. , THE MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER, CALCUTTA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. v. PIJUSH KANT! DAS AND ANR.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by c G.B. PATTANAIK, J. Leave granted.

This appeal is directed against the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Letters Patent appeal arising out of the Judgment of the Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 10421(W) of 1988. The question that arises for consideration is whether the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' has at all got any application to the case in hand following which principle the High Court has directed that respondent no. 1 would be entitled to the pay scale of 660-1600, which is the pay scale of the Education Officer under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation?

The Calcutta Municipal Corporation was constituted under the provisions of Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 with effect from 4.1.1984. Prior to the constitution of the aforesaid Corporation, there was in existence the Calcutta Corporation under the Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 and three other Municipalities called Jadhavpur Municipality, South · Suburban Municipality and Garden Reach Municipality which had been constituted under the Bengal Municipal Act. By Notification dated 21st of December, 1983 the Governor in exercise of power conferred upon him by sub-section (2A), read with sub-section (2) of Section 120 of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932 made arrangement for the employees of the erstwhile Garden Reach Municipality. Admittedly the respondent was serving as ·• 'Education in-charge' on a pay scale of 380-910. In the Notification dated G 21st of December, 1983, it was clearly stated that for continuing civic services employees of the Commissioner of the Garden Reach Municipality shall, on and from the said date, be taken over by the Corporation and shall continue to serve, on the same terms and conditions of service as in force in the said municipality immediately before the said date, under the H

834 : ,,.· .. SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996) 1 S.C.R.

A Corporation until further orders. In other, words, the servi.ce conditions of employees of Garden Reach municipality includi~g that of the r~;P~11\l'qt remained unaltered under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. N·ot- withstanding the constitution of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation and the merger of all the four municipalities referred to earlier, in view of.the disparity in the staffing pattern and the distinction in the functioning of the B erstwhile municipalitic·s, the merged municipal units of J adhavp\Jr, South Suburban '\ • and111.Garden • ·· I Reach . continued ' to be identified . as 'Units' ·•··. · under the Corporation until framing of appropriate rules and regulations. Under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation there were 4 categories of Edilcatiob Officers namely (1).Asstt. Education Officer in the pay scale of 610-1270, (2) Deputy Education Officer in the pay scale of 550-1470, (3) Education Officer in the pay scale of 660-1600 and (4) Senior Education Officer in the pay scale of 1100 - 1900, Since the respondent as 'Education Incharge' 'cif 'Garded Reach lyiunii::ipality was in the pay scale of380-910 'which is ~ilch Jes; ih~n the pay scale of Asst. Education Officer 610-1270; he was •D 'given the saltl pay stale with the designation Education Officer 'Unit'. The said respondent, however, filed the writ petition claiming that he is entitled to the:p~isc,\Je'of 660-1600 meant for Education Officer of the Corpota- tidn since he °Ir also Education Officer. The said writ petitioii. having b~en allowed and ihe appeal against the same to the Division Bench having been dismissed, the present appeal has been preferred. · · " · .. 1 E ;,,

., , " ·The.learned counsel for,the appellant apart from bringing it t~ our notice the Notification.of the.Governor dated 21st of December, ' . - 1983 'to . which reference has already be'n m.ade also brought to. our notice t'-':o .circulars namely Circular. No. 31 1985-86 as well as Circular No. 35 of F . 1985-86, which squarely deals with• the dispute with regard to the fixa\i~n 'of pay scales .. Under Circular .No. 31 dated 29th June, 1985 it h~s been ,.clearly i!idica\ed that the officers and the e111ployees including the lab.our ·staff of the three units viz.. Jadhavpur, South suburbal\ and Garden Reach (erstwhile:rnunicipalities) who were in service of the municipalities, on , . 3.1.1984 and·ralso·those who. have been appqinted thereafter in'' ih.e p~y ' G .. scales .of the. Units and· are continuing in service.tiUdate be placedio, the · comparable posts and pay-s~ales under Calcutta Municipal Corporation.as indicated by ·designations and pay scales under Ann.exure-A, B &. C respec- t. lively for J.adhavpur, South S11burban and Garden Reach Units with effect • • • • J • • • ' ' • '

nfrom .1st day of .July, 1985 subject {o exercising option by .individual } H .. ·employee .to come under the recommende<\ <)esignations. and pay spal~s

MUNJCIPALCOMMNR. v. PJJUSHKANTI DAS [PATIANAIK;J.) 835

shown in the Annexure-A,B & C. So far as the respondent is concerned ·A who was earlier serving as 'Education Incharge' under Garden Reach · Municipality approved designation was Education Officer' 'Unit' and his pay scale fixed at 610-1270: The Circular No: 35 of 1985-86 which was issued on 7th August, 1985 pursuant to the order of the administrator had been issued as there had been certain changes in designation and/or pay scales in respect of certain posts under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation between the period from 4.1.1984 to 30.6.1985. Even in that Circular while • fixing of pay ·of employees in comparable posts; so far as the post of erstwhile 'Education Incharge' in Garden Reach Municipality, the same has been notified and pay scale of 500-1360 has been given with the designation of Education Officer 'Unit'. But the learned Single Judge being of the opinion that the Education Officer 'Unit' discharges the same functions and duties as Education officer of the Municipal Corporation had directed the Corporation grant him the pay scale of 660-1600 as is admis- sible to th~ Education Officer of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. The Division Bench has also affirmed the said decision having examined the matter on .record and after hearing the counsel for the parties. We un- hasitatingly come to the conclusion that both the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have committed gross error in directing the Corporation to grant the pay scale of 660-1600 to the respondent. There is no manner of dispute that before the merger, the respondent as Education Incharge under the Garden Reach Municipality was drawing the pay scale of 380-910 which was much less than the pay scale of Asst Education Officer under the Calcutta Municipal Corpora-. lion. After the merger of the Garden Reach Municipality with Calcutta .Municipal Corporation the question arose for posting the employees of the erstwhile municipality against any comparable post. Circular No. 31 had been issued and rightly the respondent had been granted the pay scale with the designation as Education Officer 'Unit'. In complete ignorance of the aforesaid Circular the High Court appears to have granted the pay scale of 660-1600 to the respondent which is admissible to the post of Education Officer under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation. By such direction not only the respondent has been given promotion by two hierarchy but also would march over the other Deputy Education Officers under the Cor- poration. Taking into account the pay which the respondent was getting in the erstwhile Garden Reach Municipality and his nature of duties, fixing of his pay comparable to the Asst. Education Officer by application of H

836 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] 1 S.C.R.

A Circular No. 31 can neither be .said to be arbitrary nor irrational, on the other hand the decision contained therein must be held to be wholly justified. The High Court on the other hand failed to consider the pay scale which the respondent was drawing in the erstwhile Garden Reach Municipality and the duties discharged by him thereunder and merely from the designation of Education Officer jumped to the conclusion that the B respondent should be entitled to the same pay scale as is admissible to the Education Officer under the Corporation. The aforesaid conclusion of the High Court on inaccurate premises, and on non consideration of the relevant materials as well as the Circular No. 31 of 1985-86 is thus vitiated and the judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as that of the Division C Bench has become vulnerable. In the circumstances we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court as well as that of the learned Single Judge and the writ petition filed by the respondent stand dismissed. This appeal is allowed. No costs.

R.P. Appeal allowed.