Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SATISH KUMAR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE JALANDHAR IMPROVEMENTTRUST, JALANDHAR & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/01/1996
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
G.B. PATTANAIK (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (7) 277 1996 SCALE (2)13
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Though the learned counsel has tried his best to
persuade us to disagree with the impugned order of the
Court, we think that the High Court is right in its
conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to the equal
pay as Pumpset Operator. The learned counsel sought to rely
upon section 18 of the Punjab Town Improvement Trust Act,
1923 (for short the Act). Section 18 envisages power of the
Trust to fix number of employees, their salaries etc.
Section 17 envisages constitution of the trust and subject
to the constitution section 18 says that the Trust may from
time to time employ such other servants on such terms and
conditions as it may deem, necessary and proper for carrying
out its functions under the Act. Sub-section(2) gives
controlling power of appointment, promotion, granting
leave, suspension of the servants, reducing them into
their hierarchy of position removing them from service,
dismissing them from service for misconduct for reasons
other than misconduct Chairman also has power under the
Act.
It is stated that in exercising this power, the
Chairman being the controlling authority had releaxed the
service conditions of the petitioner and also appointed
him as Pumpset Operator though he was not possessed of
the minimum qualification prescribed under the Act. It is
not in dispute that for the said post Matriculation with
I.T.I. are qualifications which the petitioner admittedly
has not possessed of. General power of supervision and
control does not include the power to appoint any person of
his choice without basic qualification. Therefore, the
exercise of the power by the Chairman would obviously be
illegal. Under those circumstances, the doctrine of equal
pay for equal work envisaged in Article 39 (a) of the
Constitution has no application. It would apply only when a
person is dicharging the same duties but not being paid the
same pay for the same work. In this case since the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
petitioner is not possessed of minimum basic qualification
to the post to which he was appointed, unequals cannot be
made equals for paying equal pay for equal work. Therefore,
he is not entitled to equal pay.
The Petition is accordingly dismissed.