Tehal Singh v. State Of Punjab

  




  
 



!"

#$%$!& ( ) *+ , -.

//0  1 ($&31

 $$!& , 5 ,%6% (

!"

6&7 +

&8

&!1 ,

 %)!&8 &%
'

9: 4 (
 ( ( (
 

   
    

 

( ( ( 4

: ! " 

  " " 

  #



% &



  

    

"( 

 #  

) &

 



 *


       !

 "     #

" +#  

 )

, -     "       # "  

 

$    

     # ( "

     

  #

.

!







 

    / *  #

   "  0   

0    





   0 "

    



  # "   #  2 

 

+3   !
#$$

"

%!&'! % ( ($ )  !  

 $

"15. Grant of equivalence and /or revocation of equivalence is an administrative decision which is in the sole discretion of the concerned authority, and the Court has nothing to do with such matters. The matter of equivalence is decided by experts appointed by the government, and the Court does not have expertise in such matters. Hence it should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in it." 

 
#  "  0

 

  

 "(

"(

"

  0   8  

 

   

 "(

   

      '



0   "  $ '



   

 '

 

  



    '



   

 



 

 

!  

"

 +3   ! 
#$$

 (   *  *   
 + ,

!#!    !  

 " '

       $

" 14. In view of the afore'stated legal position, it clearly emerges that though the doctrine "equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of Law, the equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the Executive and not of the Judiciary. The Courts therefore should 5 (2015) 3 SCC 653 not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to the expert bodies like the Pay Commissions which undertake rigorous exercise for job evaluation after taking into consideration several factors like the nature of work, the duties,

accountability and responsibilities attached to the posts, the extent of powers conferred on the persons holding a particular post, the promotional avenues, the Statutory rules governing the conditions of service, the horizontal and vertical relativities with similar jobs etc. It may be true that the nature of work involved in two posts may sometimes appear to be more or less similar, however, if the classification of posts and determination of pay scale have reasonable nexus with the objective or purpose sought to be achieved, namely, the efficiency in the administration, the Pay Commissions would be justified in recommending and the State would be justified in prescribing different pay scales for the seemingly similar posts.

A higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues or frustration due to longer duration of promotional avenues is also an acceptable reason for pay differentiation. It is also a well'accepted position that there could be more than one grade in a particular service. The classification of posts and the determination of pay structure, thus falls within the exclusive domain of the Executive, and the Courts or Tribunals cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of the Executive in prescribing certain pay structure and grade in a particular service."

:

8 





-!.'$/ "

;

13. Further careful reading of the removal of pay anomaly instructions would reveal that there is no distinction between one set of instructors who belong to Industrial Training Institute (ITI) cadre and the other set who belong to Industrial Training Centre (ITC) to justify the action of the respondents in not granting the benefit of removal of the pay anomaly to the petitioner despite his being as instructor in ITC on parity with the instructions working in ITI."

!  

  

 "

+

  #   " 

  "    

   

-!.'$/         <  

" % = "

 

    #   ) > ( ) *+ , -.

//0

( ( ( harsha  

8 ( ? @?< 8 

@?<