Skip to content


Survey Kanoongo Sangh, Kaimoor Sarvekshan Bandobast Agency, Sonbhadra and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberC.M.W.P. No. 6871 of 1993
Judge
Reported in1999(3)AWC2375; (1999)2UPLBEC1426
Acts Constitutution of India - Articles 14, 16 and 39; Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Revenue Executive (Supervisor Kanoongo) Services Rules, 1977 - Rules 5, 11, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18; Uttar Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1939 - Sections 57; Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Sections 158; Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue (Survey and Record Operations) Rules, 1978 - Rules 8, 9, 10 and 28; Uttar Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1901 - Sections 25, 28, 43, 48, 49, 52, 53 and 54
AppellantSurvey Kanoongo Sangh, Kaimoor Sarvekshan Bandobast Agency, Sonbhadra and Another
RespondentState of U.P. and Others
Appellant Advocate S.K. Srivastava and ;S.N. Singh, Advs.
Respondent Advocate R.K. Singh, ;S.C., ;P.M.N. Singh,; A.A.G. and ;Vinod Misra, Adv.
Cases ReferredBabu Lal v. New Delhi Municipal Committee
Excerpt:
.....slightly varying - kind of job performed is uniform - petition on ground of equal pay for equal work performed - opposite party contended that work performed by one is of supervisory nature where as other performs non-supervisory work - no similarity in profiles - equal payment not justified - held, due weightage to be given to nature of duties, responsibilities shared, conditions attached with service and mode of recruitment, petition fails as all these considerations differ. - - learned counsel for the petitioners has raised an interesting but simple point in this writ petition on the principle of equal pay for equal work as enshrined in the directive principles of state policy in the constitution of india in terms of article 39(d) between supervisor kanoongo on one hand and..........has raised an interesting but simple point in this writ petition on the principle of equal pay for equal work as enshrined in the directive principles of state policy in the constitution of india in terms of article 39(d) between supervisor kanoongo on one hand and the survey kangoongo on the other. according to him, the nature of duly performed by survey kanoongo and the supervisor kanoongo are the same, though the source and mode of recruitment might be different. therefore, there should be equality in respect of pay of both the posts. he had drawn my attention to various provisions of law and facts as pleaded in the writ petition, counter-affidavit, rejoinder-affidavit and other materials on record in order to substantiate his contention.2. mr. p. m. n. singh. learned additional.....
Judgment:

D.K. Seth, J.

1. Mr. Sheo Nath Singh. learned counsel for the petitioners has raised an interesting but simple point in this writ petition on the principle of equal pay for equal work as enshrined in the directive principles of State Policy in the Constitution of India in terms of Article 39(d) between Supervisor Kanoongo on one hand and the Survey Kangoongo on the other. According to him, the nature of duly performed by Survey Kanoongo and the Supervisor Kanoongo are the same, though the source and mode of recruitment might be different. Therefore, there should be equality in respect of pay of both the posts. He had drawn my attention to various provisions of law and facts as pleaded in the writ petition, counter-affidavit, rejoinder-affidavit and other materials on record in order to substantiate his contention.

2. Mr. P. M. N. Singh. learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. K. R. Singh, learned standing counselon the other hand appearing for the respondents had resisted the contention of Mr. Sheo Nath Singh and attempted to make out a case that the two posts are altogether dissimilar and there is no similarity of the nature of work which itself denotes the difference between the work. According to them, Survey Kanoongo is responsible for the survey, whereas the Supervisor Kanoongo is responsible for supervision. The very qualification of supervision makes the difference in the nature of the work in respect of both the posts. They have also drawn my attention to the different provisions of law as well as the facts and the materials on record, including the pleadings and the documents placed before this Court to substantiate their respective contentions.

3. All the counsel had referred to several decisions to which reference will be made at appropriate stage.

4. I have heard all the counsel at length.

5. The conditions of service of Supervisor Kanoongo is governed by the U. P. Subordinate Revenue Executive (Supervisor Kanoongo) Service Rules. 1977. The said Rules prescribe in Rule 5 the source of recruitment. Rule 15 prescribes the mode and procedure of recruitment and Rule 17 prescribes the procedure for selection. Chapter VII deals with the selection of Survey Amins and permanent Land Acquisition Amins for admission to the Institute. Chapter X deals with appointment as Supervisor Kanoogo. probation and confirmation while Chapter XI deals with the scale of pay. This 1977 Rules does not mention anything about the Survey Kanoongo. Section 25 of the U. P. Land Revenue Act provides that 'one or more Kanoongos may be appointed in each district for the proper supervision, maintenance and correction of the annual registers and for such other duties as the State Government may from time to time, prescribe'. The U. P. Land Records Manual in Chapter XXXIV prescribes the duties of Supervisor Kanoongos. while Chapter XXXV deals with thesupervision of the Supervisor Kanoongo over Lekhpais. Chapter XXXVI defines the supervision over village map. Chapter XXXV11 prescribes the duties of the Supervisor Kanoongo in respect of testing records and statistics, which includes inspection of boundary and survey marks and various other works as well as has jurisdiction to pass orders in disputed cases of succession. Chapter XXXVII requires the Supervisor Kanoongo to perform the duties of detection of agricultural deterioration and explanation of fluctuations in statistics. Chapter XXXIX prescribes the duties of the Supervisor Kanoongo with regard to local enquiries, while Chapter XL empowers it to attest documents. Chapter XLI prescribes the list of extraneous duties to be performed by the Supervisor Kanoongo. Apart from Supervisor Kanoongos, there are posts of Sadar Kanoongo and Registrar Kanoongo. The field of responsibility of both Sadar Kanoongo and Registrar Kanoongo has been specified in Part V. Part III prescribes the duties and works to be performed by the Registrar Kanoongo.

6. Section 48, Chapter V of the U. P. Land Revenue Act provides that the State Government, if thinks fit, may publish a notification in respect of a particular district or other local area for a general or partial revision of the records or resurvey or both and on issue of such notification, every such local area shall be held to be under record or survey operation or both from the date of such notification unless the operation is declared closed by issuing another notification. Section 49 empowers the Government to appoint a Record Officer as incharge of the record operation or the survey or both. Under Section 52, the records arc to be prepared in re-survey and new record of rights is to be prepared under Section 53 and maps and records be revised under Section 54.

7. Thus, there is a distinction between operation of Section 25 and those under Section 48. While the operation of Section 25 is continuous and perennial, the operation of Section 48 is occasional. WhileSection 25 read with the provisions of Part V of the Land Records Manual shows that it is in the nature of maintenance of the whole record all through, while Chapter V of the Act read with U. P. Land Revenue (Survey and Record Operations) Rules. 1978, shows that it is confined in respect of a particular assignment, namely, survey or resurvey in order to prepare or revise the records and maps. It is under this 1978 Rules the Survey Kanoongo comes in. The duties and the nature of work of Survey Kanoongo has been provided in the 1978 Rules. Rule 8 of the 1978 Rules provide that Survey Kanoongos are required to report such dispute for decision to the Survey Naib-Tehsildar while Rule 9 provides that correct required to be done under Rule 10 by Survey Kanoongo with the assistance of Survey Lekhpals following the method prescribed in Rule 11. This Rule specifies the duties and the nature of work to be carried on by Survey Kanoongo. Under Rule 13. the Survey Kanoongo is directed to renumber plots while surveying afresh or resurveying area. He can also carry on with test verification and partal under Rule 18. A perusal of Rules 11, 13 and 18 shows that the work of Survey Kanoongo is confined with regard to survey and preparation or for correction of the map which after such preparation is to be handed over to the Collector and be maintained in terms of Section 25, read with Section 28.

8. A comparative study of the nature of duties of the Supervisor Kanoongo and Survey Kanoongo as referred to above presents a wide difference. It is not necessary to refer to all the duties. It will suffice to refer to one significant difference, namely, the power conferred on the Supervisor Kanoongo under Section 43 of the Act, which empowers him to record succession, in cases where there is no dispute and also to report the disputed cases to the Land Management Committee. Whereas, the Survey Kanoongo does not perform any such work.

9. That apart, separate rules relating to the condition of service of the Supervisor Kanoongo has beenframed being 1977 Rules, which describes the Supervisor Kanoongo as a subordinate Revenue Executive, Nature of duties performed by the Supervisor Kanoongo under the said rules shows that their work is in the nature of supervising the entire system of maintenance of records. Whereas, that of the Survey Kanoongo. it is only to prepare, correct or revise the map and in fact the work of Survey Kanoongo is with regard to the preparation, correction or revising the map with the assistance of officers engaged for assisting him. The source of recruitment for a Supervisor Kanoongo has been prescribed in Rule 5 of 1977 Rules and the mode of selection and the procedure of selection having been prescribed differently in Rules 15 and 16 of 1977 Rules, respectively, they stand altogether on different footing with the Survey Kanoongos. who are recruited and selected through the mode different as is evident from the Annexure-SCA 1 to the supplementary counter-affidavit affirmed by one Jagat Pal on January 25, 1999. The Supervisor-Kanoongo was redesignated as Record Inspector by reason of U. P. Record Amendment Rules, 1988. The post of Record Inspector (Rajaswah Inspector) was subsequently redesignated as Revenue Inspector (Rajaswah Nirikshak). In the Government Order dated April 29, 1984, Annexurc-C.A. 1 to the supplementary counter-affidavit affirmed on January 25. 1999 by Jagat Pal records such redesignation. From the said Annexure, it appears that the duties of the Revenue Inspector would be to supervise the work of the Collection Amins and to distribute responsibility to them. The duties and responsibility assigned to the Supervisor Kanoongo is prescribed in paragraphs 393 to 444. These include (i) General Supervision over Lekhpals, (ii) Supervision over village maps, (iii) Testing of Lekhpals Records and statistics. (iv) Detection of agricultural deterioration, (v) Local enquiries, (vi) Attestation of documents under Section 158 of the U. P. Zamlndari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950and Section 57 of U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939. (vii) Disposal of undisputed cases of succession. The general supervision over Lekhpals includes (a) general responsibility of supervising the works of the Lekhpals, (b) that the Lekhpal resides in his halqa, (c) punctuality and competence of Lekhpals (d) to provide himself with a circle map, (e) to give detailed instructions regarding entries maintained by the Registrar Kanoongos. (J) Comparison of old records with revised records. (g) Satisfy himself that sufficient forms are supplied to Lekhpals, (h) Preparation of area statistics, (i) Report of calamities. (j) Responsibility of seeing that the Lekhpals discharge their duties properly under alluvial lands, maintenance of accounts, reports of Takayi works (Takavi, Rules). Damage by camps of exercise, preparation of relief statements in cases of agricultural calamities, Supervision of village maps, includes the duties of (i) Maintenance of serviceable maps, (ii) Supply of fresh maps, (iii) Entry of charges, (iv) Supply of instrument, (v) Check lines, (vi) Assistance to incompetent Lekhpals, (v) Action where charges are numerous. For testing of records, a Supervisor Kanoongo is required to prepare programme of testing records and statistics, test .records and Khasras. examination of boundary and survey matters, testing of crop statements, area statement local verification of annual khatauni of non-Zarnindari abolition area, triennial khatauni in Zamindari Abolition area. Test of khatauni, Test of demand and collection Zamabandi. maintain guard book for non-Zamindari abolition area, Testing of erratta list, Testing of statements of holdings land revenue and rentals, local verification of Khewat in non-Zamindari abolition area, examination of old records, diary etc.

10. Whereas, the Survey Kanoongo is entrusted with the duty of referring boundary dispute to Naib-Tehsildar, map correction, revision of map. renumbering of plots, area extraction, preparation of comparative old and new numbers inthe sequence of old numbers as well as a list in the sequence of new numbers, test verification and record of disputes and mistakes detected. Apparently, these dudes are confined to the preparation, correction or revision of maps only as observed hereafter.

11. Chapter XXXIV of the Land Records Manuals empowers the Supervisor Kanoongo to exercise supervision over the Lekhpals as prescribed in Paragraph 399 to Paragraph 410. Whereas the U. P. Land Revenue (Survey and Record Operations), Rules, 1978, requires Survey Kanoongo to prepare the map with the assistance of the Survey Lekhpals. The said Rule has not given any authority to Survey Kanoongos to supervise the work of the Survey Lekhpals. On the other hand, they are required to take assistance of Survey Lekhpals. Under Rule 28 of the 1978 Rules, they are required to take orders from the Survey Naib-Tehsildar, the Assistant Record Officer or the Record Officer, which they should note on the annual register. The Survey Kanoongo is not supposed to exercise any executive authority over any other officer or in the work of survey. Thus, there appears to be a basic difference in the nature of work performed by these two categories of Kanoongos.

12. Mr. Sheo Nath Singh had referred to 1987 Rules and pointed out that Survey Kanoongos and Supervisor Kanoongos are feeder post for promotion to the post of Survey Naib-Tehsildar. He also points out that the promotion to the post of Naib Tehsildar shall not exceed 50% from among the Supervisor Kanoongo. From this Rule, he wants to point out that the Survey Kanoongo and Supervisor Kanoongo are the same feeder post from which the promotion to the post of Survey Naib-Tehsildar is made. He also shows that the qualification for Survey Kanoongo is Intermediate, which is also equivalent to the prescribed qualification of the Supervisor Kanoongo. But it appears from there that the Survey Kanoongo has been described as a field staff under 1987 Rules.

13. Mr. S. N. Singh also points out that the appointing authority of the Survey Kanoongo is the District Magistrate, whereas that of the Supervisor Kanoongo is the Collector, and that the District Magistrate and the Collector is the same post. But this cannot be a determining factor since the service of the Supervisor Kanoongo is governed by different rules meant for the purpose in which the Survey Kanoongos have not been included though Sadar Kanoongo and Registrar Kanoongo have since been included. If Survey Kanoongos were on the same footing as that of the Supervisor Kanoongo. in that event it would not have been a necessity to exclude the Survey Kanoongos from the purview of 1977 Rules.

14. As observed earlier, there being a difference in the field in which the two categories of holders of posts are working and there being wide difference of the nature of the work carried on and the difference of the responsibilities discharged. Inasmuch as the Survey Kanoongo performs non-supervisory work whereas Supervisor Kanoongo discharges supervisory work, it is not possible to treat both of them on the same footing. The rules are to he read as amended and as existing today. Even if at one point of time the Supervisor Kanoongo having the training of Survey Kanoongo could be appointed as Survey Kanoongo. the same does not make the post of Supervisor Kanoongo and Survey Kanoongo at par since the Supervisor Kanoongo has a different area of work as discussed above.

15. In order to claim equal pay for equal work, it has to be shown that the work performed by holders of both the posts are equal or similar in nature. As indicated earlier, there being difference in the field of operation and nature of the work and the responsibilities carried on as well as the source of recruitment and mode, method and procedure of selection even if it may be common feeder put for promotion to the post of Naib-Tehsildar. it cannot be said that there is any identity in the nature of work between the two postsin order to attract the principle of equal pay for equal work. The evaluation of the work done is a job of expert. The Court cannot place itself in the place of expert. It is for the pay commission or such other expert bodies which can do the same. Unless on the face of the materials the equality is apparent. Court is not expected to interfere or take upon itself the duty of correcting the difference and declaring equivalence.

16. Mr. P. M. N. Singh had relied on the decision in the case of Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers v. Union of India and others, 1988 (3) SCC 91, wherein it was held that the differentiation in pay scales among the Government servants holding same posts and performing similar work on the basis of difference in degree or responsibility, reliability, confidentiality, etc. is valid. It is on the value judgment of the concerned administrative authorities made bona fide, reasonably and rationally not open to interference by Court. It was further held that the equal pay for equal work is a concomitant of Article 14 but equal pay for equal work will be a negation of that right. Equal pay must depend upon the nature of the work done. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work ; there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference. The same amount of physical work may entail different quality of work, some more sensitive, some requiring more tact, some less it varies from nature and culture of employment. There is an element of value, judgment by those who are charged with the administration in fixing the scales of pay and other conditions of service. Differentiation in implementing the award or the recommendations of Pay Commission without rationale basis may amount to discrimination. But so long as such value judgment is made bona fide. reasonably on an intelligible criterion which has a rational nexus with the object of differentiation, such differentiation will not amount to discrimination as in the present casethe differentiation between the two groups is justified because of the nature and types of the work done and the responsibilities shouldered by the two groups as indicated above, is based on intelligible differentiation.

17. In the case of State of U. P. and others v. J. P. Chaurasia and others, 1989 (1) SCC 121. it was held that it does not just depend upon either the nature of work or volume of work done. Primarily it requires among others, evaluation of duties and responsibilities of the respective posts. More often functions of two posts may appear to be the same or similar, but there may be difference in degrees in the performance. The quantity of the work may be the same, but quality may be different that cannot be determined by relying upon averments in affidavits of interested parties. The equation of posts or equation of pay must be left to the Executive Government. It must be determined by expert bodies like Pay Commission. They would be the best judge to evaluate the nature of duties and responsibilities of posts. If there is any such determination by a Commission or Committee, the Court should normally accept it. The Court should not try to tinker with such equivalence unless it is shown that it was made with extraneous consideration. Here in the present case, admittedly, the nature of duty and responsibility are distinct and different apart from the fact that the source . of recruitment and the conditions of service are also different.

18. The same principle was enunciated in the decision in the case of Mewa Ram v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and others. AIR 1989 SC 1256, to the extent that if there is an intelligible differentiation in that event the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be attracted.

19. The principle of equal pay for equal work is to be tested at the touchstone of equality in the nature of the work, the responsibilities involved, the source or recruitment and the condition of service. promotional channel. In the present case, between the two groups, allthese ingredients are distinct and separate with the classification given by the experts cannot be interfered with by the Court unless it is shown that there is no intelligible differentiation, is also accepted in the decision in the case of Shiba Kumar Dutta and others v. Union of India, AIR 1998SC2911.

20. In the case of State of U. P. v. Ministerial Karmchari Sangh, AIR 1998 SC 303, it was held that though persons holding the same posts performing similar work but when their mode of recruitment, qualification and promotion is different, it is sufficient ground for fixing different scale of pay as in the present case.

21. In the case of Purna Chandra Wanda v. State of Orissa, AIR 1997 SC 7. has also proceeded on the same view.

22. Mr. Sheo Nath Singh relied on a decision in the case of Indian Council of Agricultural Research v. A. N. Lahiri. AIR 1997 SC 2259, but the said decision does not help Mr. Singh in the facts and circumstances of the case. Inasmuch as equal pay for equal work was granted in both the categories involved on the ground that the na.ture of work which they are doing was of the same type. Qualification-wise there was no distinction between the two sets. Their initial source of recruitment was also the same. The difference was that under the same employment, there was' two sets of employees one governed by A.R.S. system of service and the other wholly outside A.R.S. Under these circumstances, the doctrine of equal pay for equal work was held to be attracted in the said case. Whereas in the present case, the source of recruitment is completely different. The recruitment mode, method and manner is also different. There are difference in the qualification also. The nature of the work carried on by the two groups are also distinguished and separate. They are. also governed by different service conditions and rules. Therefore, on account of this distinguishing feature, the ratio decided in the said case could not be attracted.

23. Mr. Singh had also relied on a decision in the case of Babu Lal v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, AIR 1994 SC 2214. In the said case, it was held that the work of S.W.D. Beldars and S.W.D. Mates are almost similar to the work of Sewer man/Sewermates and S.W.D. Lorry Beldars. They are class IV employees and have same status and similar responsibilities. The N.D.M.C. has formed a group of various categories of class IV employees called Safai Karamcharies for the purpose of promotion to the post of Assistant Sanitary Inspector. The S.W.D. Beldars and S.W.D. Mates are also included in the said group along with the sewermen, sewermates and others. In this view of the matter, the action of the N.D.M.C. in denying the S.S. Committee pay-scales to the petitioners is arbitrary, discriminatory and is violatlve of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This decision also does not help Mr. Singh in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Inasmuch as here the nature of work and the responsibility are completely different. Source of recruitment is also different. Thus, the ratio in the said case cannot be attracted in the present case on account of distinguishing feature as referred to above.

24. Mr. Singh had also relied on a decision in the case of K . Krishnarnacharyuly and others v. Sri Venkateshwara Hindu College of Engineering and another, AIR 1998 SC 295. In the said case teachers in the private college were treated at par with those of the Government college with regard to the pay scales. This finding was arrived at on the basis of the fact that the executive instructions issued by the Government had given the teachers in the private college a right to claim pay scales at par with Government employees holding that of the teachers working in the private colleges acquire an element of public interest in the performance of their duties and consequently the element of public Interest requires to regulate the conditions of service of those employees at par with Government employees, and in consequence theyarc also entitled to the parity of pay scales as per the executive instructions of the Government while holding that in view of clement of public interest, writ petition was maintainable in the said case. The ratio decided in the said case does not help Mr. Singh. Inasmuch as there was no distinction between the two groups of teachers who are performing the same duties and same jobs. In any event, nothing less has been discussed in the said judgment so as to remove the distinction of the two groups as arc staring on their faces in the present case.

25. For all these reasons as indicated above from the facts disclosed, it is apparent that there is an intelligible differentiation between the two groups involved in this case with- regard to its nature of work, the responsibilities involved and the source of recruitment, therefore, the principle for equal pay for equal work cannot be attracted.

26. The writ petition, therefore,falls and, is accordingly dismissed.No cost.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //