M. Anantha Padmanabha Bhat vs Kali Poojarthi And Ors. 2003 (2) KarLJ 176 "Courts will refuse to reopen final orders after the lapse of a considerable period of time. Unless this principle is strictly observed, it will virtually open the floodgates, particularly to mischievous and ingenious applications.................we need to hold once again that there is a doctrine of finality which applies to all proceedings and barring very strong and very exceptional situations, Courts will refuse to reopen final orders after the lapse of a considerable period of time. Unless this principle is strictly observed, it will virtually open the floodgates, particularly to mischievous and ingenious applications such as the one made in the present case. In totality therefore, it is our considered view that even in the year 1992 since 11 years had already passed and Form 10 had been issued much earlier, that the Tribunal would have been justified in having straightaway rejected the application."


(a) Sita Devi & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana (1996) 10 SCC 1 wherein it is held that distinction on the basis of educational or technical qualifications is valid. (b) Harbans Lal & Ors Vs. State of HP (1989) 4 SCC 459 holding that discrimination complained must be within the same establishment owned by the same management. A comparison cannot be made with counterparts in other establishments with different management. (c) Mewa Ram Kanojia Vs. AIIMS (19890 2 SCC 235 wherein it has been held that even similar duties and functions are not sufficient to hold the claim for equal pay. (d) Federation of All india Customs & Central Excise Stenographs Vs. UOI & Ors. (1988) 3 SCC (e) SC Chandra Vs. State of Jharkhand 2007(10) Scale 209, stressing judicial restraint in interfering with executive decisions or functions has been emphasized. (f) State of M.P. Vs. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (2009) 13 SCC 635. This judgment holds that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work can be invoked only when the employees are similarly situated. Similarity in the designation or nature or quantum of work is not determinative of the quality in matter of pay scales. The Court has to consider factors like the source and mode of recruitment/appointment, qualifications, the nature of work, the value thereof, responsibilities, reliability, experience, confidentiality, functional need etc. Equality clause can be invoked only when there is wholesale identity between the holders of two posts.


NO SAYS SUPREME COURT GUIDELINES In Akhil Bhartiya Upbhokta Congress v. State of Madhya Pradesh(2011) 5 SCC 29, this Court was called upon to examine whether the Government of Madhya Pradesh could have allotted 20 acres land to Shri Kushabhau Thakre Memorial Trust under the M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam, 1973 read with M. P. Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Vikasit Bhoomiyo, Griho, Bhavano Tatha Anya Sanrachanao K Vyayan Niyam, 1975. After noticing the provision of the Act and the Rules, as also those contained in M.P. Revenue Book Circular and the judgments of this Court in S. G. Jaisinghani v. Union of India AIR 1967 SC 1427, Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India (1979) 3 SCC 489, Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd. v. State of W.B. (1975) 1 SCC 70, Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of J&K (1980) 4 SCC 1, Common Cause v. Union of India (1996) 6 SCC 530, Shrilekha Vidyarthi v. State of U. P.(1991) 1 SCC 212, LIC v. Consumer Education & Research Centre (1995) 5 SCC 482, New India Public School v. HUDA (1996) 5 SCC 510, the Court culled out the following propositions: "What needs to be emphasised is that the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities cannot give largesse to any person according to the sweet will and whims of the political entities and/or officers of the State. Every action/decision of the State and/or its agencies/instrumentalities to give largesse or confer benefit must be founded on a sound, transparent, discernible and well-defined policy, which shall be made known to the public by publication in the Official Gazette and other recognised modes of publicity and such policy must be implemented/executed by adopting a non-discriminatory and non- arbitrary method irrespective of the class or category of persons proposed to be benefited by the policy. The distribution of largesse like allotment of land, grant of quota, permit licence, etc. by the State and its agencies/instrumentalities should always be done in a fair and equitable manner and the element of favouritism or nepotism shall not influence the exercise of discretion, if any, conferred upon the particular functionary or officer of the State. We may add that there cannot be any policy, much less, a rational policy of allotting land on the basis of applications made by individuals, bodies, organisations or institutions dehors an invitation or advertisement by the State or its agency/instrumentality. By entertaining applications made by individuals, organisations or institutions for allotment of land or for grant of any other type of largesse the State cannot exclude other eligible persons from lodging competing claim. Any allotment of land or grant of other form of largesse by the State or its agencies/instrumentalities by treating the exercise as a private venture is liable to be treated as arbitrary, discriminatory and an act of favouritism and/or nepotism violating the soul of the equality clause embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution."