M.B. MAJUMDAR versus UNION OF INDIA

M.B. MAJUMDAR versus UNION OF INDIA

There is no violation of Article 14 as Vice-Chairman and Members of the Tribunal are distinct classes according to the parent statute, which provides separate pay and superannuation age. Tribunal is not equated with High Court Judges for all purposes; 'equal pay for equal work' does not apply when statutory scheme differentiates roles and functions.

Parties
Petitioner: M.B. Majumdar; Respondent: Union of India
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 August 1990
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Petition dismissed
Legal Topics
Service Law, Administrative Tribunals, Equal Pay for Equal Work, Article 14
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Service Law Administrative Tribunals Equal Pay for Equal Work Article 14

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M.B. Majumdar

Petitioner

Union of India

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Writ Petition (civil) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Members of the Central Administrative Tribunal are entitled to same pay and superannuation as Vice-Chairman/High Court Judges.
  2. 2 Whether differentiation in service conditions between Members and Vice-Chairman violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

There is no violation of Article 14 as Vice-Chairman and Members of the Tribunal are distinct classes according to the parent statute, which provides separate pay and superannuation age. Tribunal is not equated with High Court Judges for all purposes; 'equal pay for equal work' does not apply when statutory scheme differentiates roles and functions.

Court Disposition

Petition dismissed

Orders

  • The parties will bear their own costs.