Back
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.M. Panchal and Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Gyan Sudha Misra
Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors.... Appellants
Versus
Dibyendu Bhattacharya ...Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9480 OF 2010
Arising out of S.L.P.(C) NO. 26495/2008
Decided on : October 29, 2010.
AIR 1997 SC 1788; (1989) 4 SCC 459; (1989) 2 SCC 235 – Relied upon
(b) Constitution of India – Article 39(d) r/w 14 – Equal pay for equal work – For claiming pay parity the employee has to prove discrimination. (Para 16)
AIR 2006 SC 2296; AIR 2008 SC 435; AIR 2008 SC 1026; (2008) 1 SCC 630; (2008) 10 SCC 1; (2009) 2 SCC 606; (2009) 13 SCC 635 – Relied upon
(c) Service Law – Equal pay for equal work – Respondent applying for Grade S-6 being not qualified for Grade E-1 – Accepting Grade S-6 on terms and conditions incorporated in his appointment letter without any protest – Seeking parity with a person employed in Grade E-1 appointed in another unit about two decades prior to him – Relief sought by respondent already denied to candidates senior in merit list to respondent – Grant of relief sought by Respondent would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution qua other candidates in the panel above Respondent – Respondent’s claim not tenable. (Para 27)
(2010) 5 SCC 225; (2008) 12 SCC 219; AIR 1968 SC 850; AIR 1981 SC 1990; AIR 1986 SC 1200; AIR 1974 SC 555; (2000) 1 SCC 644; (1991) 1 SCC 505; (1998) 6 SCC 741; AIR 1989 SC 19; AIR 2001 SC 168; (2007) 8 SCC 279; (1998) 4 SCC 598; (1996) 5 SCC 125; AIR 1998 SC 32 – Relied upon
(d) Service Law – Conditions of service – Management having units at different places – Units can make appointments separately but cannot determine grade or the pay scale of a post or determine and sanction number of posts – These are part of overall recruitment plan – In turn part of annual Human Resource Plan of the Company – Corporate office directed to address the anomalies raised in the case. (Para 28)
Facts of the case:
Appellant No. 2 issued an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Speech Therapist/Audiologist at the Durgapur Steel Plant in S-6 grade in Medical and Health Services.
The Respondent’s name found place at serial No. 4 in the merit list. As none of the first three candidates joined, the Respondent joined the said post without any protest.
After serving for a few years, Respondent started claiming parity with one Shri B.V. Prabhakar, employed at Rourkela Steel Plant, who was holding the post of E-1 grade in executive cadre though designated as Speech Therapist/Audiologist. Respondent made representation not claiming parity in pay but to change the cadre and upgrade his post, accord relaxation in eligibility and give him the pay-scale of the post of E-1 grade from the date of his joining the service.
The said representation stood rejected.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Appeal thereagainst has been allowed.
Finding of the Court:
Respondent’s claim is not tenable.
Result:
Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 1.8.2008 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in FMA No.782 of 2007; MAT No.4487 of 2005; and CAN No.4852 of 2006 by which the Division Bench has allowed the appeal of the respondent against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.9.2005 passed in Writ Petition No.2539(W) of 2005 by which the learnedSingle Judge had rejected the claim of the respondent for parity in pay and issuance of direction to upgrade the post held by him.
3. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant No.2 issued an advertisement in "The Statesman" newspaper dated 22.9.1993 inviting applications for the post of Speech Therapist/Audiologist at the Durgapur Steel Plant in S-6 grade in Medical and Health Services. The respondent applied in response to the said advertisement. An interview was held on 17.6.1996 and the respondent's name found place at serial no.4 in the merit list. As none of the first three candidates joined, the appointment was offered to the respondent vide letter dated 17.6.1996. The respondent joined the said post without any protest. After serving for a few years, respondent started claiming parity with one Shri B.V. Prabhakar, employed at Rourkela Steel Plant, a different unit of the same company who was holding the post of E-1 grade in executive cadre though designated as Speech Therapist/Audiologist. Respondent made representation dated 1.9.2004 not claiming parity in pay but to change the cadre and upgrade his post, accord relaxation in eligibility and give him the pay-scale of the post of E-1 grade from the date of his joining the service. The said representation stood rejected vide order dated 12/14.10.2004 by the Authorities, observing that upgradation of his post to executive cadre was not permissible under the policy of the company, and as the respondent was working in non- executive cadre, he could not claim parity with an employee in another unit of the company on a post of executive cadre.
4. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred the writ petition before the High Court claiming the same relief, however, the learned Single Judge dismissed the same vide judgment and order dated 16.9.2005. The respondent challenged the said judgment by filing an intra court appeal. The said appeal has been allowed, issuing direction to the present appellants to grant the pay-scale to the respondent as was being paid to Shri B.V. Prabhakar at the Rourkela Steel Plant in the executive cadre and that too from the date of his initial appointment. The arrears also were to be paid within six weeks. Hence, this appeal.
5. Shri Rajiv Dhawan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants has submitted that the said B.V. Prabhakar had been appointed vide order dated 20.4.1987 in Rourkela Steel Plant in executive cadre in E-1 grade taking into account his experience in service in the Bokaro Steel Plant, another unit of the company. There are different set of rules governing the services of the employees of all different plants/units of the company and all the employees are not governed by the Central Rules. The respondent has not been appointed in the centralised service nor is his post transferable. The mode of appointment and selection of employees in each unit is different and made independently. The respondent had applied in pursuance of an advertisement dated 22.9.1993 for a non-executive post along with eight other candidates. Respondent's name was at serial no.4 in the merit list/panel. The name of Shri Sourav Mukhopadhyay, serving in Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as BHEL) appeared at serial no.1 in the panel, however as he was getting higher pay in BHEL than the post in question, he asked for pay protection. His demand was not acceptable to the appellants, thus, he declined the offer. The post was offered to Shri Mithlesh Kumar, the next candidate i
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
