REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2823 OF 2009

Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh & Ors.    …    Appellants

Versus

Mrs. Manju Mathur & Anr.                 … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

This is an appeal against the order dated 16.05.2007  

of  the  High  Court  of  Punjab  &  Haryana  in  C.W.P.  No.  

17144-CAT of 2001 holding that the respondents, who were  

working  as  Senior  Dietician  and  Dietician  under  the  

Director  Health  Services,  Chandigarh  Administration,  are  

entitled to pay scales at par with their counterparts under

the Government of Punjab and directing the appellants to  

give the pay scales accordingly to the respondents.

2. The  President  of  India  in  exercise  of  the  powers  

conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution  

made  the  Conditions  of  Service  of  Union  Territory  of  

Chandigarh Employees Rules, 1992 with retrospective from  

01.04.1991.   The  proviso  to  Rule  2  of  these  Rules  

empowered the Administrator to revise the scales of pay of  

persons  appointed  to  the  services  and  posts  under  the  

administrative control of the Administrator, Chandigarh, so  

as to bring them at par with the scales of pay which may be  

sanctioned by the Government of Punjab from time to time  

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  

2

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  

3

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  

4

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-à-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-à-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  

5

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-à-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  

6

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.”

7

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  

8

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  

9

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  

10

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.    

11