(O&M) v. Punjab Agricultural University & Anr.

Judgment

1. The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is pronounced 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 3. 4. Whether only operative part of the Whether only operative part of the judgment is or full judgment is pronounced or full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full and reasons thereof and reasons thereof

5. Details

14.05.2026 27.05.2026 29.05.2026 N.A. judgment is pronounced Full CORAM: NAMIT KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Present: D.S.Patwalia, Senior Advocate, with Mr. D.S.Patwalia, Senior Advocate, with Kush, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Aditya Kush, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.L.Saggar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. M.L.Saggar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Omesh Garg, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Omesh Garg, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Satnampreet Singh Chauhan, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Satnampreet Singh Chauhan, DAG, Punjab. NAMIT KUMAR, J. NAMIT KUMAR

1. invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India filing the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India filing the instant petition seeking a writ of writ of certiorari for quashing

25.05.2022 for quashing the order dated 25.05.2022 (Annexure P- -11), whereby respondent No.1 - Punjab Agricultural University - Punjab Agricultural University has rejected his claim for grant of higher pay scale has rejected Further, a writ of higher pay scale. Further, a writ of to grant pay scale has been sought for directing the respondents to grant pay scale has been sought for directing the mandamus has been sought for directing the of Rs.8000-13500 13500/-, which stands revised to Rs. , which stands revised to Rs.15600-39100/- + Grade Pay (O&M) CWP-8139-2024 (O&M) (2) of Rs.6000/- , to the petitioner w.e.f. 17.12.1997 the date on which he 17.12.1997, i.e., the date on which he had joined respondent No.1 - Punjab Agricultural U had joined respondent No.1 Punjab Agricultural University.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case as have been pleaded in the the facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the are that in pursuance of the regular selection process, the petitioner petition, are that in pursuance of the regular selection process, the petitioner are that in pursuance of the regular selection process, the petitioner are that in pursuance of the regular selection process, the petitioner was appointed as Swimming Coach in the was appointed as Punjab Agricultural University, the Punjab Agricultural University, hereinafter referred to as ‘University’) in the year 1997 (hereinafter referred to as in the pay scale of in the year 1997, in the pay scale of Rs.5480-8900 8900/-, which was a non-teaching pay scale, similarly teaching pay scale, whereas similarly s situated employees working in respondent No.1 - University as Lecturers situated employees working in respondent situated employees working in respondent were placed in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 were placed in the pay scale of Rs.8000 herefore, the petitioner 13500/-. Therefore, the petitioner and other similarly situated Coaches made a representation and other similarly situated .2001 oaches made a representation dated 10.05.2001 (Annexure P- -2A) for grant of equivalent pay scale granted to pay scale, which is being granted to the Lecturers of the University, as the were also carrying out teaching ecturers of the University, as they were also carrying out teaching were also carrying out teaching The said representation was followed by another representation activities. The said representation was followed by another representation The said representation was followed by another representation The said representation was followed by another representation dated 08.02.2012 , wherein it was requested to the authorities 08.02.2012 (Annexure P-3), wherein it was requested to the authorities , wherein it was requested to the authorities to grant them them the teaching pay scale of Rs.15600 Grade Pay of the teaching pay scale of Rs.15600-39100/- + Grade Pay of Rs.6000/-. The said representation was considered by the Vice Chancellor The said representation was considered by the Vice Chancellor was considered by the Vice Chancellor - and it was directed that issue be kept pending till the outcome of CWP- and it was directed that issue be kept pending ti and it was directed that issue be kept pending ti 14047-1995 filed by similarly situated Coaches of Guru Nanak Dev filed by similarly situated Coaches of Guru Nanak Dev filed by similarly situated Coaches of Guru Nanak Dev , who were also seeking similar relief as claimed by the petitioner. University, who were also seeking similar relief as claimed by the petitioner. , who were also seeking similar relief as claimed by the petitioner. , who were also seeking similar relief as claimed by the petitioner. The said decision of the Vice Chancellor was informed to the Director The said decision of the Vice Chancellor of the was informed to the Director of the Student Welfare of the respondent – University Student Welfare of the respondent

20.04.2012 University, vide letter dated 20.04.2012 (Annexure P- of letter dated 20.04.2012 reads thus: -4). The relevant extract of letter dated 20.04.2012 reads thus:

08.02.2012 of S/Sh. Charanjit Singh, “The representations dated 08.02.2012 of S/Sh. Charanjit Singh, 08.02.2012 of S/Sh. Charanjit Singh, , Swimming Coach to designate Badminton Coach and Ajay Kumar, Swimming Coach to designate Badminton Coach and Ajay Kumar them as Assistant Director (Badminton) and Assistant Director them as Assistant Director (Badminton) and Assistant Director them as Assistant Director (Badminton) and Assistant Director (Swimming)/Assistant Director Physical Education respectively were (Swimming)/Assistant Director Physical Education respectively were (Swimming)/Assistant Director Physical Education respectively were (O&M) CWP-8139-2024 (O&M) (3) Chancellor for consideration and further submitted to the Vice-Chancellor for consideration and further Chancellor for consideration and further e same pending till the outcome of orders. He has ordered to keep the same pending till the outcome of orders. He has ordered to keep th 14047 of 1995 filed by the Coaches of Guru Nanak Dev CWP No.14047 of 1995 filed by the Coaches of Guru Nanak Dev 14047 of 1995 filed by the Coaches of Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar in the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High University, Amritsar in the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High University, Amritsar in the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court.”

3. During the pendency of CWP- 1995, Guru Nanak Dev -14047-1995, Guru Nanak Dev University granted the pay scale granted the pay scale, which were being granted to Lecturers, , which were being granted to Lecturers, to its Coaches the petition filed by them was rendered and consequently, the petition filed by them was rendered the petition filed by them was rendered infructuous, vide order dated 16.07.2014 (Annexure P Thereafter, the (Annexure P-5). Thereafter, the Guru Nanak Dev University, vide its letter dated Guru Nanak Dev University - vide its letter dated 28.02.2015 (Annexure P- 6), informed University the Controller, PAU, Ludhiana, that Coaches of its University the Controller, PAU, Ludhiana 1995 been granted higher pay scale as sought by them in CWP-14047-1995 been granted higher pay scale as sought by the had been granted higher pay scale as sought by the alongwith due due arrears. Thereafter, respondent No.1 vide order respondent No.1 – University, vide order dated 12.10.2016

12.10.2016 (Annexure P-7), granted the selection grade of Rs. - granted the selection grade of Rs.3700- 5700/- (revised to Rs.12000 (revised to Rs.12000-18000/-) to the Coaches , as ) to the Coaches (who stood retired), as

01.04.1996. However, the claim of the a personal measure to them w.e.f. 01.04.1996. However, the claim of the 01.04.1996. However, the claim of the a personal measure to them w.e.f. rejected by respondent petitioner for grant of abovesaid pay scale has been rejected by respondent petitioner for grant of abovesaid pay scale has been petitioner for grant of abovesaid pay scale has been No.1 – University University, vide order dated 06.10.2020 (Annexure P . Aggrieved 06.10.2020 (Annexure P-8). Aggrieved by the said order dated 06.10.2020, the petitioner alongwith another Coach by the said order dated 06.10.2020, the petitioner alongwith another Coach by the said order dated 06.10.2020, the petitioner alongwith another Coach by the said order dated 06.10.2020, the petitioner alongwith another Coach 2022 titled ‘Charanjit approached this Court by way of filing CWP-3761-2022 titled ‘Charanjit approached this Court by way of filing CWP approached this Court by way of filing CWP her Vs. Punjab Agricultural University through its Registrar & Singh & another Vs. Punjab Agricultural University through its Registrar & her Vs. Punjab Agricultural University through its Registrar & Singh & anot others’, which came up for hearing on

25.02.2022 and the same was , which came up for hearing on 25.02.2022 and the same was 25.02.2022 and the same was disposed of by passing the following order: disposed of by passing the following order: Heard through video conferencing. “Heard through video conferencing. that the Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the Learned counsel for the petitioners contends petitioners petitioners petitioners petitioners are working are working are working are working Sports Coaches Sports Coaches Sports Coaches Sports Coaches respondent/University and they are entitled to the pay scale respondent/University and they are entitled to the pay scale respondent/University and they are entitled to the pay scale the University equivalent to the pay scale of the Lecturers working in the University equivalent to the pay scale of the Lecturers working in (O&M) CWP-8139-2024 (O&M) (4) and colleges. He further submits that an identical issue was decided and colleges. He further submits that an identical issue was by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.3874 of 2010, by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.3874 of 2010, by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.3874 of 2010, Dr. Jasbir Singh and another versus Punjabi University, titled as ‘Dr. Jasbir Singh and another versus Punjabi University, Dr. Jasbir Singh and another versus Punjabi University, decided on 11.05.2015, wherein it was held Patiala and another’, decided on 11.05.2015, wherein it was held decided on 11.05.2015, wherein it was held eachers that the Sports Coaches would be treated at par with the Teachers that the Sports Coaches would be Lecturers. He also and would be entitled to the pay scale of the Lecturers. He also and would be entitled to the pay scale of the contends that the petitioners have sent a representation dated contends that the petitioners have sent a representation 1) in this regard to the respondents and 08.02.2012 (Annexure P-1) in this regard to the respondents and 1) in this regard to the respondents and on to contends that the petition be disposed of with a direction to contends that the petition be disposed of with a directi consider and decide the same in a time bound respondent No.2 to consider and decide the same in a time bound consider and decide the same in a time bound manner. Issue notice to respondents No.1 to 6 only at this stage. Issue notice to respondents No.1 to 6 only at this stage. , At the asking of the Court, Mr. T.P.S. Chawla, DAG, Punjab, At the asking of the Court, Mr. T.P.S. Chawla, DAG, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 6. accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 6. Heard. Without expressing anything on the merits of the case, the Without expressing anything on the merits of the case, the Without expressing anything on the merits of the case, the is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to petition consider and decide the representation (Annexure P 1) while representation (Annexure P-1) while CWP No.3874 of 2010 and considering the judgment of this Court in CWP No.3874 of 2010 and considering the judgment of this Court in within a period of other relevant material in accordance with law, within a period of other relevant material in accordance with law, two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this

4. University again rejected the claim However, respondent No.1 - University again rejected the claim University again rejected the claim of the petitioner, vide order dated 25.05.2022 of the petitioner, vide order dated The said 25.05.2022 (Annexure P-11). The said order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition. order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition. order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition.

5. University has Written statement on behalf of respondent No.1 - University has Written statement on behalf of respondent No.1 the petitioner, who is been filed, wherein it has been stated that since the petitioner, who is been filed, wherein it has been stated that been filed, wherein it has been stated that is not entitled as Swimming Coach, is not a Teacher, therefore, he is not entitled as Swimming Coach, is not a Teacher working as Swimming Coach, is not a Teacher to higher pay scale, as claimed in the petition to higher pay scale and although higher pay scale as claimed in the petition, and although higher pay scale been granted to other Coaches, however, the same has been granted as a had been granted to other Coaches, however, the same has been granted as a been granted to other Coaches, however, the same has been granted as a been granted to other Coaches, however, the same has been granted as a personal measure and, therefore, the petitioner cannot take benefit of measure to them and, therefore, the petitioner cannot take benefit of and, therefore, the petitioner cannot take benefit of the same. (O&M) CWP-8139-2024 (O&M) (5)

6. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has University is totally illegal contended that the action of respondent No.1 - University is totally illegal contended that the action of respondent No.1 contended that the action of respondent No.1 and arbitrary and also violative of Articles and arbitrary and also violative of Arti 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, as the higher pay scale has been granted to other Sports Coaches India, as the higher pay scale has been granted to other Sports Coaches India, as the higher pay scale has been granted to other Sports Coaches India, as the higher pay scale has been granted to other Sports Coaches working in the same University, however, the said benefit has been denied to working in the same University, however, the said benefit has been denied to working in the same University, however, the said benefit has been denied to working in the same University, however, the said benefit has been denied to the petitioner only on the ground that the other Coaches have been granted the petitioner only on the ground that the other Coaches have been gran the petitioner only on the ground that the other Coaches have been gran the higher pay scale as a measure personal to them. He further submits that the higher pay scale as a measure personal to them. He further submits that the higher pay scale as a measure personal to them. He further submits that the higher pay scale as a measure personal to them. He further submits that there is no distinction in the duties and responsibilities of the Sports there is no distinction in the duties and responsibilities of the Sports there is no distinction in the duties and responsibilities of the Sports there is no distinction in the duties and responsibilities of the Sports vis the petitioner Coaches, who have been granted the higher pay scale vis-à-vis the petitioner Coaches, who have been granted the higher pay scale vis Coaches, who have been granted the higher pay scale vis and, therefore ioner cannot be discriminated. therefore, the petitioner cannot be discriminated.

7. learned senior counsel representing On the other hand, learned senior counsel representing learned senior counsel representing University, while referring to the averments made in the respondent No.1 - University, while referring to the averments made in the University, while referring to the averments made in the respondent No.1 written statement, has contended that firstly, written statement, has the petitioner is not a Teacher contended that firstly, the petitioner is not a Teacher been granted to and therefore, cannot claim higher pay scale, which had been granted to and therefore, cannot claim higher pay scale, which ha and therefore, cannot claim higher pay scale, which ha other Teachers of the University and secondly, other Teachers of the University and pay scale granted secondly, the higher pay scale granted to other Sports Coaches of the University is a measure personal to them and to other Sports Coaches of the University is a measure personal to them and to other Sports Coaches of the University is a measure personal to them and to other Sports Coaches of the University is a measure personal to them and University is within its right to grant the therefore, respondent No.1 - University is within its right to grant the University is within its right to grant the therefore, respondent different pay scale. different pay scale.

8. I have heard learned senior counsel for the parties and perused I have heard learned senior counsel for the parties and perused I have heard learned senior counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner had initially The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner had initially The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner had initially services of the University as Swimming Coach in the year 1997 in joined the services of the University as Swimming Coach in the year 1997 in services of the University as Swimming Coach in the year 1997 in services of the University as Swimming Coach in the year 1997 in the pay scale of Rs.5480-8900/-, which the pay scale of Rs. revised to , which was subsequently revised to Rs.8000-13500 13500/- and thereafter to Rs.15600 ay of to Rs.15600-39100/- + Grade Pay of and the said pay scale has been granted to the similarly situated Rs.6000/- and the said pay scale has been granted to the similarly situated and the said pay scale has been granted to the similarly situated and the said pay scale has been granted to the similarly situated University itself. The action Sports Coaches working in respondent No.1 - University itself. The action Sports Coaches working in respondent No.1 Sports Coaches working in respondent No.1 (O&M) CWP-8139-2024 (O&M) (6) , University in treating similar set of employees, of respondent No.1 - University in treating similar set of employees of respondent No.1 granting working as Sports Coaches in the University, differently by granting working as Sports Coaches in the University working as Sports Coaches in the University different pay scales is unsustainable in the eyes of law. different pay scales Earlier, the matter is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Earlier, the matter was kept pending by the Vice Chancellor, while was kept pending by the Vice Chancellor , while stating that the writ petition, i.e., CWP-14047 14047-1995 filed by the Coaches working in the Guru Nanak Dev filed by the Coaches working in the Guru Nanak Dev University is pending before this Court , but during the pendency of said is pending before this Court, but during the pendency of said , but during the pendency of said petition, the said the said Coaches have also been granted the pay scale and Coaches have also been granted the higher pay scale and the said writ petition was rendered infructuous, vide order consequently, the said writ petition was rendered infructuous, vide order the said writ petition was rendered infructuous, vide order consequently nce the similarly situated employees dated 16.07.2014 (Annexure P-5). Once the similarly situated employees nce the similarly situated employees dated 16.07.2014 (Annexure P working in the Guru Nanak Dev University have been granted the higher working in the Guru Nanak Dev University have been granted the higher working in the Guru Nanak Dev University have been granted the higher working in the Guru Nanak Dev University have been granted the higher pay scale, the said benefit cannot be denied to the petitioner. It is further the pay scale, the said benefit cannot be denied to the petitioner. It is further the pay scale, the said benefit cannot be denied to the petitioner. It is further the pay scale, the said benefit cannot be denied to the petitioner. It is further the ’, as case of the petitioner that post of Sports Coach is also a ‘teaching post’, as case of the petitioner that post of Sports Coach is also a case of the petitioner that post of Sports Coach is also a the nature of duty of a normal Teacher as well as of Sports Coach is identical the nature of duty of a normal Teacher as well as of Sports Coach is identical the nature of duty of a normal Teacher as well as of Sports Coach is identical the nature of duty of a normal Teacher as well as of Sports Coach is identical and the only difference is that a normal Teacher imparts education in various and the only difference is that a normal Teacher imparts education in various and the only difference is that a normal Teacher imparts education in various and the only difference is that a normal Teacher imparts education in various subjects, whereas a Sports Coach imparts education in a particular sporting subjects, whereas a Sports Coach imparts education in a particular sporting subjects, whereas a Sports Coach imparts education in a particular sporting subjects, whereas a Sports Coach imparts education in a particular sporting discipline.

10. Union of India & others Vs. Dineshan K.K. reported as In Union of India & others Vs. Dineshan K.K. reported as Union of India & others Vs. Dineshan K.K. reported as 2008(2) SCT 63, Hon’ble the Supreme Court 2008(2) SCT 63 while considering the similar , Hon’ble the Supreme Court while considering the similar held as under: issued has held as under: “9. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work equal pay for equal work’ has been considered, explained and applied in a catena of decisions of considered, explained and applied in a catena of decisions of this Court. The doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work equal pay for equal work’ was originally propounded as part of the Directive Principles of the originally propounded as part of the Directive Principles of the State Policy in Article 39(d) of the Constitution. of the Constitution. In Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India & others, (1982) 1 SCC 618, a bench Singh Vs. Union of India & others of three learned Judges of this Court had observed that principle of three learned Judges of this Court had observed that principle is not a mere demagogic slogan of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is not a mere demagogic slogan but a constitutional goal, capable of being attained through but a constitutional goal, capable of being attained through (O&M) CWP-8139-2024 (O&M) (7) constitutional remedies and held that this principle had to be constitutional remedies and held that this principle had to be read under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. of the Constitution. This decision was affirmed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in was affirmed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in D.S.Nakara & others Vs. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305. D.S.Nakara & others Vs. Union of India regard to the constitutional mandate of equality Thus, having regard to the constitutional mandate of equality and inhibition against discrimination in Article 14 and 16, in and inhibition against discrimination i service jurisprudence, the doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’ service jurisprudence, the doctrine of has assumed status of a fundamental right. has assumed status of a fundamental right.

10. Initially, particularly in the early eighties, the said Initially, particularly in the principle was being applied as an absolute rule but realizing its principle was being applied as an absolute rule but realizing its principle was being applied as an absolute rule but realizing its cascading effect on other cadres, in subsequent decisions of this cascading effect on other cadres, in subsequent decisions of this Court, a note of caution was sounded that the principle of equal Court, a note of caution was sounded that the principle of equal pay for equal work had no mathematical application in every pay for equal work had no mathemat pay for equal work had no mathemat case of similar work. It has been observed that equation of posts case of similar work. It has been observed that equation of posts and equation of pay structure being complex matters are and equation of pay structure being complex matters are generally left to the Executive and expert bodies like the Pay generally left to the Executive and expert bodies like the Pay Commission etc. It has been emphasized that a carefully evolved Commission etc. It has been emphasized that a pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed by the Court pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed by the Court pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed by the Court as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other Secretary, Finance Department & others cadres as well. (Vide: Secretary, Finance Department & others Vs. West Bengal Registration Service Association & others, Vs. West Bengal Registration Service Associati State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Haryana 1992 (2) SCT 301 and State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association, 2002 (3) SCT 674. Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association Nevertheless, it will not be correct to lay down as an absolute Nevertheless, it will not be correct to lay down as an absolute Nevertheless, it will not be correct to lay down as an absolute rule that merely because determination and granting of pay rule that merely because determination and granting of pay scales is the prerogative of the Executive, the Court has no scales is the prerogative of the Executive, the Court has no jurisdiction to examine any pay structure and an aggrieved jurisdiction to examine any pay structure and an aggrieved jurisdiction to examine any pay structure and an aggrieved no remedy if he is unjustly treated by arbitrary employee has no remedy if he is unjustly treated by arbitrary State action or inaction, except to go on knocking at the doors of State action or inaction, except to go on knocking at the doors of the Executive or the Legislature, as is sought to be canvassed on the Executive or the Legislature, as is sought to be canvassed on behalf of the appellants. Undoubtedly, when there is no dispute behalf of the appellants. Undoubtedly, when there is no dispute rd to the qualifications, duties and responsibilities of with regard to the qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the persons holding identical posts or ranks but they are treated the persons holding identical posts or ranks but they are treated differently merely because they belong to different departments differently merely because they belong to different departments or the basis for classification of posts is ex-facie irrational, or the basis for classification of posts is ex trary or unjust, it is open to the Court to intervene. arbitrary or unjust, it is open to the Court to intervene. (O&M) CWP-8139-2024 (O&M) (8)

11. State Bank of India & another Vs. M.R.Ganesh Babu In State Bank of India & another Vs. M.R.Ganesh Babu & others, 2002 (2) SCT 749, a three , a three-Judge Bench of this Court, dealing with the same principle, opined that principle of equal dealing with the same principle, opined that principle of equal upon the nature of work done. It cannot be pay is dependent upon the nature of work done. It cannot be pay is dependent judged by the mere volume of work; there may be qualitative judged by the mere volume of work; there may be qualitative judged by the mere volume of work; there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. The functions difference as regards reliability and responsibility. The functions may be the same but the responsibilities do make a difference. It may be the same but the responsibilities do make a difference. It udgment of administrative authorities, was held that the judgment of administrative authorities, concerning the responsibilities which attach to the post, and the concerning the responsibilities which attach to the post, and the degree of reliability expected of an incumbent, would be a value degree of reliability expected of an incumbent, would be a value judgment of the authorities concerned which, if arrived at bona judgment of the authorities concerned which, if arrived at bona judgment of the authorities concerned which, if arrived at bona ationally, was not open to interference by fide, reasonably and rationally, was not open to interference by fide, reasonably and r the Court.

12. State of Haryana & another Vs. Tilak Raj & others, In State of Haryana & another Vs. Tilak Raj & others, , it has been observed that the principle of 2003 (4) SCT 485, it has been observed that the principle of is not always easy to apply as there ‘equal pay for equal work’ is not always easy to apply as there are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work of are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work of different persons in different organizations or even in the same different persons in different organizations or even in the same organisation. It has been reiterated that this is a concept which organisation. It has been reiterated that this is a concept which icability, complete and wholesale identity requires for its applicability, complete and wholesale identity between a group of employees claiming identical pay scales and between a group of employees claiming identical pay scales and the other group of employees who have already earned such pay the other group of employees who have already earned such pay scales. It has been emphasized that the problem about equal pay scales. It has been emphasized that the problem about equal pay o a mathematical formula. cannot be translated into a mathematical formula.

13. Yet again in a recent decision in State of Haryana & Yet again in a recent decision i others Vs. Charanjit Singh & others, 2006 (3) SCT 170, a others Vs. Charanjit Singh & others, Bench of three learned Judges, while affirming the view taken by Bench of three learned Judges, while affirming the view taken by this Court in the cases of State of Haryana & other State of Haryana & others Vs. Jasmer Singh & others, 1997 (2) SCT 151 1997 (2) SCT 151, Tilak Raj (supra), Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology & another Vs. Manoj University of Agriculture & Technology & another Vs. Manoj K. Mohanty, 2003 (2) SCT 971 and K. Mohanty, and Government of W.B. Vs. Tarun Roy & others, 2004 (1) SCT 78 2004 (1) SCT 78, has reiterated that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine doctrine of equal pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a court of law. Inter alia, and is capable of being enforced in a court of law. Inter alia, observing that equal pay must be for equal work of equal value observing that equal pay must be for equal work of equal value and that the principle of equal pay for equal work has no and that the principle of equal pay for equal work has no mathematical application in every case, it has been held tha atical application in every case, it has been held that (O&M) CWP-8139-2024 (O&M) (9) permits reasonable classification based on qualities Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities Article 14 or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who are left out. Of course, the qualities or against those who are left out. Of course, the qualities or tics must have a reasonable relation to the object characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. Enumerating a number of factors which sought to be achieved. Enumerating a number of factors which may not warrant application of the principle of equal pay for may not warrant application of the principle of equal pay for equal work, it has been held that since the said principle equal work, it has been held that since the said principle of various dimensions of a given job, requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job, normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body and the Court evaluated and determined by an expert body and the Court should not interfere till it is satisfied that the necessary material should not interfere till it is satisfied that the necessary material aim is made is available on record on the basis whereof the claim is made is available on record with necessary proof and that there is equal work and equal with necessary proof and that there is equal work and equal quality and all other relevant factors are fulfilled. quality and all other relevant factors are fulfilled.

20. Thus, the short question requiring our consideration is Thus, the short question requiring our consideration is whether having admitted whether having admitted their affidavit referred their affidavit referred hereinabove, the ‘apparent disparity’ and ‘anomaly’ in the pay hereinabove, the ‘apparent disparity’ and ‘anomaly’ in the pay scales of Radio Mechanics, the administrative authorities, the scales of Radio Mechanics, the administrative authorities, the could be permitted to perpetuate apparent petitioners herein, could be permitted to perpetuate apparent petitioners herein, discriminatory differentiation in the pay scales because of the discriminatory differentiation in the pay scales because of the revised and revised scales of the personnel of disparity in pre-revised and revised scales of the personnel of Assam Rifles prior to the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Assam Rifles prior to the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Assam Rifles prior to the recommendations of the Fourth Pay of the identity of their powers, duties Commission, irrespective of the identity of their powers, duties and responsibilities with other paramilitary forces. In our and responsibilities with other paramilitary forces. In our considered opinion, in view of the total absence of any plea on considered opinion, in view of the total absence of any plea on the part of the Union of India that Radio Mechanics in other the part of the Union of India that Radio Mechanics in other ming different or more onerous paramilitary forces were performing different or more onerous paramilitary forces were perfor duties as compared to the Radio Mechanics in Assam Rifles, the duties as compared to the Radio Mechanics in Assam Rifles, the impugned decision of the Government was clearly irrational and impugned decision of the Government was clearly irrational and arbitrary and thus, violative of Article 14 f Article 14 of the Constitution.”

11. Therefore, keeping in view the above, the petitioner cannot be Therefore, keeping in view the above, the petitioner cannot be Therefore, keeping in view the above, the petitioner cannot be denied the said pay scale, which has already been granted to other Sports denied the said pay scale, which has already been granted to other Sports denied the said pay scale, which has already been granted to other Sports denied the said pay scale, which has already been granted to other Sports Coaches working in the same University. Coaches working in the same University. (O&M) CWP-8139-2024 (O&M) (10)

12. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The impugned Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The impugned Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25.05.2022 (Annexure P is set aside and the respondents are 25.05.2022 (Annexure P-11) is set aside and the respondents are is set aside and the respondents are directed to grant pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 directed to grant pay scale of Rs.8000 , which 13500/- w.e.f. 17.12.1997, which stands revised to Rs.15600-39100/- + Grade stands revised to Rs.15600 , to the rade Pay of Rs.6000/-, to the r, the arrears are restricted with all consequential benefits. However, the arrears are restricted with all consequential benefits. Howeve petitioner with all consequential benefits. Howeve petition in view of law laid down to 38 months prior to filing of the present petition in view of law laid down petition in view of law laid down to 38 months prior to filing of the present State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Let the necessary benefits shall Yogendra Shrivastava, 2010(1) SCT 434. Let the necessary benefits shall Let the necessary benefits shall Yogendra Shrivastava leased to the petitioner within a period of three months. be released to the petitioner within a period of three months. leased to the petitioner within a period of three months.

27.05.2026 Vimal (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Yes/No Yes/No