CWP-8139-2024 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT Ajay Kumar Rattan Punjab Agricultural University & another Sr. No. Particulars 1. The date when the judgment is reserved 2. The date when the judgment is pronounced 3. The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 4. Whether only operative part of the or full judgment is pronounced 5. The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full and reasons thereof CORAM: Present: NAMIT KUMAR 1. filing the instant petition seeking a writ of (Annexure P- has rejected mandamus has been sought for directing the of Rs.8000-13500 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ajay Kumar Rattan Versus Punjab Agricultural University & another Particulars The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Whether only operative part of the judgment is or full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full and reasons thereof HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR Mr. D.S.Patwalia, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Aditya Kush, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.L.Saggar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Omesh Garg, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Satnampreet Singh Chauhan, DAG, Punjab. NAMIT KUMAR, J. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by filing the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India writ of certiorari for quashing -11), whereby respondent No.1 - has rejected his claim for grant of higher pay scale has been sought for directing the 13500/-, which stands revised to Rs. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-8139-2024 (O&M) ...Petitioner ...Respondents Details 14.05.2026 The date when the judgment is pronounced 27.05.2026 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 29.05.2026 judgment is pronounced Full The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, N.A. NAMIT KUMAR D.S.Patwalia, Senior Advocate, with Kush, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.L.Saggar, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Omesh Garg, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Satnampreet Singh Chauhan, DAG, Punjab. invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 25.05.2022 - Punjab Agricultural University higher pay scale. Further, a writ of has been sought for directing the respondents to grant pay scale , which stands revised to Rs.15600-39100/- + Grade Pay invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court by under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India 25.05.2022 Punjab Agricultural University Further, a writ of to grant pay scale ay VIMAL KUMAR 2026.05.29 19:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-8139-2024 (O&M) of Rs.6000/- had joined respondent No.1 2. petition, are that in pursuance of the regular selection process, the petitioner was appointed as (hereinafter referred to as Rs.5480-8900 situated employees working in respondent were placed in the pay scale of Rs.8000 and other similarly situated (Annexure P- the Lecturers of the University, as the activities. The said representation was followed by another representation dated 08.02.2012 to grant them Rs.6000/-. The said representation and it was directed that issue be kept pending ti 14047-1995 University, who were also seeking similar relief as claimed by the petitioner. The said decision of the Vice Chancellor Student Welfare of the respondent (Annexure P- (O&M) (2) , to the petitioner w.e.f. 17.12.1997 had joined respondent No.1 - Punjab Agricultural U Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that in pursuance of the regular selection process, the petitioner was appointed as Swimming Coach in the hereinafter referred to as ‘University’) in the year 1997 8900/-, which was a non-teaching pay scale, situated employees working in respondent were placed in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 and other similarly situated Coaches made a representation -2A) for grant of equivalent pay scale ecturers of the University, as they were also carrying out teaching The said representation was followed by another representation 08.02.2012 (Annexure P-3), wherein it was requested to the authorities them the teaching pay scale of Rs.15600 The said representation was considered by the Vice Chancellor and it was directed that issue be kept pending ti filed by similarly situated Coaches of Guru Nanak Dev , who were also seeking similar relief as claimed by the petitioner. The said decision of the Vice Chancellor was informed to the Director Student Welfare of the respondent – University -4). The relevant extract of letter dated 20.04.2012 reads thus: “The representations dated 08.02.2012 of S/Sh. Charanjit Singh, Badminton Coach and Ajay Kumar them as Assistant Director (Badminton) and Assistant Director (Swimming)/Assistant Director Physical Education respectively were 17.12.1997, i.e., the date on which he Punjab Agricultural University. the facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the are that in pursuance of the regular selection process, the petitioner the Punjab Agricultural University, in the year 1997, in the pay scale of teaching pay scale, whereas similarly situated employees working in respondent No.1 - University as Lecturers 13500/-. Therefore, the petitioner oaches made a representation dated 10.05.2001 pay scale, which is being granted to were also carrying out teaching The said representation was followed by another representation , wherein it was requested to the authorities the teaching pay scale of Rs.15600-39100/- + Grade Pay of was considered by the Vice Chancellor and it was directed that issue be kept pending till the outcome of CWP- filed by similarly situated Coaches of Guru Nanak Dev , who were also seeking similar relief as claimed by the petitioner. was informed to the Director of the University, vide letter dated 20.04.2012 of letter dated 20.04.2012 reads thus: 08.02.2012 of S/Sh. Charanjit Singh, Badminton Coach and Ajay Kumar, Swimming Coach to designate them as Assistant Director (Badminton) and Assistant Director (Swimming)/Assistant Director Physical Education respectively were the date on which he as have been pleaded in the are that in pursuance of the regular selection process, the petitioner Punjab Agricultural University, in the pay scale of similarly s herefore, the petitioner .2001 granted to were also carrying out teaching The said representation was followed by another representation , wherein it was requested to the authorities Grade Pay of was considered by the Vice Chancellor - filed by similarly situated Coaches of Guru Nanak Dev , who were also seeking similar relief as claimed by the petitioner. of the 20.04.2012 08.02.2012 of S/Sh. Charanjit Singh, , Swimming Coach to designate them as Assistant Director (Badminton) and Assistant Director (Swimming)/Assistant Director Physical Education respectively were VIMAL KUMAR 2026.05.29 19:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-8139-2024 (O&M) 3. University granted the pay scale its Coaches infructuous, Guru Nanak Dev University 6), informed had been granted higher pay scale as sought by the alongwith due dated 12.10.2016 5700/- (revised to Rs.12000 a personal measure to them w.e.f. petitioner for grant of abovesaid pay scale has been No.1 – University by the said order dated 06.10.2020, the petitioner alongwith another Coach approached this Court by way of filing CWP Singh & anot others’, which came up for hearing on disposed of by passing the following order: petitioners are working as Sports Coaches in the (O&M) (3) submitted to the Vice-Chancellor for consideration and further orders. He has ordered to keep th CWP No.14047 of 1995 filed by the Coaches of Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar in the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court.” During the pendency of CWP- granted the pay scale, which were being granted to Lecturers, and consequently, the petition filed by them was rendered vide order dated 16.07.2014 (Annexure P Guru Nanak Dev University, vide its letter dated the Controller, PAU, Ludhiana been granted higher pay scale as sought by the due arrears. Thereafter, respondent No.1 12.10.2016 (Annexure P-7), granted the selection grade of Rs. (revised to Rs.12000-18000/-) to the Coaches a personal measure to them w.e.f. 01.04.1996. However, the claim of the petitioner for grant of abovesaid pay scale has been University, vide order dated 06.10.2020 (Annexure P by the said order dated 06.10.2020, the petitioner alongwith another Coach approached this Court by way of filing CWP Singh & another Vs. Punjab Agricultural University through its Registrar & , which came up for hearing on 25.02.2022 and the same was disposed of by passing the following order: “Heard through video conferencing. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends petitioners are working as Sports Coaches in the respondent/University and they are entitled to the pay scale equivalent to the pay scale of the Lecturers working in Chancellor for consideration and further orders. He has ordered to keep the same pending till the outcome of 14047 of 1995 filed by the Coaches of Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar in the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High -14047-1995, Guru Nanak Dev , which were being granted to Lecturers, to the petition filed by them was rendered (Annexure P-5). Thereafter, the vide its letter dated 28.02.2015 (Annexure P- the Controller, PAU, Ludhiana, that Coaches of its University been granted higher pay scale as sought by them in CWP-14047-1995 respondent No.1 – University, vide order granted the selection grade of Rs.3700- ) to the Coaches (who stood retired), as 01.04.1996. However, the claim of the petitioner for grant of abovesaid pay scale has been rejected by respondent 06.10.2020 (Annexure P-8). Aggrieved by the said order dated 06.10.2020, the petitioner alongwith another Coach approached this Court by way of filing CWP-3761-2022 titled ‘Charanjit her Vs. Punjab Agricultural University through its Registrar & 25.02.2022 and the same was Heard through video conferencing. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are working as Sports Coaches in the respondent/University and they are entitled to the pay scale equivalent to the pay scale of the Lecturers working in the University Chancellor for consideration and further e same pending till the outcome of 14047 of 1995 filed by the Coaches of Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar in the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High 1995, Guru Nanak Dev to the petition filed by them was rendered Thereafter, the - University 1995 vide order - , as 01.04.1996. However, the claim of the rejected by respondent . Aggrieved by the said order dated 06.10.2020, the petitioner alongwith another Coach 2022 titled ‘Charanjit her Vs. Punjab Agricultural University through its Registrar & 25.02.2022 and the same was that the petitioners are working as Sports Coaches in the respondent/University and they are entitled to the pay scale the University VIMAL KUMAR 2026.05.29 19:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-8139-2024 (O&M) petition 4. of the petitioner, vide order dated order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition. 5. been filed, wherein it has been stated that working as Swimming Coach, is not a Teacher to higher pay scale had been granted to other Coaches, however, the same has been granted as a personal measure the same. (O&M) (4) and colleges. He further submits that an identical issue was by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.3874 of 2010, titled as ‘Dr. Jasbir Singh and another versus Punjabi University, Patiala and another’, decided on 11.05.2015, wherein it was held that the Sports Coaches would be and would be entitled to the pay scale of the contends that the petitioners have sent a representation 08.02.2012 (Annexure P-1) in this regard to the respondents and contends that the petition be disposed of with a directi respondent No.2 to consider and decide the same in a time bound manner. 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 accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 6. Heard. Without expressing anything on the merits of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representation (Annexure P considering the judgment of this Court in other relevant material in accordance with law, two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this However, respondent No.1 - University again rejected the claim of the petitioner, vide order dated 25.05.2022 order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition. Written statement on behalf of respondent No.1 been filed, wherein it has been stated that as Swimming Coach, is not a Teacher to higher pay scale, as claimed in the petition been granted to other Coaches, however, the same has been granted as a measure to them and, therefore, the petitioner cannot take benefit of and colleges. He further submits that an identical issue was decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.3874 of 2010, Dr. Jasbir Singh and another versus Punjabi University, decided on 11.05.2015, wherein it was held that the Sports Coaches would be treated at par with the Teachers and would be entitled to the pay scale of the Lecturers. He also contends that the petitioners have sent a representation dated 1) in this regard to the respondents and contends that the petition be disposed of with a direction to consider and decide the same in a time bound 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, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 6. Without expressing anything on the merits of the case, the is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to representation (Annexure P-1) while considering the judgment of this Court in CWP No.3874 of 2010 and other relevant material in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” University again rejected the claim 25.05.2022 (Annexure P-11). The said order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present petition. Written statement on behalf of respondent No.1 - University has been filed, wherein it has been stated that since the petitioner, who is as Swimming Coach, is not a Teacher, therefore, he is not entitled as claimed in the petition, and although higher pay scale been granted to other Coaches, however, the same has been granted as a and, therefore, the petitioner cannot take benefit of ded by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP No.3874 of 2010, Dr. Jasbir Singh and another versus Punjabi University, decided on 11.05.2015, wherein it was held eachers Lecturers. He also dated 1) in this regard to the respondents and on to consider and decide the same in a time bound , Without expressing anything on the merits of the case, the is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 to 1) while CWP No.3874 of 2010 and within a period of University again rejected the claim The said University has the petitioner, who is is not entitled and although higher pay scale been granted to other Coaches, however, the same has been granted as a and, therefore, the petitioner cannot take benefit of VIMAL KUMAR 2026.05.29 19:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-8139-2024 (O&M) 6. contended that the action of respondent No.1 and arbitrary and also violative of Arti 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 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 there is no distinction in the duties and responsibilities of the Sports Coaches, who have been granted the higher pay scale vis and, therefore 7. respondent No.1 written statement, has and therefore, cannot claim higher pay scale, which ha other Teachers of the University and to other Sports Coaches of the University is a measure personal to them and therefore, respondent different pay scale. 8. the record. 9. joined the services of the University as Swimming Coach in the year 1997 in the pay scale of Rs. Rs.8000-13500 Rs.6000/- and the said pay scale has been granted to the similarly situated Sports Coaches working in respondent No.1 (O&M) (5) Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the action of respondent No.1 and arbitrary and also violative of Articles 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 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 there is no distinction in the duties and responsibilities of the Sports Coaches, who have been granted the higher pay scale vis therefore, the petitioner cannot be discriminated. On the other hand, learned senior counsel representing respondent No.1 - University, while referring to the averments made in the written statement, has contended that firstly, and therefore, cannot claim higher pay scale, which ha other Teachers of the University and secondly, to other Sports Coaches of the University is a measure personal to them and therefore, respondent No.1 - University is within its right to grant the different pay scale. I have heard learned senior counsel for the parties and perused The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner had initially services of the University as Swimming Coach in the year 1997 in the pay scale of Rs.5480-8900/-, which 13500/- and thereafter to Rs.15600 and the said pay scale has been granted to the similarly situated Sports Coaches working in respondent No.1 Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has contended that the action of respondent No.1 - University is totally illegal 14 & 16 of the Constitution of 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 the petitioner only on the ground that the other Coaches have been granted 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 Coaches, who have been granted the higher pay scale vis-à-vis the petitioner ioner cannot be discriminated. learned senior counsel representing University, while referring to the averments made in the contended that firstly, the petitioner is not a Teacher and therefore, cannot claim higher pay scale, which had been granted to secondly, the higher pay scale granted to other Sports Coaches of the University is a measure personal to them and University is within its right to grant the I have heard learned senior counsel for the parties and perused The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner had initially services of the University as Swimming Coach in the year 1997 in , which was subsequently revised to to Rs.15600-39100/- + Grade Pay of and the said pay scale has been granted to the similarly situated Sports Coaches working in respondent No.1 - University itself. The action Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has University is totally illegal of 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 ted 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 vis the petitioner learned senior counsel representing University, while referring to the averments made in the the petitioner is not a Teacher been granted to pay scale granted to other Sports Coaches of the University is a measure personal to them and University is within its right to grant the I have heard learned senior counsel for the parties and perused The facts are not in dispute that the petitioner had initially services of the University as Swimming Coach in the year 1997 in revised to ay of and the said pay scale has been granted to the similarly situated University itself. The action VIMAL KUMAR 2026.05.29 19:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-8139-2024 (O&M) of respondent No.1 working as Sports Coaches in the University different pay scales was kept pending by the Vice Chancellor i.e., CWP-14047 University is pending before this Court petition, the said consequently dated 16.07.2014 (Annexure P 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 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 and the only difference is that a normal Teacher imparts education in various subjects, whereas a Sports Coach imparts education in a particular sporting discipline. 10. 2008(2) SCT 63 issued has held as under: (O&M) (6) of respondent No.1 - University in treating similar set of employees working as Sports Coaches in the University different pay scales is unsustainable in the eyes of law. was kept pending by the Vice Chancellor, while 14047-1995 filed by the Coaches working in the is pending before this Court, but during the pendency of said the said Coaches have also been granted the consequently, the said writ petition was rendered infructuous, vide order dated 16.07.2014 (Annexure P-5). Once the similarly situated employees 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 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 and the only difference is that a normal Teacher imparts education in various subjects, whereas a Sports Coach imparts education in a particular sporting In Union of India & others Vs. Dineshan K.K. reported as 2008(2) SCT 63, Hon’ble the Supreme Court held as under: “9. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work considered, explained and applied in a catena of decisions of this Court. The doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work originally propounded as part of the Directive Principles of the State Policy in Article 39(d) of the Constitution. Singh Vs. Union of India & others of three learned Judges of this Court had observed that principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is not a mere demagogic slogan but a constitutional goal, capable of being attained through University in treating similar set of employees, working as Sports Coaches in the University, differently by granting is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Earlier, the matter while stating that the writ petition, filed by the Coaches working in the Guru Nanak Dev , but during the pendency of said Coaches have also been granted the higher pay scale and the said writ petition was rendered infructuous, vide order nce the similarly situated employees 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 case of the petitioner that post of Sports Coach is also a ‘teaching post’, as 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 subjects, whereas a Sports Coach imparts education in a particular sporting Union of India & others Vs. Dineshan K.K. reported as , Hon’ble the Supreme Court while considering the similar equal pay for equal work’ has been considered, explained and applied in a catena of decisions of equal pay for equal work’ was originally propounded as part of the Directive Principles of the of the Constitution. In Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India & others, (1982) 1 SCC 618, a bench of three learned Judges of this Court had observed that principle is not a mere demagogic slogan but a constitutional goal, capable of being attained through , granting Earlier, the matter , Guru Nanak Dev , but during the pendency of said pay scale and the said writ petition was rendered infructuous, vide order nce the similarly situated employees 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 ’, as 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 subjects, whereas a Sports Coach imparts education in a particular sporting Union of India & others Vs. Dineshan K.K. reported as while considering the similar VIMAL KUMAR 2026.05.29 19:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-8139-2024 (O&M) principle was being applied as an absolute rule but realizing its pay for equal work had no mathemat pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed by the Court Nevertheless, it will not be correct to lay down as an absolute jurisdiction to examine any pay structure and an aggrieved (O&M) (7) constitutional remedies and held that this principle had to be read under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. was affirmed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in D.S.Nakara & others Vs. Union of India Thus, having regard to the constitutional mandate of equality and inhibition against discrimination i service jurisprudence, the doctrine of has assumed status of a fundamental right. 10. Initially, particularly in the principle was being applied as an absolute rule but realizing its cascading effect on other cadres, in subsequent decisions of this Court, a note of caution was sounded that the principle of equal pay for equal work had no mathemat case of similar work. It has been observed that equation of posts and equation of pay structure being complex matters are generally left to the Executive and expert bodies like the Pay Commission etc. It has been emphasized that a pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed by the Court as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other cadres as well. (Vide: Secretary, Finance Department & others Vs. West Bengal Registration Service Associati 1992 (2) SCT 301 and State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association Nevertheless, it will not be correct to lay down as an absolute rule that merely because determination and granting of pay scales is the prerogative of the Executive, the Court has no jurisdiction to examine any pay structure and an aggrieved employee has no remedy if he is unjustly treated by arbitrary 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 behalf of the appellants. Undoubtedly, when there is no dispute with regard to the qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the persons holding identical posts or ranks but they are treated differently merely because they belong to different departments or the basis for classification of posts is ex arbitrary or unjust, it is open to the Court to intervene. constitutional remedies and held that this principle had to be of the Constitution. This decision was affirmed by a Constitution Bench of this Court in D.S.Nakara & others Vs. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305. regard to the constitutional mandate of equality and inhibition against discrimination in Article 14 and 16, in service jurisprudence, the doctrine of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has assumed status of a fundamental right. Initially, particularly in the early eighties, the said principle was being applied as an absolute rule but realizing its cascading effect on other cadres, in subsequent decisions of this Court, a note of caution was sounded that the principle of equal pay for equal work had no mathematical application in every case of similar work. It has been observed that equation of posts and equation of pay structure being complex matters are generally left to the Executive and expert bodies like the Pay Commission etc. It has been emphasized that a carefully evolved pay structure ought not to be ordinarily disturbed by the Court as it may upset the balance and cause avoidable ripples in other Secretary, Finance Department & others Vs. West Bengal Registration Service Association & others, State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association, 2002 (3) SCT 674. Nevertheless, it will not be correct to lay down as an absolute rule that merely because determination and granting of pay scales is the prerogative of the Executive, the Court has no jurisdiction to examine any pay structure and an aggrieved no remedy if he is unjustly treated by arbitrary 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 behalf of the appellants. Undoubtedly, when there is no dispute rd to the qualifications, duties and responsibilities of the persons holding identical posts or ranks but they are treated differently merely because they belong to different departments or the basis for classification of posts is ex-facie irrational, trary or unjust, it is open to the Court to intervene. VIMAL KUMAR 2026.05.29 19:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-8139-2024 (O&M) pay is dependent judged by the mere volume of work; there may be qualitative judgment of the authorities concerned which, if arrived at bona fide, reasonably and r K. Mohanty, (O&M) (8) 11. In State Bank of India & another Vs. M.R.Ganesh Babu & others, 2002 (2) SCT 749, a three dealing with the same principle, opined that principle of equal pay is dependent upon the nature of work done. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work; there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. The functions may be the same but the responsibilities do make a difference. It was held that the judgment of administrative authorities, concerning the responsibilities which attach to the post, and the degree of reliability expected of an incumbent, would be a value judgment of the authorities concerned which, if arrived at bona fide, reasonably and rationally, was not open to interference by the Court. 12. In State of Haryana & another Vs. Tilak Raj & others, 2003 (4) SCT 485, it has been observed that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ is not always easy to apply as there are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work of different persons in different organizations or even in the same organisation. It has been reiterated that this is a concept which requires for its applicability, complete and wholesale identity between a group of employees claiming identical pay scales and the other group of employees who have already earned such pay scales. It has been emphasized that the problem about equal pay cannot be translated into a mathematical formula. 13. Yet again in a recent decision i others Vs. Charanjit Singh & others, Bench of three learned Judges, while affirming the view taken by this Court in the cases of State of Haryana & other Singh & others, 1997 (2) SCT 151 University of Agriculture & Technology & another Vs. Manoj K. Mohanty, 2003 (2) SCT 971 and Tarun Roy & others, 2004 (1) SCT 78 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, observing that equal pay must be for equal work of equal value and that the principle of equal pay for equal work has no mathematical application in every case, it has been held tha State Bank of India & another Vs. M.R.Ganesh Babu , a three-Judge Bench of this Court, dealing with the same principle, opined that principle of equal upon the nature of work done. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work; there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. The functions may be the same but the responsibilities do make a difference. It udgment of administrative authorities, concerning the responsibilities which attach to the post, and the degree of reliability expected of an incumbent, would be a value judgment of the authorities concerned which, if arrived at bona ationally, was not open to interference by State of Haryana & another Vs. Tilak Raj & others, , it has been observed that the principle of is not always easy to apply as there are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating the work of different persons in different organizations or even in the same organisation. It has been reiterated that this is a concept which icability, complete and wholesale identity between a group of employees claiming identical pay scales and the other group of employees who have already earned such pay scales. It has been emphasized that the problem about equal pay o a mathematical formula. Yet again in a recent decision in State of Haryana & others Vs. Charanjit Singh & others, 2006 (3) SCT 170, a Bench of three learned Judges, while affirming the view taken by State of Haryana & others Vs. Jasmer 1997 (2) SCT 151, Tilak Raj (supra), Orissa University of Agriculture & Technology & another Vs. Manoj and Government of W.B. Vs. 2004 (1) SCT 78, has reiterated that the 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, observing that equal pay must be for equal work of equal value and that the principle of equal pay for equal work has no atical application in every case, it has been held that VIMAL KUMAR 2026.05.29 19:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-8139-2024 (O&M) Article 14 petitioners herein, Assam Rifles prior to the recommendations of the Fourth Pay paramilitary forces were perfor 11. denied the said pay scale, which has already been granted to other Sports Coaches working in the same University. (O&M) (9) Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who are left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. Enumerating a number of factors which may not warrant application of the principle of equal pay for equal work, it has been held that since the said principle requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job, normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body and the Court should not interfere till it is satisfied that the necessary material on the basis whereof the claim is made is available on record with necessary proof and that there is equal work and equal quality and all other relevant factors are fulfilled. xx xx 20. Thus, the short question requiring our consideration is whether having admitted in their affidavit referred to hereinabove, the ‘apparent disparity’ and ‘anomaly’ in the pay scales of Radio Mechanics, the administrative authorities, the petitioners herein, could be permitted to perpetuate apparent discriminatory differentiation in the pay scales because of the disparity in pre-revised and revised scales of the personnel of Assam Rifles prior to the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission, irrespective of the identity of their powers, duties and responsibilities with other paramilitary forces. In our considered opinion, in view of the total absence of any plea on the part of the Union of India that Radio Mechanics in other paramilitary forces were performing different or more onerous duties as compared to the Radio Mechanics in Assam Rifles, the impugned decision of the Government was clearly irrational and arbitrary and thus, violative of Article 14 Therefore, keeping in view the above, the petitioner cannot be denied the said pay scale, which has already been granted to other Sports Coaches working in the same University. permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who are left out. Of course, the qualities or tics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. Enumerating a number of factors which may not warrant application of the principle of equal pay for equal work, it has been held that since the said principle of various dimensions of a given job, normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body and the Court should not interfere till it is satisfied that the necessary material aim is made is available on record with necessary proof and that there is equal work and equal quality and all other relevant factors are fulfilled. xx xx Thus, the short question requiring our consideration is whether having admitted in their affidavit referred to hereinabove, the ‘apparent disparity’ and ‘anomaly’ in the pay scales of Radio Mechanics, the administrative authorities, the could be permitted to perpetuate apparent discriminatory differentiation in the pay scales because of the revised and revised scales of the personnel of Assam Rifles prior to the recommendations of the Fourth Pay of the identity of their powers, duties and responsibilities with other paramilitary forces. In our considered opinion, in view of the total absence of any plea on the part of the Union of India that Radio Mechanics in other ming different or more onerous duties as compared to the Radio Mechanics in Assam Rifles, the impugned decision of the Government was clearly irrational and f Article 14 of the Constitution.” Therefore, keeping in view the above, the petitioner cannot be denied the said pay scale, which has already been granted to other Sports Therefore, keeping in view the above, the petitioner cannot be denied the said pay scale, which has already been granted to other Sports VIMAL KUMAR 2026.05.29 19:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-8139-2024 (O&M) 12. order dated 25.05.2022 (Annexure P directed to grant pay scale of Rs.8000 stands revised to Rs.15600 petitioner with all consequential benefits. Howeve to 38 months prior to filing of the present by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Yogendra Shrivastava be released to the petitioner within a period of three months. 27.05.2026 Vimal (O&M) (10) Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The impugned 25.05.2022 (Annexure P-11) is set aside and the respondents are directed to grant pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 stands revised to Rs.15600-39100/- + Grade with all consequential benefits. Howeve to 38 months prior to filing of the present petition in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Yogendra Shrivastava, 2010(1) SCT 434. Let the necessary benefits shall leased to the petitioner within a period of three months. Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The impugned is set aside and the respondents are 13500/- w.e.f. 17.12.1997, which rade Pay of Rs.6000/-, to the with all consequential benefits. However, the arrears are restricted petition in view of law laid down State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Let the necessary benefits shall leased to the petitioner within a period of three months. (NAMIT KUMAR) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Yes/No Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The impugned is set aside and the respondents are , which , to the r, the arrears are restricted petition in view of law laid down State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Let the necessary benefits shall VIMAL KUMAR 2026.05.29 19:39 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.