1961 INSC 0165
                                             Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi

                                                           Vs

                                                    Union of India

                                           Writ Petition No. 28 of 1959

        (CJI B. P. Sinha, K. C. Das Gupta, S. K. Das, N. Rajgopala Ayyangar, A. K. Sarkar, JJ)

                                                      11.04.1961

                                                     JUDGMENT

DAS GUPTA J. ­

The petitioner, an Income-tax Officer, in the service of the Government of India has filed this
petition for protection of his fundamental rights under article 14 and article 16 of the constitution
which he claims to have been violated by the respondent, the Union of India. The petitioner who
was appointed an income-tax inspector in the Income-tax Department of the Government of India in
1943 became an Income-tax Officer in the same department on promotion in 1946. It appears that
the income-tax services were reconstituted by an order of the Government of India dated September
29, 1944, and later on in 1953 section 5 of the Income-tax Act was amended in accordance with this
decision to reconstitute. One of the feature of the reconstitution was that in place of the one class of
Income-tax Officer, two classes came into existence, one consisting of Income-tax Officers of Class
I service and the other class in which all the then existing Income-tax Officers were placed forming
the Class II office

The main contention which Mr. Jha has pressed before us on behalf of the petitioner is that this
provision as regards recruitment to post of Commissioners and Assistance Commissioners from
class I Officers but not directly from Class II Officers violates article 16 (1) of the Constitution. It is
difficult to understand this argument. What article 16 (1) provides is that there should be equality of
opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the
State. In might very well by that "matters relating to employment or appointment to any office" are
wide enough to include the matter of promotion. Inequality of opportunity for promotion as between
citizens holding different posts in the same grade may therefore be an infringement of article I6.
Thus, if, of the Income-tax Inspectors some were made eligible for promotion as Income- tax
Officers and others were not, there would be legitimate ground for compliant that article 16 (1) has
been violated. No such complai

The only other contention raised is that their is discretion between class I and Class II Officers
inasmuch as though they do the same kind of work their pay scales are different. This, it is said,
violates article 14 of the Constitution. If this contention had any validity, there could be no
incremental scales of pay fixed dependent on the duration of an officer's serve. The abstract doctrine
of equal pay for equal work has nothing to do with article 14. The contention that article 14 of the
constitution has been violated therefore also fails.

The petition is accordingly dismissed with costs.
Petition dismissed.
</html