IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.
Saiful Gain & ors. - Petitioner
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors. - Respondent
WPA 3364 of 2019
Decided On : 02-08-2024
Equal Pay - Employment - Notifications 14.08.2008, 16.09.2009 - The court interpreted the notifications regarding pay and allowances for contractual employees, emphasizing the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' and ruled that the petitioners were entitled to remuneration as per the notifications.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, appointed as Group-D staff on a contractual basis, claimed discrimination in pay compared to similarly situated employees, arguing that their remuneration was below the stipulated rates in notifications issued by the Judicial Department.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were entitled to remuneration and allowances as per the notifications dated 14.08.2008 and 16.09.2009, as they performed similar duties to other employees who received higher pay.
Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to remuneration and allowances as per the notifications issued for contractual employees in Fast Track Courts despite their appointments in regular ADJ Courts.
Ratio Decidendi: The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' applies, and the court held that the petitioners, performing similar duties as other employees, should receive equal remuneration as per the relevant notifications.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, directing the respondents to pay the petitioners according to the notifications dated 14.08.2008 and 16.09.2009.
JUDGMENT :
Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.
1. The petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus to command the respondents to pay remuneration and other allowances to them from the respective dates of their initial entry upto service in accordance with notifications dated 14.08.2008 and 16.09.2009.
2. Pursuant to an employment notice dated 18.05.2015 issued by the District Judges’ Office, Nadia for recruitment of two Bench Clerks and one Group-D staff in the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge converted from the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court and the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Nadia on contractual basis, a panel was prepared from the selected candidates.
3. The petitioner no. 1 was appointed in the Group-D post on contract/temporary basis in the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Tehatta, Nadia vide Office Order dated 22.09.2015. The petitioner no. 2 was appointed in the post of Group-D category vide Office Order dated 15.07.2014 on contract basis in the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Nabadwip, Nadia. The petitioner no. 3 was appointed as a temporary Group-D employee on contract basis for a period of one year in the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-2, Krishnanagar.
4. All the petitioners were appointed at a consolidated monthly remuneration of Rs. 8000/-. The petitioners claim that they are similarly situated like other Group-D staff of Courts which have been abolished and they have been discriminated against in the matter of granting pay and other allowances. The petitioners claim that while other similarly situated employees appointed in the year 2013 and 2016 under the District Judge, Nadia and holding similar posts have been borne in the scale of pay with other allowances in terms of the notifications dated 14.08.2008 and 16.09.2009, the petitioners were appointed at a fixed monthly remuneration which is far below the limit which has been stipulated in the said notifications.
5. The petitioners further claim that the nature of work, job responsibilities, volume of work, qualifications and other parameters which are required to be considered for the purpose of “equal pay for equal work” clearly exists in the case the petitioners vis-à-vis the other Group-D staff in the Fast Track Courts of the same Districts and, therefore, the petitioners should be granted pay and allowances equal to that enjoyed by similarly situated employees.
6. Mr. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Judicial Department, Government of West Bengal issued a notification dated 14.08.2008 specifically stipulating the pay and other allowances for the employees who were appointed on contract basis in the Fast Track Courts in West Bengal. He further submits that the said notification was subsequently modified by another notification dated 16.09.2009. Mr. Majumder submits that the monthly remuneration of Rs. 8,000/- fixed in the appointment letters was dehors the aforesaid notifications and, therefore, the respondents should be directed to release the pay and allowances to the petitioners at the rate mentioned in the notification dated 14.08.2008 which was subsequently modified vide notification dated 16.09.2009.
7. Mr. Majumder further submits that the petitioner no. 3 subsequently joined the regular post of process server (Group C) with effect from 09.09.2020 and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner with regard to pay and allowances as per the aforesaid notifications shall be restricted only upto 08.09.2020. Mr. Majumder placed reliance upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & ors. reported at (2017) 1 SCC 148 and submitted that the temporary employees possessing the requisite qualification and appointed against the posts which are also available in regular cadre
State of Punjab & ors. Vs. Jagjit Singh & ors. reported at (2017) 1 SCC 148
Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association Vs. Union of India
AI
The court established that contractual employees performing similar duties are entitled to equal pay as per the notifications, reinforcing the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the need for parity in fu....
Daily wage compassionate Clerk entitled to pay parity with contract basis counterpart from initial appointment for identical work; mode of appointment cannot justify lower emoluments, violating equal....
Contractual workers are entitled to the enhanced financial benefits as per the memorandums issued by the Government, and the principle of non-traverse applies when the respondents fail to specificall....
Court emphasizes equal treatment and fair pay for similarly situated employees under the law, allowing notional pay fixation from 1996.
Delay in seeking judicial relief can bar claims, especially when the claimant has accepted the status quo for an extended period.
Employees similarly situated must receive equitable treatment regarding pay fixation as per Article 14, emphasizing uniform application of benefits.
Tribunal upheld employees' entitlement to retrospective pay fixation from 1996, emphasizing equality under law for similarly situated individuals.
Equal pay for equal work mandates uniform application of benefits across similarly situated employees, reinforcing that arbitrary denial of pay parity violates constitutional principles.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.