U.T.Administration,Chandigarh & Ors vs Manju Mathur & Anr

to the corresponding categories of employees. The

Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh, notified the

revised scales for the posts carrying existing scales in all

classes of service by notification dated 03.01.1992 and soon

thereafter, the Finance and Planning Officer, Chandigarh

Administration, issued a Circular dated 08.01.1992 to all

the Heads of Departments/Officers in Chandigarh

Administration informing them that the revised pay scales 3

of various posts of their respective departments mentioned

in the notification have been revised on the basis of

corresponding posts which also exist in the State of Punjab.

Respondent nos. 1 and 2, who were then working as Senior

Dietician and Dietician posted in the General Hospital,

Chandigarh under the Union Territory Administration,

Chandigarh, made a representation dated 18.12.1992 to the

Finance Secretary of the Union Territory Administration,

Chandigarh, that the pay scales of Senior Dietician and

Dietician have been revised to Rs.1500 - Rs.2540 and

Rs.1350 - Rs.2400 respectively which were not at par with

the revised pay scales of Rs.2200-Rs.4000 and Rs.1500-

Rs.2640 of the corresponding posts of Dietician and

Assistant Dietician respectively under the Government of

Punjab. Respondents, however, were informed that they

have been allowed revised pay scales as per the conversion

technique.

3. Aggrieved, the respondents filed O.A. No. 1017-

CH of 1993 before the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Chandigarh. By order dated 20.04.2001, however, the 4

Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench,

dismissed the O.A. of the respondents after holding that the

claim on the basis of equal pay for equal work is not all

pervasive as distinctions have to be made on the basis of

number of factors as per the law laid down by this Court

and if these factors are taken into consideration, the claim

of the respondents for parity in pay scales with their

counterparts in the State of Punjab was not justified. The

respondents then challenged the order dated 20.04.2001 of

the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench,

before the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in a petition

under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution bearing no.

C.W.P. 17144-CAT/2001 and the High Court held in the

impugned judgment that the Dietician and Senior Dietician

working in the Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh,

were entitled to pay scales at par with their counterparts in

the State of Punjab and accordingly issued a mandamus to

the appellants to grant pay scales of Dietician (Gazetted) of

the Directorate of Research and Medical Education, Punjab,

to the Senior Dietician in the Union Territory 5

Administration, Chandigarh, and to give pay scales of

Dietician (Non-Gazetted) of the Directorate of Research and

Medical Education, Punjab, to the Dietician in the Union

Territory Administration, Chandigarh.

4. When this Special Leave Petition against the

impugned judgment and order of the High Court was listed

before this Court on 24.04.2009, the Court granted leave

and pending hearing and final disposal of the Civil Appeal

directed the Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh, to

appoint a High Level Equivalence Committee to examine the

nature of duties and responsibilities of Senior Dietician

working under the Union Territory Administration,

Chandigarh vis--vis Dietician (Gazetted) under the State of

Punjab and also to examine the nature of duties and

responsibilities of Dietician working under the Union

Territory Administration, Chandigarh, vis--vis the Dietician

(Non-Gazetted) working under the State of Punjab and to

submit a report to the Court.

5. Pursuant to these directions in the order dated

24.04.2009 of this Court, a High Level Equivalence 6

Committee comprising the Director, Health and Family

Welfare, Finance and Planning Officer, Joint Secretary

(Finance) and Joint Secretary (Personnel) met on

17.07.2009 and after examining the nature and quantum of

duties and responsibilities of the posts of Senior Dietician

and Dietician in the Health Department of the Union

Territory, Chandigarh, vis--vis posts of Senior Dietician

and Dietician (Non-Gazetted) in the State of Punjab and

have submitted the following report:

"The Dietician (Gazetted) and Dietician (Non-Gazetted) in Directorate of Research & Medical Education (D.R.M.E.) Punjab are working in the Rajindera Hospital (Patiala) and Sh. Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital (Amritsar) having bed strength of 1009 and 951 respectively, whereas the Senior Dietician and Dietician in the U.T. Chandigarh are working in Govt. Multi Specialty Hospital Sector 16 which is a 500 bedded hospital. The Directorate of Research & Medical Education Punjab is a teaching institution in which the Dietician has to perform the multifarious duties such as teaching the probationary nurses in the subjects of nutrition Dietaries, control and management of kitchen etc. Whereas the main duties of Dietician and Senior Dietician in Govt. Multi Specialty Hospital Sector -16, U.T. Chandigarh are only to check the quality of food being 7

provided to the patients and management of the kitchen. The Health Department of U.T. Chandigarh follows the rules and regulations applicable to corresponding categories of employees in the Directorate of Health and Family Welfare, Punjab and not of the Directorate of Research and Medical Education, Punjab. In the Directorate of Health and Family Welfare, Punjab there are no posts of Senior Dietician and Dietician. The workload of the posts in D.R.M.E. Punjab is definitely more as compared to the posts in the Health Department U.T. Chandigarh.

Besides, the teaching work, the incumbents in Punjab are required to look after the basic work of supervision of food etc. in respect of a larger number of persons as is reflective from the number of beds in the hospitals, as compared to U.T. Chandigarh.

The High Level Equivalence Committee has considered all aspects of the matter and is of the opinion that the nature and quantum of duties and responsibilities of the post of Senior Dietician in the Health Department of U.T. Chandigarh are not comparable or equivalent in any way with the post of Dietician (Gazetted) in the Directorate of Research & Medical Education, Punjab. Similarly the nature and quantum of duties and responsibilities of the post of Dietician in the Health Department of U.T. Chandigarh are not comparable or equivalent in any way with the Post of Dietician (Non-Gazetted) in the Directorate of Research & Medical Education, Punjab."

8 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties.

We find from the report of the High Level Equivalence

Committee extracted above that the Directorate of Research

and Medical Education, Punjab, is a teaching institution in

which the Dietician has to perform multifarious duties such

as teaching the probationary nurses in subjects of nutrition

dietaries, control and management of the kitchen, etc.,

whereas, the main duties of the Dietician and Senior

Dietician in the Government multi specialty hospital in the

Union Territory Chandigarh are only to check the quality of

food being provided to the patients and to manage the

kitchen. We also find from the report of the High Level

Equivalence Committee that after considering all aspects of

the matter, the Committee was of the opinion that the

nature and quantum of duties and responsibilities of the

post of Senior Dietician in the Health Department of Union

Territory Chandigarh are not comparable or equivalent in

any way with the post of Dietician (Gazetted) in the

Directorate of Research and Medical Education, Punjab and 9

similarly the nature and quantum of duties and

responsibilities of the post of Dietician in the Health

Department of Union Territory Chandigarh are not

comparable or equivalent in any way with the post of

Dietician (Non-Gazetted) in the Directorate of Research and

Medical Education, Punjab.

7. Considering this report of the Equivalence

Committee, the respondents are not entitled to the same

pay scale as that of Dietician (Gazetted) and Dietician (Non-

Gazetted) in the Directorate of Research and Medical

Education, Punjab, as held by the High Court in the

impugned judgment and order. This Court has held in a

recent case State of Madhya Pradesh & Others v. Ramesh

Chandra Bajpai [(2009) 13 SCC 635] that the doctrine of

equal pay for equal work can be invoked only when the

employees are similarly situated and that similarity of the

designation or nature or quantum of work is not

determinative of equality in the matter of pay scales and

that the Court has to consider several factors and only if

there was wholesale identity between the holders of the two 10

posts, equality clause can be invoked, not otherwise. This

Court has also held in State of Haryana & Others v.

Charanjit Singh [(2006) 9 SCC 321] that normally the

applicability of principle of equal pay for equal work must

be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body

and these are not matters where a writ court can lightly

interfere. This Court has further held in this decision that

it is only when the High Court is convinced on the basis of

material placed before it that there was equal work and of

equal quality and that all other relevant factors were

fulfilled, it may direct payment of equal pay from the date of

filing of the respective writ petition. In the present case, the

appellants had seriously disputed the equivalence between

the posts held by the respondents and those held by the

Dietician (Gazetted) and Dietician (Non-Gazetted) under the

Government of Punjab and the High Court instead of

referring this dispute regarding parity of posts under the

Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh, with the posts

under the Government of Punjab to an expert body has

erroneously equated the posts under the Union Territory 11

Administration, Chandigarh, with the posts under the

Government of Punjab on the basis of the pleadings of the

respondents and issued the direction to grant pay scales to

the respondents equal to pay scales of Dietician (Gazetted)

and Dietician (Non-Gazetted) under the Directorate of

Research and Medical Education, Government of Punjab.

8. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment

and order of the High Court and sustain the order of the

Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, and

allow this appeal with no order as to costs.

.............................J. (R. V. Raveendran)

.............................J. (A. K. Patnaik) New Delhi, January 14, 2011.