Back
HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA
Saiful Gain – Appellant
Versus
State of West Bengal – Respondent
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 w
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.
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
