Union of India v. Rajesh Kumar Gond

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: H. L. Gokhale
J. Chelameswar
Judgment Date: 2013-07-25
Court Decision / Holding: This special leave petition is, therefore, dismissed.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed, interim orders vacated. No costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Union of India & Ors.

Respondents

Rajesh Kumar Gond

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• P. P. Malhotra, Additional Solicitor General
• Ashok Kumar Panda
• Yasir Rauf
• Lingaraj Sarangi
• Arvind Kumar Sharma

Case Synopsis & Summary

Union of India and others challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order granting parity of pay to Rajesh Kumar Gond, a Junior Hindi Translator in the Commerce Ministry, with Junior Translators in the Central Secretariat Official Language Service (CSOLS). Gond claimed ‘equal pay for equal work’ and sought the higher CSOLS pay scale. The Tribunal rejected the Union’s objections, finding no material showing a functional distinction between the two posts and relying on the Fifth Central Pay Commission’s recommendation that pay scales for CSOLS could be applied to other subordinate offices subject to functional requirements. The Calcutta High Court dismissed the Union’s petition, and the matter moved to the Supreme Court. The Union contended that, although not expressly a fundamental right, equal pay for equal work is a constitutional right under Articles 14, 16 and 39(d); parity would ensure substantive equality for workers regardless of gender or department. The respondents argued the two posts serve different ministries with potentially different workloads, and without evidence of functional disparity parity cannot be mandated. The Supreme Court, noting that no material was placed to demonstrate a functional distinction, upheld the Tribunal’s conclusion and dismissed the Special Leave Petitions, aligning with Randhir Singh’s articulation that equality before the law encompasses equal pay for equal work. The decision also covered similarly situated cases in other ministries, maintaining the parity principle.

Provisions of Law Cited

Article 14 of the ConstitutionArticle 16 of the ConstitutionArticle 39(d) of the Constitution

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Equal pay for equal work
Directive Principles of State Policy read into fundamental rights (via Article 39(d))

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The Union of India contended that the two posts of Junior Hindi Translators in different ministries are not functionally identical and therefore cannot be automatically equated for parity of pay. In the absence of material showing a functional distinction, the Tribunal’s order granting parity with CSOLS pay scales cannot be faulted. It relied on the Fifth Central Pay Commission’s recommendations and urged consideration of functional requirements specific to the Commerce Ministry when assessing parity.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent argued for equal pay for equal work with parity to CSOLS translators, based on the similarity of translation work and the parity recommended by the Fifth Central Pay Commission. It contended that the functional workload is comparable and that parity should not be denied without evidence of functional disparity.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Randhir Singh v. Union of India and Ors.	(1982) 1 SCC 618	Positive	The case is cited in support of the proposition that equal pay for equal work is a constitutional right (via Article 39(d)) and applicable to government employment.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# [2013] 8 S.C.R. 132 A # UNION OF INDIA & ORS. _V._ RAJESH KUMAR GOND (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17419/2009) B JULY 25, 2013 **[H.L. GOKHALE AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.]** _Service Law_ - _Equal pay for equal work_ - _Respondent,_ a - _Junior Hindi Translator under the Commerce Ministry He_ C _sought parity of pay with junior Translators in the Central_ - _Secretariat Official Language Service (CSOLS) Plea of_ - _respondent not accepted He filed application in the Administrative Tribunal on the basis of 'equal pay for equal_ - _work' Application opposed by the petitioners who stated that_ o _the Fifth Central Pay Commission had recommended that the pay-scales of Junior Hindi Translators for the Central Secretariat (CSOLS)_ may _be applied to all subordinate offices_ - _subject to their functional requirement However, no material placed before the Tribunal to show_ as _to how the functional_ E _requirement of the concerned job in the Commerce Ministry was different from that in the Central Secretariat_ - _Tribunal held in favour of respondent stating that there was no reason to deny parity in pay_ - _Order challenged_ - _Held: Since no material was placed before the Tribunal about the functional_ F _distinction, the order of the Tribunal cannot be faulted_ - _Though principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not expressly declared by the Constitution to be_ a _fundamental right, but it certainly is_ a _constitutional right_ - _Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims 'equal pay for equal work for both men and women''as_ a _Directive Principe of State Policy_ - _To the_ G _vast majority of the people, equality clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with_ - _the work they do and the pay they get To them the equality clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal_ H 132 UNION OF !NOIA _v._ RAJESH KUMAR GOND 133 _pay_ - _Constitution of India, 1950_ - _Articles 14, 16 and 39(d)._ A _Randhir Singh vs. Union of India and Ors._ (1982) 1 SCC 618: 1982 (3) SCR 298 - relied on. ## Case Law Reference: B 1982 (3) SCR 298 relied on Para 6, 8 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No. 17419 of 2009. From the Judgment and Order dated 09.07.2008 of the High Court at Calcutta in Writ Petition CT No. 632 of 2007. ## WITH C.A. No. 1119 of 2013 & SLP (C) No. 37255 of 2012. D P.P. Malhotra, ASG, Ashok Kumar Panda, Yasir Rauf, Lingaraj Sarangi, Arvind Kumar Sharma. R. Balasubramanian, Gunwant Dara, Aditya Singla (for B.V. Balaram Das). Anil Katiyar, Subodh Kr. Pathak, Shashi Ranjat (for Dharmendra Kumar Sinha). Pragati Neekhra, Parth Tiwari for the appearing E Parties. The following order of the Court was delivered by ## ORDER F ## S.L.P.(C) No. 17419/2009 1. Delay condoned. 2. Heard Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor General in support of this special leave petition and Mr. Subodh G Kr. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. > 3. This special leave petition seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 9.7.2008 passed by the High Court H 134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R. - A of Calcutta in Writ Petition No.632 of 2007 which confirmed the judgment dated 9.11.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O.A. No.939 of 2004. 4. The respondent is a Junior Hindi Translator working in 8[the office ][of ][Director General of Commercial Intelligence ][& ] Statistics under the Commerce Ministry and he sought parity of pay with the Junior Translators who were working in the Central Secretariat Official Language Service (CSOLS). The Home Ministry had issued Office Memorandum dated 9.2.2003, > C upgrading the pay-scales of Junior Hindi Translators from Rs.5000-1050-8000 to Rs.5500-175-9000, which were made applicable from 11.2.2003. The respondent sought the same pay-scale but it was denied to him. It is, therefore, that he filed an application in the Central Administrative Tribunal on the basis of 'equal pay for equal work'. The application filed by the D respondent was opposed by the petitioners by filing a counter, wherein amongst other things, in paragraph 9 they stated that the Fifth Central Pay Commission had recommended that the pay-scales of Junior Hindi Translators for the Central Secretariat (CSOLS) may be applied to all subordinate offices subject to E their functional requirement. However, no materi§il 'whatsoever was placed before the Tribunal to show as to how the functional requirement of the concerned job in the Commerce Ministry was different from that in the Central Secretariat. Both the posts required the work of translation to be done and, tl:ierefore, the F Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no reason to deny parity in pay. The Tribunal relied upon the judgment of a Bench of three Judges of this Court in _Randhir Sk1gh_ Vs. _Union of India and_ Ors., (1982) 1 SCC 618, which is a judgment granting equal pay to the drivers in Delhi Police Force as G available to those in the Central Government and Delhi Administration. The petitioners herein challenged the order of the Tribunal by approaching the Calcutta High Court which dismissed the writ petition and therefore, this special leave petition. H UNION OF INDIA _v._ RAJESH KUMAR GOND 135 5. Mr. Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Union of India submitted that the two posts cannot be equated but having noted that when no material was placed before the Tribunal about the functional distinction, in our view, the order of the Tribunal could not be faulted. The High Court was, therefore, right in dismissing the writ petition. A B 6. Before we conclude, we may profitably refer to the observations of Chinnappa Reddy, J., in paragraph 8 of the judgment in _Randhir Singh_ (supra) which reads as follows: C "8. It is true that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' C is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a constitutional right. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims 'equal pay for equal work for both men and women' as a Directive Principe of State Policy. 'Equal pay for equal work for both D men and women' means equal pay for equal work for every one and as between the sexes. Directive Principles, as has been pointed out in some of the judgments of this Court have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation. Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the E State not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws and Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. These equality clauses of the F Constitution must mean something to everyone. To the vast majority of the people the equality clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcered with the work they do and the pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have some substance if equal work G means equal pay ........... " G 7. This special leave petition is, therefore, dismissed. H 136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R. ## A S.L.P.(C) No.37255/2012: 1. The respondents herein were working as Senior Translators/Assistant Directors in the offices under the Ministry of Defence. They also sought parity with the translators in the 8[Central Secretariat which has been granted ][by ][the Central ] Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh by its judgment dated 18.5.2009. That judgment is left undisturbed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No.23126 of 2010 by its order dated 23.3.2011. C C 2. Mr. Balasubramanian, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that their source of recruitment was different. However, having noted that no functional difference was shown in their work, we cannot find any fault with the judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court for the reasons D stated in the earlier special leave petition. The special leave petition is, therefore, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. ## CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1119 OF 2013: E The respondent in this appeal was working as a Junior Hindi Translator in the office of the Commissioner of Central Excise-I, Kolkata. He claimed parity of pay with the Junior Translators who were working in the Central Secretariat. In his case also, what we find is that there is no functional distinction F as far as the work of these translators is concerned. Therefore, we do not take a different view. The civil appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Interim orders will stand vacated. ## B.B.B. Appeal dismissed.