Writ Petition No. 4384 of 2003 · Madrasdated High Court · 2006

3. The Secretary to Government, Finance Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.4. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, High Court Complex, Chennai-104. ..Respondents. Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, for issuance of Writ of CertiorarifiedMandamus, (i) to call for records of 3rd respondent/Tamil NaduAdministrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 3940 of 2001 dated 29-10-2002 andquash the same and to direct the first respondent herein to grantthe pay and allowances to the members of petitioner Association-Veterinary Assistant Surgeons in the scale of pay of Rs.8000-275-13500 with 25 per cent of non practising allowance on the basic paywith effect from 1-1-1996 and the consequential arrears thereof; and (ii) to call for records of 3rd respondent/Government inOrder No. G.O.Ms.No. 162 Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 13-4-98 in so far as fixing the scale of pay for veterinary AssistantSurgeons at Rs.6500-11,100/- scale instead of Rs.8000-275-13500scale and the consequential order passed by Tamil NaduAdministrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 3594 of 1999 along with otherbatch cases dated 29-10-2002, quash the same and to direct the 1st,2nd and 3rd respondents herein to grant the pay and allowances of theVeterinary Assistant Surgeons on par with that of their counter-partin Central Government (i.e) pay of Rs.8000-275-13,500 with effectfrom 1-1-96 with all consequential benefits thereon. Mr. N.G.R. Prasad for Mr.G. Purushothaman:- For petitioner in both W.Ps. Mr.R. Muthukumarasamy, Addl. Advocate General assisted by Mr. E. Sampathkumar, Govt., Advocate:- For Respondents 1 and 2 and Respondents 1 to 3 respectively.COMMON ORDER(Order of Court was made by P. Sathasivam, J.,) Tamil Nadu Veterinary Assistant Surgeons Association,Chennai through its General Secretary Dr. M. Om Murugan has filed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ W.P.No. 4384/2003 for quashing of the order of Tamil NaduAdministrative Tribunal, Chennai dated 29-10-2002, made in OriginalApplication No. 3940 of 2001 and for consequential direction to thefirst respondent/Secretary to the Government, Finance (CMPC)Department, Chennai-9 to grant pay and allowances to the members ofthe petitioner Association-Veterinary Assistant Surgeons in thescale of pay of Rs.8000-275-13500 with 25 per cent of non-practisingallowance on the basic pay with effect from 1-1-1996 andconsequential arrears thereof. 2. One P. Ravichandran of Dindigul-1 has filed W.P.No.29076 of 2004 for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus tocall for records of the Secretary to the Government, FinanceDepartment, Chennai-9 in G.O.Ms.No. 162 Finance (PC) Departmentdated 13-4-98 in so far as fixing the scale of pay for VeterinaryAssistant Surgeons at Rs.6500-11100/- scale instead of Rs.8000-275-13500 scale and the consequential order passed by the Tamil NaduAdministrative Tribunal in O.A.No. 3594 of 1999 along with otherbatch cases dated 29-10-2002 and quash the same and direct therespondents 1 to 3 herein to grant the pay and allowances of theVeterinary Assistant Surgeons on par with that of their counter partin Central Government i.e., pay of Rs.8,000-275-13,500 with effectfrom 1-1-96 with all consequential benefits thereon. 3. Since the first writ petition is by the Association,the second one by individual and the claim made in both the writpetitions is one and the same, they are being disposed of by thefollowing common order. For convenience we shall refer the detailsas stated in the writ petition filed by the Tamil Nadu VeterinaryAssistant Surgeons Association. According to them, it is arecognised Association by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.968, Development Department dated 21-5-1924. The petitionerAssociation is espousing the common cause of Veterinary AssistantSurgeons working in Tamil Nadu. The prescribed qualification for thepost of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon is B.V.Sc., or B.V.Sc., andAnimal Husbandry. The duration of the course if 4 ½ years study plus6 months Internship. Selection process is through Tamil Nadu PublicService Commission. Registration of the Degree is compulsory withthe Tamil Nadu Veterinary Council. Authorised to attend in-patientsand out-patients and to attend out break of diseases of animals.Authorised to issue health certificates and postmortem certificates.Authorised to give evidence as experts under Indian Evidence Actbefore the Court of law. Their services are categorised asessential service, hence they work throughout the year includingSundays and Government holidays. 4. In the First Pay Commission in Tamil Nadu, the basicpay fixed for Civil Assistant Surgeons and Dental Surgeons wasRs.300-575 whereas for Sidha Doctors and Veterinary Assistant https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Surgeons was Rs.225-425. In the second pay commission in the year1969, basic pay fixed for Civil Assistant Surgeons and DentalSurgeons was Rs.525-25-600-30-690-35-900, for Sidha Doctors wasRs.400-650 and after agitation it was revised to Rs.425-20-525-25-700 at par with Veterinary Assistant Surgeons. In the third paycommission in the year 1974, basic pay fixed for Civil AssistantSurgeons and Dental Surgeons was Rs.750-50-1350, for Sidha Doctorsand Veterinary Assistant Surgeons was Rs.600-30-750-35-890-40-1050.In the fourth pay commission in the year 1979, basic pay fixed forCivil Assistant Surgeons, Dental Surgeons, Sidha Doctors andHomeopathy Doctors was Rs.1340-2435 whereas Veterinary AssistantSurgeons were alone signed out with a lesser basic of Rs.1160-1950.During the fifth pay commission it was accepted and placed by theState Government that Veterinary Assistant Surgeons of StateGovernment are kept at par in scale of pay with Veterinary AssistantSurgeons of Central Government and accepted to keep the same in ascale of Rs.2000-60-2300-75-3200-100-3500. 5. There is a pay disparity with that of theircounterpart in the Central Government due to scale to scale fixationby the State Government instead of cadre to cadre in G.O.Ms.No. 162Finance (P.C) Department dated 13-4-1998. The petitionerAssociation made representations to the Government to redress theirgrievances. The qualifications prescribed for appointment to thepost of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon is B.V.Sc., and recognised bythe Government of India. The qualification prescribed forappointment to the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon inGovernment of India is equal and the same as prescribed inGovernment of Tamil Nadu i.e., B.V.Sc. 6. The Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No. 666,Finance (P.C) Department dated 27-6-89, accepted the recommendationsof the Commission constituted for that purpose which has recommendedCentral Government scale of pay. The Government in G.O.Ms.No. 414,Finance (P.C) Department dated 31-7-97, constituted an officialcommittee to examine the question of revision of scale of pay andallowances of State Government employees and teachers based on thedecision of the Central Government on the recommendation of the VCentral Pay Commission and make necessary recommendations regardingthe extension of the pay scale to State Government Employees andTeachers as has been given by the Central Government Employees inpursuant to V Central Pay Commission. The Official Committee hasrecommended the same scale of pay of Central Government of Employeesto the State Government Employees in respect of many categories andthe same was accepted by the State Government vide G.O.Ms.No. 162,Finance (P.C) Department dated 13-4-98. But unfortunately,Veterinary Assistant Surgeons were not granted pay parity with thatof their counterpart working in other departments in the StateGovernment and the Central Government. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7. The Veterinary Assistant Surgeons are to be promotedto Selection Grade post equivalent to Assistant Director post after10 years of service and promoted to Special Grade posts equivalentto Deputy Director post after 20 years of service. Both the postsare not by direct recruitment but only through promotions.Therefore, Veterinary Assistant Surgeons at a basic of Rs.6,500-250-11,100 at entry level, on attaining selection grade equivalent toAssistant Director after 10 years of service, basic pay will crossthe scale of Rs.9,100-15,500 instead of Rs.8000-275-13,500. But ananomaly is artificially created by putting a rider whichever islesser. If the pay scale is upgraded to Rs.8000-275-13,500 forVeterinary Assistant Surgeons, there will not be any anomaly at all. 8. Since the Government did not take any steps to fixthe scale of pay at par with that of their counterpart in CentralGovernment, they have preferred Original Application No. 3940/2001before the Administrative Tribunal. Unfortunately, the Tribunal bythe impugned order and on an erroneous view, dismissed theirapplication. In the same order, the Tribunal has also dismissedother applications filed by individual Veterinary AssistantSurgeons. Hence the present writ petitions. 9. Heard Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel for thepetitioners and Mr. R. Muthukumarasamy, learned Additional AdvocateGeneral for official respondents. 10. The only point for consideration in these writpetitions is, whether the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons working inAnimal Husbandry Department are entitled to pay and allowances inthe scale of pay of Rs.8000-275-13,500 as claimed, and whether theTribunal is right in dismissing their application for the same. 11. It is the claim of the petitioners before theTribunal as well as before this Court that inasmuch as the pay andallowances fixed for the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons working invarious departments in the Central Government is Rs.8,000-275-13,500as fixed by the Fifth Pay Commission of the Central Government andof the fact that there was no pay commission for the employees ofthe Government of Tamil Nadu after the Fifth Pay Commission and thatonly the official committee constituted to go into the methods ofthe pay scales of the employees of the Tamil Nadu pursuant to thePay Commission report of the Central Government, the pay andallowances fixed for Veterinary Assistant Surgeons, namely, membersof the petitioner Association in the scale of Rs.6500-200-11,000pursuant to G.O. No.162, Finance (P.C) Department, dated 13-4-1998cannot be sustained and they are also entitled pay and allowances atthe rate of Rs.8,000—275—13,500 as fixed for Veterinary AssistantSurgeons working in Central Government. It is also their claim that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the qualification for appointment to the post of VeterinaryAssistant Surgeon both in the Government of Tamil Nadu and in theCentral Government are one and the same and the required basicqualification is B.V.Sc., and Animal Husbandry. Mr. N.G.R. Prasad bydrawing our attention to the categories of officers constituted inTamil Nadu Veterinary Surgeons and the service rules relating to thepost of Veterinary Assistant Surgeons in Central Government, wouldsubmit that the method of appointment, qualifications,responsibilities and functions are in many aspects qualitativelysimilar and in view of the policy decision of the Government ofTamil Nadu, the members of the petitioner Association should begranted the equal pay and non-praticing allowances as has beengranted to their counterpart on the ground that they are performingidentical duties and responsibilities. He also pointed out thateven though their counterparts namely M.B.B.S., B.D.S., B.S.M.S.,Homeopathy working in other departments in the Government of TamilNadu are provided with the scale of pay of Rs.8,000-275-13,500, themembers of the petitioner Association are granted with the scale ofpay viz., Rs.6,500-200-11,100 i.e., one stage lower. According tohim, this is illegal and against the policy decision taken by theGovernment of Tamil Nadu in the matter of pay fixation. 12. As against the above claim, the Government in theirreply affidavit before the Tribunal as well as counter affidavit inthis Court explained that prior to the official committee (1998),the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon was all along one levelbelow that of members working in various medical departments withM.B.B.S., qualification. Prior to the official committee, the scaleof pay for the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeons was Rs.2,000—3,500 and that of the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon was Rs.2,200-4000. The official committee had recommended corresponding revisedscale of pay taking note of the pre-revised scale of pay for thepost of Veterinary Assistant Surgeons as Rs.6500-11100 and also forthe post of Civil Assistant Surgeons as Rs.8000-13500. According tothem, the pay parity prevailing in the pre-revised scale has beencontinued, after the official committee recommendations also, i.e.,one level below that of Civil Assistant Surgeon. Mr. R.Muthukumarasamy, learned Additional Advocate General has alsobrought to our notice that the Central Pay Commission hasrecommended that the entry level of Assistant Director possessingB.V.Sc., Degree qualification be granted the revised scale of pay ofRs.8000-13500 and the Surgeons working in the Offices are designatedas Assistant Directors and those working in the field level arecalled Veterinary Assistant Surgeons. It is also pointed out thatin the State Government, the post of Assistant Director is alreadygranted Central scale of pay of Rs.8000-13500. It is also the claimof the respondents that the post of Assistant Director is thepromotion post for the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeons.Hence, it is pointed out that the entry level post namely Veterinary https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Assistant Surgeon is placed one level below that of AssistantDirector of Animal Husbandry, i.e., Rs.6500-11,100. It is alsobrought to our notice that the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeonin State Government is already on par with that of AssistantEngineer and Agricultural Officer. The qualification prescribed forthese posts are B.E., and M.Sc.,/B.Sc., (Agri) respectively. Mr. R.Muthukumarasamy, learned Additional Advocate General also pointedout that any deviation made in respect of the Veterinary AssistantSurgeon alone will dislocate the horizontal relativity maintained inthe State. It is his further claim that the post of VeterinaryAssistant Surgeons are all along on par with that of the EngineeringGraduates and Agricultural Graduates, etc. 13. It is also pointed out by the learned AdditionalAdvocate General that educational qualification cannot be the soledeterminant of pay structure to the exclusion of other job factors.It is further pointed out that the workload and the responsibilitiesof the Civil Assistant Surgeons are definitely more onerous thanthat of the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons. In this regard, it isuseful to mention the recommendation of the third Tamil Nadu PayCommission which reads as under: "69. The Tamil Nadu Veterinary Assistant Surgeons'Association has very strongly urged for parity between thepay scales of the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons and CivilAssistant Surgeons on the ground that the length andrigour of the academic course of both the categories werethe same. We would like to point out again thateducational qualifications cannot be the sole determinantof the pay structure to the exclusion of other jobfactors. The workload and responsibilities of the CivilAssistant Surgeons are definitely more onerous than thatof the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons. In this context, wewould like to refer to the observations of the Second PayCommission that the duties and responsibilities of amedical officer are certainly more valuable and thetraining, knowledge and skill to be acquired by them areof a greater order (Chapter XIX, paragraph VIII, page106). We agree with this view and feel that there is noreason to interfere with the existing differential betweenthese two categories."It is also brought to our notice that the Fourth, Fifth PayCommissions and also official committee, 1998 have also recommendedthe corresponding revised scale of pay for the post of VeterinaryAssistant Surgeons one level below that of Civil Assistant Surgeon. 14. Regarding stagnation in the post of VeterinaryAssistant Surgeons, it is pointed out that persons in the post https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ beyond 10 years are eligible for movement to selection grade scaleof Rs.8000-13500 and after completing 10 years in Selection Gradeare eligible to movement to Special Grade of Rs.10,000 – 15,200. Itis also brought to our notice that in G.O.Ms.No. 562, Finance, dated28-9-98, stagnation increment was also sanctioned with effect from1-9-98 as an incentive to those employees who have completed 10years of service in the Special Grade post. It is further pointedout that the said scheme of Selection Grade and Special Grade andsanction of bonus increment to employees in State Government aremore liberal and in the Government of India, the scheme of timebound upgradation has been sanctioned only on completion of 12/24years of service; hence, according to them, there is nodiscrimination made to the category of Veterinary Assistant Surgeonsalone. 15. The following Comparison Table in respect ofVeterinary Assistant Surgeons, Assistant Engineer, AgriculturalOfficer and Assistant Civil Surgeons are relevant for ourconsideration:COMPARISON OF PAY SCALES IN VARIOUS PAY COMMISSIONSPay CommissionsVeterinaryAssistantSurgeonAssistantEngineerAgriculturalOfficerAssistantCivil SurgeonSecond PayCommissionwith effectfrom 1-10-70 425-700 425-700 400-700 525-900Third PayCommission with effectfrom1-4-1978 600-1050 600-1050 600-1050 750-1350Fourth PayCommission with effectfrom1-10-1984 1160-1950 1160-1950 1160-1950 1340-2430 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Pay CommissionsVeterinaryAssistantSurgeonAssistantEngineerAgriculturalOfficerAssistantCivil SurgeonFifth PayCommission with effectfrom1-6-1988 2000-3500 2000-3500 2000-3200 2200-4000OfficialCommitteewith effectfrom1-1-1996 6500-11100 6500-11100 6500-11100 8000-13500COMPARISON OF VETERINARY ASSISTANT SURGEON AND ASSISTANT CIVIL SURGEON.DetailsAssistant CivilSurgeonVeterinary Asst.,SurgeonDuties andResponsibilitiesMore onerousHealth care of humanbeingand treating diseasesthroughMedicine and Surgery intensive care ofpatients incritical conditions andtakecare of patients metwith accidents etc.,Not More onerous.He is in-charge of Veterinary Sections oflive stock farmsartificial inseminationand key village centresAllowancesAllowed Non-practicingAllowanceAllowed Risk Allowances https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ DetailsAssistant CivilSurgeonVeterinary Asst.,SurgeonSpecialQualificationSpecialist shouldhave alsoposses DiplomaQualifica-tion in therespective field in various disciplinealong with M.B.B.SQualificationsNo such is SpecialistQualificationsCOMPARATIVES STATEMENTDetailsGovernment of IndiaState of Tamil NaduQualifications B.V.Sc., B.V.Sc.,Appointment as Assistant Director Veterinary Assistant SurgeonAssistant Director Entry Level Rs.8000—13,500 Second Level Rs.8000-13,500 i.e., Promotion post to Veterinary Asst.,SurgeonsSelection GradePay ScalesNot provided in the Central Scales ofPaySelection Grade PayScale available oncompletion of 10 yearsof service at Rs.8000-13,500 for VeterinaryAsst. Surgeon It is clear that the educational qualification cannot be the soledetermination for fixing the pay structure. Further, the work-loadand responsibilities of Civil Assistant Surgeons and Doctors ofIndian Medicine are more onerous than those of Veterinary AssistantSurgeons. The scale of pay of Assistant Director in the AnimalHusbandry Department is already on par with that of similar post inGovernment of India. 16. Now let us consider the relevant rules, namely, sub-rules for the Tamil Nadu Animal Husbandry Service: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ RULES1. CONSTITUTION:-The service shall consist of the following classes and categories of posts,namely:- CLASS I xx xx xxCLASS IVCategory-1 Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry Specialist (Livestock) including Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry Specialist (Disease investigation) Superintendent of Farms: Clinician, Veterinary Officer, Officers Incharge of Regional Artificial Insemination Centre and Dairy Extension Officer.Category-2 xx xxCategory-3 xx xxCLASS VCategory-1 Veterinary Assistant Surgeon, Junior Research Statistican.2. APPOINTMENT: (a) Appointment to the several classes and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ categories of posts in the service shall be made as follows:Class Category Posts Method of recruitment. 1. 2. 3. 4. IV.1 Assistant Director By promotion from among the of Animal Husbandry, holders of the posts in Specialist (Live Category-1 of Class V (or) Stock) including appointment from among the Assistant Director holders of the post of of Animal Husbandry, Forest Veterinary Officers Specialists (Disease in Category-3 of Class IV; Investigation) or by direct recruitment. Superintendent of Farms, Clinician, Veterinary Officers, Officer incharge of Regional Artificial Insemination Centre and Dairy Extension Officer.2.xx xx3.xx xx4. xx xxi. Veterinary Assistant By direct recruitment. Surgeon and Junior Research Statistician.2. xx xx6. OTHER : QUALIFICATION: No person shall be eligible for appointment to the post andby the method specified in columns (1) and (2) respectively of theTable below, unless he possesses the qualifications specified in thecorresponding entries in columns (3) thereof: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ CLASS IV-----------------------------------------------------------Post Method of recruitment Qualification 1. 2. 3.-----------------------------------------------------------Category-1 By promotion from a. BVSc., degree.(Assistant category-1 in Class V. Director of b. Experience in theAnimal Husban- (OR) Tamil Nadu Animaldry Specialist By transfer from Husbandry Depart-(Livestock) among officers in ment for a period including category 3 of Class IV. of not less than five years andAssistant Director (OR)of Animal By direct recruitment. c. Must have passedHusbandry Specialist the Account Test(Disease Investi- for Executive gation) Officers.Superintendent (OR)of Farms, Clinician, By direct recruit- B.V.Sc., degree.Veterinary Officer ment.Officer in chargeof Regional Artifi-cial Insemination Centreand Dairy Extension Officer,Category-1 Direct recruitment B.V.Sc., degree.VeterinaryAssistantSurgeonJunior ResearchStatistician. ----------------------------------------------------------- 17. It is clear from the above details that in the State ofTamil Nadu the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeons is placed onelevel below that of Assistant Directors in the scale of Rs.6500-11,100. It is further seen that the basic pay of Rs.8000-13,500 hasbeen granted to Assistant Directors in the Veterinary Service. Asrightly pointed out, if the pay scale of Veterinary AssistantSurgeon has to be stepped up to the level of Rs.8000/- as demandedby the members of the petitioner Association, the basic pay ofAssistant Director of Veterinary Service has to be still stepped upand it will result in chain action as well as increase in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ financial burden on the Government. As rightly pointed out by theTribunal, even if there is any disparity among Assistant Directorsas well as Veterinary Assistant Surgeons and other similarly placedpersons in the other departments, it is for them to pursue theGovernment and ultimately it is for the Government to take adecision if the same is acceptable. The comparison also shows thatCivil Assistant Surgeons and Veterinary Assistant Surgeons are notdoing equal work. Undoubtedly, the work load and responsibilitiesof the Civil Assistant Surgeons and Members of the Indian Medicineare more onerous than that of the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons. 18. Now we shall consider various decisions relied on byboth sides in respect of their respective stand. Mr. N.G.R. Prasadvery much relied on the following decisions: i) Supreme Court judgement in Appeal (Civil) No. 6562 of 2002 (STATE OF HARYANA v. CHARANJIT SINGH) Dated 05-10-2005. ii) 2004 (4) SCC 646 (MP RURAL AGRICULTURE EXTENSION OFFICERS ASSN. V. STATE OF M.P) iii) (2002) 6 SCC 72 (STATE OF HARYANA v. HARYANA CIVIL SECRETARIAT PERSONAL STAFF ASSOCIATION) (iv) (2003) 6 SCC 123 (STATE OF HARYANA v. TILAK RAJ) (v) (2002) 4 SCC 556 (STATE BANK OF INDIA v. M.R. GANESH BABU) (vi) (2004) 6 SCC 218 (STATE OF MIZORAM v. MIZORAM ENGINEERING SERVICE ASSOCIATION) (vii) Patna High Court’s Judgement in C.W.J.C. No. 7116 of 1999 Dt:8-7-2005 (BIHAR VETERINARY ASSOSN., v. STATE OF BIHAR).Though emphasis is made in all the above decisions for equal pay forequal work, if the duties and responsibilities are one and the same,it is to be kept in mind that the claim of equal pay for equal workis not a fundamental right vested in any employee though it is aconstitutional goal to be achieved by the Government. It is also notin dispute that fixation of pay and determination of parity induties and responsibilities is a complex matter which is for theexecutive to discharge. While taking a decision in the matter,several relevant factors are to be considered keeping in view theprevailing financial position and capacity of the State Governmentto bear the additional liability of a revised scale of pay. In thecontext of the complex nature of issues involved, the far-reaching https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ consequences of a decision in the matter and its impact on theadministration of the State Government, Courts have taken the viewthat ordinarily courts should not try to delve deep intoadministrative decisions pertaining to pay fixation and pay parity.However, it does not mean that courts cannot entertain anyproceeding against such administrative decision taken by theGovernment. On the other hand, the courts should approach suchmatters with restraint and interfere only when they are satisfiedthat the decision of the Government is patently irrational, unjustand prejudicial to a section of employees and the Government, whiletaking the decision, has ignored the factors which are material andrelevant for a decision in the matter. 19. In STATE OF HARYANA v. TILAK RAJ [(2003) 6 SupremeCourt Cases 123], Their Lordships have held that problem about equalpay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula. It washeld in para 11 that to claim a relief on the basis of equality, itis for the claimants to substantiate a clear-cut basis ofequivalence and a resultant hostile discrimination before becomingeligible to claim rights on a par with the other group vis-à-vis analleged discrimination. In para 12 the Court held that, “12. ‘Equal pay for equal work’ is a concept whichrequires for its applicability complete and wholesaleidentity between a group of employees claiming identicalpay scales and the other group of employees who havealready earned such pay scales. The problem about equalpay cannot always be translated into a mathematicalformula.” 20. Mr. N.G.R. Prasad by drawing our attention to thefact that higher scale of pay on par with Central Government scaleis being paid to the Veterinary Assistant Surgeons in other Statesas well as the comparative statement of pay scales of MedicalDoctors and Veterinary Assistants in Central Government. As observedin STATE OF H.P. v. P.D. ATTRI (1999 3 SCC 217), one State is notbound to follow rules and regulations applicable to employees of theother State and even if they had been followed, it was not necessaryto follow the changes subsequently made by the other State. It isalso relevant to note that as per the decision of the Supreme Courtin M.P. RURAL AGRICULTURE EXTENSION OFFICERS ASSOCIATION v. STATE OFM.P., [2004 (4) SCC 646], the recommendation of the pay commissionis not binding on the State and the same cannot be enforced byissuing a writ of or in the nature of mandamus. It is also clearfrom the said decision that the State can make rules in exercise ofpowers conferred on it under proviso to Art. 309 of theConstitution, contrary to the recommendations by evolving policydecision and give the same a retrospective effect. The conclusionin para 26 of the judgement of Their Lordships is relevant: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ “26. True it may be that when recommendationsare made by a Pay Commission, evaluation of job must beheld to have been made but the same by itself may notbe a ground to enforce the recommendations by issuing awrit of or in the nature of mandamus although the Statedid not accept the same in toto and made rules to thecontrary by evolving a policy decision which cannot besaid to be arbitrary or discriminatory.” 21. In STATE OF HARYANA v. HARYANA CIVIL SECRETARIATPERSONAL STAFF ASSOCIATION [(2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases 72], TheirLordships have re-stated the law that fixation of pay anddetermination of parity in duties is the function of the executiveand while taking a decision in this matter several relevant factorshave to be considered. They also held that financial capacity ofthe Government and the priority given to different types of postsunder the prevailing policies of the Government are also relevantfactors. Finally, Their Lordships have held that the courts shouldinterfere with administrative decisions pertaining to pay fixationand pay parity only when they find such a decision to be patentlyirrational, unjust and prejudicial to a section of employees andtaken in ignorance of material and relevant factors. 22. Learned Additional Advocate General heavily reliedon the decision in UNION OF INDIA v. TARIT RANJAN DAS, reported in2003 AIR SCW 7082 and in STATE OF HARYANA v. CHARANJIT SINGH inAppeal (Civil) No. 6562 of 2002 dated 05-10-2005. In the firstreported decision, the following observation/conclusion is pressedinto service: (paras 10 and 11) “10. In State of W.B. and others v. Hari Narayan Bhowal andothers [1994 (4) SCC 78] it was observed: “This Court in the case of Delhi VeterinaryAssocn. V. Union of India [1984 (3) SCC 1] said that inadditijon to the principle of ‘equal pay for equalwork’, the pay structure of the employees of theGovernment should reflect many other social values. Itwas said: “The degree of skill, strain of work, experienceinvolved, training required, responsibility undertaken,mental and physical requirements, disagreeableness ofthe task, hazard attendant on work and fatigue involvedare, according to the Third Pay Commission, some of therelevant factors which should be taken intoconsideration in fixing pay scales. The method ofrecruitment, the level of which the initial recruitmentis made in the hierarchy of service or cadre, minimum https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ educational and technical qualifications prescribed forthe post, the nature of dealings with the public,avenues of promotion available and horizontal andvertical relativity with other jobs in the same serviceor outside are also relevant factors.” 11. In the Case of State of U.P. v. J.P.Chaurasia [1989 (1) SCC 121] it was pointed out thatwhether two posts are equal or should carry the equalpay, depends on several factors. It was not dependjust upon either the nature of work or the volume ofwork done. Primarily it requires among others,evaluation of duties and responsibilities of therespective posts by the Competent Authoritiesconstituted for the purpose and Courts cannotordinately substitute themselves in the place of thoseauthorities. The quantity of work may be the same butthe quality may be different. That cannot bedetermined by relying upon averments in affidavits ofinterested parties. It must be determined by expertbodies like Pay Commission and the Government, whowould be the best Judges, to evaluate the nature ofduty, responsibility and all relevant factors. Thesame view was reiterated in the case of State of M.P.v. Pramod Bhartiya [1993 (1) SCC 539] by a three-JudgeBench of this Court. In the case of Shyam Babu Vermav. Union of India [1994 (2) SCC 521] a claim for equalpay by a group of Pharmacists was rejected saying thatthe classification made by a body of experts after fullstudy and analysis of the work, should not be disturbedexcept for strong reasons which indicate that theclassification made was unreasonable.”After saying so, the Honourable Supreme Court quashed the order ofthe Tribunal as well as the order of the High Court confirming thesame. 23. In the latter unreported decision (Appeal (Civil)No. 6562/2002), the doctrine namely equal pay for equal work wasconsidered with reference to the earlier decisions of the SupremeCourt in the cases of i) STATE OF HARYANA v. JASMER SINGH (1996) 11 SCC 77)ii) HARBANS LAL v. STATE OF H.P (1989) 4 SCC 459)iii)HARYANA v. ITILAK RAJ (2003) 6 SCC 123)iv)ORISSA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE & TECHNOLOGY v. MANOJ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ K. MOHANTY (2003) 5 SCC 188)v) GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL v. TARUN K. ROY (2004)1 SCC 347)vi)STATE BANK OF INDIA v. M.R. GANESH BABU (2002 (4) SCC 556)vii)STATE OF ORISSA v. BALARAM SAHU (2003) 1 SCC 250), andviii)BHAGWAN DASS & OTHERS v. STATE OF HARYANA (1987)4 SCC 634)concluded thus: (para 17) “17. Having considered the authorities and thesubmissions we are of the view that the authorities inthe cases of JASMER SINGH, TILAK RAJ, ORISSA UNIVERSITYOF AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY AND TARUN K. ROY lay downthe correct law. Undoubtedly, the doctrine of “equal payfor equal work” is not an abstract doctrine and iscapable of being enforced in a Court of law. But equalpay must be for equal work of equal value. The principleof “equal pay for equal work” has no mechanicalapplication in every case. Article 14 permits reasonableclassification based on qualities or characteristics ofpersons recruited and grouped together, as against thosewho were left out. Of course, the qualities orcharacteristics must have a reasonable relation to theobject sought to be achieved. In service matters, meritor experience can be a proper basis for classificationfor the purposes of pay in order to promote efficiency inadministration. A higher pay scale to avoid stagnationor resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenuesis also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation.The very fact that the person has not gone through theprocess of recruitment may itself, in certain cases, makea difference. If the educational qualifications aredifferent, then also the doctrine may have noapplication. Even though persons may do the same work,their quality of work may differ. Where persons areselected by a Selection Committee on the basis of meritwith due regard to seniority a higher pay scale grantedto such persons who are evaluated by competent authoritycannot be challenged. A classification based ondifference in educational qualifications justifies adifference in pay scales. A mere nomenclaturedesignating a person as say a carpenter or a craftsman isnot enough to come to the conclusion that he is doing the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ same work as another carpenter or craftsman in regularservice. The quality of work which is produced may bedifferent and even the nature of work assigned may bedifferent. It is not just a comparison of physicalactivity. The application of the principle of “equal payfor equal work” requires consideration of variousdimensions of a given job. The accuracy required and thedexterity that the job may entail may differ from job tojob. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work.There may be qualitative difference as regardsreliability and responsibility. Functions may be thesame but the responsibilities made a difference. Thusnormally the applicability of this principle must be leftto be evaluated and determined by an expert body. Theseare not matters where a writ court can lightly interfere.Normally a party claiming equal pay for equal work shouldbe required to raise a dispute in this regard. In anyevent the party who claims equal pay for equal work hasto make necessary averments and prove that all things areequal. Thus, before any direction can be issued by aCourt, the Court must first see that there are necessaryaverments and there is a proof…”The above conclusion makes it clear that Their lordships havearrived such a decision after considering the principles laid downin the decisions relied on by Mr. N.G.R. Prasad. We have referredto the fact that though the educational qualification, namely,degree in B.V.Sc., is the same for the post of Assistant Director aswell as Veterinary Assistant Surgeons, in view of the rules, namely,sub-rules for the Tamil Nadu Animal Husbandry Services framed inexercise of the powers conferred by the Proviso to Article 309 ofthe Constitution of India, we are of the view that the decisionsrelied on by Mr. N.G.R. Prasad are distinguishable and notapplicable to the cases on hand. 24. Though persons can be appointed directly as AssistantDirector, the rules referred to above make it clear that the post ofAssistant Director is the promotional post for the post ofVeterinary Assistant Surgeon, hence the entry level post namelyVeterinary Assistant Surgeon is placed one level below that ofAssistant Director of Animal Husbandry with scale of pay of Rs.6500-11,100. We have already pointed out that the pay of VeterinaryAssistant Surgeon in the State Government is on par with that ofAssistant Engineer and Agricultural Officers and the qualificationprescribed for those posts are B.E., and M.Sc.,/B.Sc., (Agri)respectively. Hence, as rightly pointed out, any deviation made inrespect of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon alone will dis-locate thehorizontal relativity maintained in the State. The post ofVeterinary Assistant Surgeon is treated on par with the Engineering https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ graduates and Agricultural graduates etc. The existing pay paritybetween Veterinary Assistant Surgeon and Doctors has been continuedin the revised scale of pay also. Therefore, we are satisfied thatthere is no discrimination or violation as claimed by thepetitioners. We have already stated the educational qualificationcannot be the sole determinant of pay structure to the exclusion ofother job factors. The respondents have demonstrated the work-loadand responsibilities of the Civil Assistant Surgeons which aredefinitely more onerous than that of Veterinary Assistant Surgeons.We have already referred to the fact that incentive increments arebeing paid to Veterinary Assistant Surgeons who have completed 10years of service in the Special Grade post, grant of SelectionGrade, Special Grade and bonus increments are sanctioned as a reliefmeasure to those who are stagnating for more than 10/20/30 years ofservice in a post. As rightly pointed out, the scheme of SpecialGrade and Selection Grade and sanction of bonus increments to theState Government employees are more liberal. In Government ofIndia, the scheme of upgradation has been sanctioned aftercompletion of 12/24 years of service. Here again, we are satisfiedthat there is no discrimination made to the categories of VeterinaryAssistant Surgeons alone. We have also stated in the earlier partof our order the duties and responsibilities of Civil AssistantSurgeons and Doctors of Indian Medicines who are more onerous thanthose of Veterinary Assistant Surgeons. We are also satisfied thatthe scale of pay of Assistant Director in the Animal HusbandryDepartment is already on par with that of similar post in theGovernment of India. 25. In the light of what is stated above, we aresatisfied that the Tribunal considered all relevant materials andrightly rejected the claim of the applicants/petitioners. In thelight of our discussion, we are in agreement with the saidconclusion and we do not find any error, infirmity or valid groundfor interference. Accordingly both the Writ Petitions fail and aredismissed. No costs. R.B.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To:1. The Secretary to Government, Finance (C.M.P.C.) Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.2. The Secretary to Government, Animal Husbandry and Fisheries Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-9.3. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, High Court Complex, Chennai-104.4. The Director of Veterinary Services, Central Office Buildings, Block II, Teynampet, Chennai-2.+2 CCs to Mr.G.Purushothaman, Advocate, SR No.3242, 3812/06+1 CC to the Government Pleader, SR No.3488/06TM(CO)BG/6.2.2006 Common Order in W.P.Nos.4384/2003 and 29076/2004.