Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

IN THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Randhir Singh

(PETITIONER)

v.

Union of India

(RESPONDENT)

CASE CONCERNING

The principle of “equal pay for equal work.”

MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Ajay Bhatt
Semester – III

Section B

Roll No. 05

4\Date of Submission: 24/08/2015


CONTENTS

I. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
II. INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
III. TABLE OF CASES
IV. STATEMENTS OF FACTS
V. ISSUE RAISED
VI. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
VII. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
1. ARTICLE 16(1) OF GUARANTEES EQUAL PAY BUT THERE COULD BE
DIFFERENT SCALES OF PAY FOR DIFFERENT GRADES OF A SERVICE.

VIII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

 & And
 AIR All India Reported
 Art. Article
 Ed. Edition
 Hon’ble Honourable
 Ors. Others
 SC Supreme Court
 SCC Supreme Court Cases
 SCR Supreme Court Report
 Supp. Supplement
 Supra Pages above
 v. Versus
 Vol. Volume
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

BOOKS

 M P Jain, Indian Constitution Law.

 Durga Das Basu, Commentary on the Constitution Of India.

STATUTES

 The Constitution of India,1950.

WEBSITES

 www.manupatrafast.in

 www.scconline.com

 www.indiankanoon.com

CASES REFERRED
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The petitioner is a driver constable in the Delhi Police Force under the Delhi Administration.
The scale of pay in the Delhi Police Force is for non-matriculate drivers Rs. 210-270 and for
matriculate drivers 225-308. The scale of pay of a driver in the Railway Protection Force is
Rs. 260-400. The scale of pay of driver in the non-secretariat offices in Delhi is Rs. 260-6-
326-EB-8-350, while that of Secretariat offices in Delhi is Rs. 260-6-290-EB-6-326-8- 366-
EB-8-8-8-390-10 400. The scale of pay of drivers in the office of the Language Commission
is Rs. 260-300 while the drivers of heavy vehicles in the Fire Brigade and the Department
of Light House is Rs. 330-480.
2. The petitioner and other driver constables made a representation to the authorities that
their case was omitted to be considered separately by the Third Pay Commission and that
their pay scales should be the same as the drivers of heavy vehicles in other departments
The petitioner who was an ex-gunner (driver) in the artiliary corps of the Indian Army and
who was experienced in the driving, operation and maintenance of jeeps, trucks and heavy
armoured vehicles was allowed to retire from the Army on compassionate grounds. He held
an Army driving licence as also a Civil Heavy Transport Driving Licence.
3. After he was discharged from the Army his nominal roll was forwarded by the Director
General Resettlement, Ministry of Defence to the Commandant, Delhi Armed Police, Delhi.
The question of his employment as a driver in the Delhi Police Force was considered and he
was informed that a test of proficiency in driving would be held.
4. He was required to produce his Civil Heavy transport driving licence at the time of the test. It
is of interest to note that the subject of the communication sent by the Delhi Police
establishment to the petitioner was "Employment of ex-servicemen in Delhi Police as N.T.
Driver (Const)". He appeared at the test. By a communication dated March 29, 1968, he was
informed by the Commandant, Delhi Armed Police, Delhi that his name had been "approved
for enlistment as driver in the Delhi Police".
5. Thereafter a certificate in the prescribed form was issued to him vesting him with the powers,
functions and privileges of a police Officer. He was designated as constable, because, for the
purposes of the discipline of the Force and appointment as driver in the Delhi Police Force, he
had to be made a member of the Delhi Police Force and had to be assigned a rank in the
Force.
As their claims for better scales of pay did not meet with success, the present application has
been filed by the petitioner for the issue of a writ under Article 32 of the Constitution.
ISSUE RAISED

6. Whether the impugned action of the Delhi Administration is violative of Article


16(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950?
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. No, the impugned action of the Delhi Administration is violative of


Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 because there could be
different scales of pay for different grades of a service.
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
ARTICLE 16(1) OF GUARANTEES EQUAL PAY BUT THERE COULD BE DIFFERENT
SCALES OF PAY FOR DIFFERENT GRADES OF A SERVICE.

Article 16(1) of the Indian Constitution states that:

Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment

(1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or
appointment to any office under the State

In a related case of Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India1 it was observed that

There could be different scales of pay for different grades of a service. It is well known that there
can be and there are different grades in a service, with varying qualifications for entry into a
particular grade, the higher grade often being a promotional avenue for officers of the lower
grade. The higher qualifications for the higher grade, which may be either academic
qualifications or experience based on length of service, reasonably sustain the classification of
the officers into two grades with different scales of pay. The principle of equal pay for equal
work would be an abstract doctrine not attracting Art. 14 if sought to be applied to them.

In a judgement given by Justice S Andley and Justice T Chawla, it was stated that:

In this case a number of persons were appointed as surveyors in the All India Soil and Land Use
Survey Scheme under the Ministry of Food and Agriculture. Their scale of pay was originally
fixed as Rs. 60-150, whereas the surveyors in other organisations of the Government of India
were given a pay scale on Rs. 100-185 despite their qualifications and duties being similar. As a
result of the revision of payscales by the Second Pay Commission with retrospective effect from
1-1-1959 the payscale of those "Scheme" employees was raised to Rs. 110-200; the payscale of
other surveyors in other organisations was also raised to Rs. 150-240. As a result of further
representation to the President the payscale of the "Scheme" surveyors was raised to Rs. 150-
240, to take effect from 1-7-1966, thus placing them at par with other surveyors. They made

1
1962 AIR (SC) 1139
further representations that they should get the benefit of revised payscales retrospectively; when
that was denied the above Writ Petition was filed and it was dismissed by a single Judge of this
Court. 2

It is humbly submitted that the judgements in above cases should be referred in this cases as
well. The judgements show that there can be different pays of employees of same qualifications
and designations.

2
Binoy Kumar Mukerjee vs Union Of India, ILR 1973 Delhi 427
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Therefore, in the light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, the
respondents humbly pray that the Allahabad High Court of India be pleased to adjudge and
declare that:

The distinction made by third pay commission in terms of low pay granted to driver constables
as comparison to other drivers of Delhi Administration should be quashed, and an order should
be passed for their pay equal .

And, pass any order, decree as the Court may deem fit in the lights of Justice, Equity & Good
Conscience.

All of which is most humbly prayed.

Place: New Delhi COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

Date: 24/08/2015 AJAY BHATT