SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(Cal) 453

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE & ABANI MOHAN SINHA, JJ.
Pradip Kumar Roy
Versus
Union of India & other
Writ Appeal No. 659 of 1989
Decided on : 23.12.1992

The principle of equal pay for equal work is part of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Headnote:

EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK - CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE - NAIK RADIO OPERATORS - PAY SCALE - DISPARITY - PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK - ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA.

Fact of the Case:

Naik Radio Operators in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) filed a writ petition challenging the pay scale granted to them on the basis of the Fourth Pay Commission's recommendation. They claimed that they were denied equal pay for equal work compared to their counterparts in other organizations, such as the Director of Police Wireless and the Central Water Commission.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Naik Radio Operators in the CRPF were performing the same nature of duties and responsibilities as their counterparts in other organizations, but were receiving lower pay. The court found that this disparity in pay was not justified and violated the principle of equal pay for equal work.

Issues: Whether the Naik Radio Operators in the CRPF were entitled to equal pay for equal work.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle of equal pay for equal work, which is part of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court held that the Naik Radio Operators in the CRPF were performing the same duties and responsibilities as their counterparts in other organizations, but were receiving lower pay. The court found that this disparity in pay was not justified and violated the principle of equal pay for equal work.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and directed the respondents to fix the pay of the Naik Radio Operators at Rs. 1320-2040/- and to revise the same if the pay scale had since been revised in order to remove the disparity.

JUDGMENT

BHAGABATI PRASAD BANERJEE, J.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 28th September, 1989 passed by the Learned Trial Judge in Matter No. 4008 of 1988. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the application filed by the writ petitioner/appellant. In the writ petition the appellant/petitioner's case was that they were denied equal pay for equal work. The appellant/writ petitioner was Naik Radio Operator in the Central Reserve Police Force and that they were aggrieved by the pay scale given to them on the basis of the recommendation of the Fourth Pay Commission at Rs. 950-20-1150-EB-25-1400 with allowance of Rs. 40/- per month. The case of the appellant is that the Signal personnel in CRPF besides performing technical duties of providing communication, looking after the repair and maintenance of equipment, providing crypto cover to pass classified traffic have also to perform executive duties along with the General Duty Personnel and undergo the some hazards and lead the nomadic life typical to the CRPF. The minimum rank of a Radio Operator in the CRPF is a Naik Radio whereas personnel with the same technical qualifications and experience and looking after provisions of communications in State services, where the frequency of movements is lesser and better facilities of accommodation/workshop are available, are granted the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector with higher emoluments. Radio operators working in the office of Director of Police Wireless, Central Water Commission and other Government agencies are placed in the grade of Rs. 380-560 per month, as against the grade of Rs. 225-308 with Rs. 40/- as special pay for a Naik RO, Similarly, Cipher Operator who have to handle the pay scale of Rs. 380-640 in DCPC and CWC. As the minimum qualification, standard of technical training and working conditions of these trades are identical, our request before the Commission is that the pay scales may be so fixed that the disparity in pay with DCPW /CWC employees is removed in that their pay scales are kept at a higher level than those working in State Government to attract suitable talents for these jobs.

2. It is not in dispute that the Naik Radio Operators had to acquire higher academic qualifications but they alleged that they were enjoying lesser benefits in comparison with Naik (GD) employee in CRPF.

3. The appellant petitioner was performing much more harzardous job but he was getting lesser pay. His claim is not for higher pay but for equal pay for equal work.

4. It is submitted that the principle for equal pay for equal work is well settled by several decisions of the Supreme Court. The first case on this point was the case reported in Randhir Singh vs. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 879, followed up by various case laws on this point.

5. On behalf of the respondents an attempt was made to show that the Signal Personnel in the Central Reserve Police Force perform technical duties and also look after the repair and maintenance equipment and other ancilliary duties along with the general duty personnel and furthermore it was stated that they perform some hazardous duties of technical nature but the particulars whereof had not been disclosed and as such the respondents case was that it is the case where the appellant was not entitled to equal pay with that of their counter-parts. The Learned Trial Judge have held that the appellant petitioner's basic duty as Naik Operator is to operate radio equipment and not to carry out any repair work of equipment for which head constables known as radio machanics are there. The learned Judge also noted that the respondents had recommended for higher pay scale for Naik Radio Operator before the Pay Commission but the Pay Commission did not grant the said pay as recommended by the respondents.

6. The learned Trial Judge on considering the facts and circumstances of the case held that the appellant/petitioner was originally appointed as a constable and subsequently was promoted to th










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top