Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION  

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 17419/2009:

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                     Appellant(s)

                    :VERSUS:

RAJESH KUMAR GOND                         Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1119  OF 2013

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                     Appellant(s)                      :VERSUS:

DHANANJAY SINGH                           Respondent(s)

WITH

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 37255/2012:

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                     Appellant(s)                      :VERSUS:

DALEV SINGH AND ORS.                      Respondent(s)

O R D E R

S.L.P.(C) No. 17419/2009

Delay condoned.

2. Heard Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned Additional  

Solicitor General in support of this special leave  

petition and Mr. Subodh Kr. Pathak, learned counsel

Page 2

2

appearing for the respondent.

3. This  special  leave  petition  seeks  to  

challenge  the  judgment  and  order  dated  9.7.2008  

passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Calcutta  in  Writ  

Petition No.632 of 2007 which confirmed the judgment  

dated 9.11.2006 passed by the Central Administrative  

Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O.A. No.939 of 2004.

4. The respondent is a Junior Hindi Translator  

working  in  the  office  of  Director  General  of  

Commercial  Intelligence  &  Statistics  under  the  

Commerce Ministry and he sought parity of pay with  

the  Junior  Translators  who  were  working  in  the  

Central  Secretariat  Official  Language  Service  

(CSOLS).  The  Home  Ministry  had  issued  Office  

Memorandum dated 9.2.2003, upgrading the pay-scales  

of Junior Hindi Translators from Rs.5000-1050-8000  

to Rs.5500-175-9000, which were made applicable from  

11.2.2003.  The respondent sought the same pay-scale  

but it was denied to him.  It is, therefore, that he  

filed an application in the Central Administrative  

Tribunal on the basis of 'equal pay for equal work'.  

The application filed by the respondent was opposed

Page 3

3

by  the  petitioners  by  filing  a  counter,  wherein  

amongst  other  things,  in  paragraph  9  they  stated  

that  the  Fifth  Central  Pay  Commission  had  

recommended  that  the  pay-scales  of  Junior  Hindi  

Translators for the Central Secretariat (CSOLS) may  

be  applied  to  all  subordinate  offices  subject  to  

their functional requirement. However, no material  

whatsoever was placed before the Tribunal to show as  

to how the functional requirement of the concerned  

job in the Commerce Ministry was different from that  

in the Central Secretariat. Both the posts required  

the work of translation to be done and, therefore,  

the Tribunal came to the conclusion that  there was  

no reason to deny parity in pay. The Tribunal relied  

upon the judgment of a Bench of three Judges of this  

Court in Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors.,  

(1982) 1 SCC 618, which is a judgment granting equal  

pay  to  the  drivers  in  Delhi  Police  Force  as  

available  to  those  in  the  Central  Government  and  

Delhi  Administration.  The  petitioners  herein  

challenged the order of the Tribunal by approaching  

the  Calcutta  High  Court  which  dismissed  the  writ  

petition and therefore, this special leave petition.

Page 4

4

5. Mr.  Malhotra,  learned  Additional  Solicitor  

General appearing for the Union of India submitted  

that  the  two  posts  cannot  be  equated  but  having  

noted that when no material was placed before the  

Tribunal about  the functional  distinction, in  our  

view,  the  order  of  the  Tribunal  could  not  be  

faulted.  The  High  Court  was,  therefore,  right  in  

dismissing the writ petition.       

6. Before we conclude, we may profitably refer  

to  the  observations  of  Chinnappa  Reddy,  J.,  in  

paragraph 8 of the judgment in Randhir Singh (supra)  

which reads as follows:  

“8. It is true that the principle of 'equal pay  

for equal work' is not expressly declared by our  

Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it  

certainly  is  a  constitutional  right.  Article  

39(d) of the Constitution proclaims 'equal pay  

for equal work for both men and women' as a  

Directive Principe of State Policy. 'Equal pay  

for equal work for both men and women' means  

equal pay for equal work for every one and as  

between the sexes. Directive Principles, as has  

been pointed out in some of the judgments of  

this Court have to be read into the fundamental

Page 5

5

rights as a matter of interpretation. Article 14  

of  the  Constitution  enjoins  the  State  not  to  

deny any person equality before the law or the  

equal  protection  of  the  laws  and  Article  16  

declares  that  there  shall  be  equality  of  

opportunity for all citizens in matters relating  

to employment or appointment to any office under  

the  State.  These  equality  clauses  of  the  

Constitution must mean something to everyone. To  

the  vast  majority  of  the  people  the  equality  

clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing  

if they are unconcered with the work they do and  

the pay they get. To them the equality clauses  

will  have  some  substance  if  equal  work  means  

equal pay...........”

7. This  special  leave  petition  is,  therefore,  

dismissed.  

S.L.P.(C) No.37255/2012:

1. The respondents herein were working as Senior  

Translators/Assistant Directors in the offices under  

the  Ministry  of  Defence.  They  also  sought  parity  

with  the  translators  in  the  Central  Secretariat  

which has been granted by the Central Administrative  

Tribunal,  Chandigarh  by  its  judgment  dated  

18.5.2009. That judgment is left undisturbed by the

Page 6

6

Punjab and Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No.23126 of  

2010 by its order dated 23.3.2011.    

2. Mr.  Balasubramanian,  learned  counsel  

appearing  for  the  appellant  submitted  that  their  

source of recruitment was different. However, having  

noted  that  no  functional  difference  was  shown  in  

their  work,  we  cannot  find  any  fault  with  the  

judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court for the  

reasons  stated  in  the  earlier  special  leave  

petition.  The special leave petition is, therefore,  

dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.   

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1119  OF 2013:

The respondent in this appeal was working as  

a Junior Hindi Translator in  the  office  of  the  

Commissioner  of  Central  Excise-I,  Kolkata.  He  

claimed parity of pay with the Junior Translators  

who were working in the Central Secretariat. In his  

case  also,  what  we  find  is  that  there  is  no  

functional distinction as far as the work of these

Page 7

7

translators is concerned. Therefore, we do not take  

a  different  view.  The  civil  appeal  is  dismissed.  

There will be no order as to costs.  Interim orders  

will stand vacated.  

.........................J (H.L. GOKHALE)

.........................J (J. CHELAMESWAR)

New Delhi; July 25, 2013.