suit filed by Anil Kapoor and others, Respondents prayed for entitlement to higher pay scales, on the ground that they were senior to Anil Kapoor and others in rank/designation. The prayer was allowed by the courts below. Hence the present appeal. D Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. Appellant is a State within the meaning of E Article 12 of the Constitution. For holding a public office, an employee must possess the requisite prescribed qualification, in absence whereof the additional reliefs could not have been granted to them relying on or on the basis of the judgment passed in the earlier cases. Conditions of service of the employees of the appellants are governed by the statutory rules. Violation thereof is impermissible in law. Whereas the appellants are bound by the doctrine of equality as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution, it is also well-settled that unequals cannot be treated as equals. Herein, equality doctrine has been invoked only on the basis of relief granted in the case of Anil Kapoor. In Anil Kapoor's case, a writ petition F G H 952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 8 S.C.R. A was also filed for the purpose of grant of designation. The same has rightly or wrongly been allowed. That would not mean that equality can be claimed on the basis thereof which would lead to a wholly anomalous situation. Decree granted by a competent court of law is 8 no doubt binding on the employer. But, when in a subsequent litigation the absurd result emanating from the cascading effect thereof becomes apparent before another court and it is found that the said judgment is c illegal, it is well-settled, that by application of Article 14 of the Constitution alone, similar relief should not be granted. In the present case, the cascading effect was that for all intent and purport, those who were above Anil Kapoor and others in the seniority list derived benefit irrespective of the fact as whether they were qualified to hold the post and/or otherwise gained sufficient experience for promotion to the post. [Para 27] [972-E-H; 973-A-E] D E F

#2. It cannot be said that the right to obtain same remuneration would carry with it the designation also. Promotion to a higher post cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Before a person claims promotion, subject of course to just exceptions, the prevailing rules must be followed. If the employee concerned while working in a particular grade does not acquire experience of working therein, he cannot be promoted to the next higher grade although experience in the immediately below post forms part of an essential qualification. A person, thus, who is ineligible to hold the post cannot be directed to be promoted thereto only on the ground of so called equality doctrine or otherwise. In the present case, the Trial Judge following the case of Anil Kapoor and Kashmir Singh had evidently not only directed grant of scale of pay but also H an additional relief viz. designation. It was also wholly G ' t "· "' . ... ... ~.'" HARYANA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ANR. v. 953 GULSHAN LAL AND ORS. impermissible in law. [Paras 28 and 30] (973-E-H; 974-B- A CJ

#3. It is one thing to say that having regard to the provisions contained in Article 39(d) of the Constitution read with Article 14 thereof, a court invokes the doctrine B of equal pay for equal work but the same would not mean that a person is not only granted the same relief but also granted a higher status to which he was not otherwise . entitled to. [Para 31] (974-C-D] c

#4. The doctrine of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied automatically. Application of the said doctrine involves several factors. Same or similar nature of work, by itself, does not entitle an employee to invoke the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. Qualification, experience and other factors would be relevant for the said purpose. [Paras 32 and 34] [974-F-G; 975-0]