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



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Nishant Chawla - Appellant
Versus
Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal - Respondent
W.P.(C) 8096 of 2012
Decided On : 12-07-2022




The principle of equal pay for equal work does not entitle employees to claim parity in pay scales if their recruitment processes differ significantly.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Request for upgraded pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 - Claim based on historical parity and equal pay for equal work - Petitioner's remuneration not upgraded due to employment status on deputation rather than direct recruitment, which is significant in assessing entitlement to pay scale increases. (Paras 10, 32, 49)

(B) Equal Pay for Equal Work - Legal principle invoked when comparing similar posts but requires identities in recruitment, duties, and responsibilities - Court found no equivalence in recruitment processes between the petitioner and those in Central Secretariat which justified differing pay scales. (Paras 34, 42, 50)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, employed as Stenographer Grade 'C' on deputation in Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal, filed a writ petition seeking upgradation of pay scale based on recommendations for other similar posts in Central Secretariat. The request was denied citing proper classification based on mode of recruitment. (Paras 6, 10, 49)

Findings of Court:
Court upheld the previous decision rejecting the petitioner's claim for upgraded pay scale, emphasizing the significance of direct recruitment qualifications in establishing pay parity. (Paras 50, 51)

Issues: Assessing entitlement for upgraded pay based on historical parity and equal pay for equal work principles in the context of different modes of recruitment. (Paras 49, 51)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the principle of equal pay does not automatically apply without significant equivalence in recruitment methods and that reasonable classification based on responsibilities is permissible. (Paras 34, 50)

Result: Petition dismissed for lack of merit.

Table of Content
1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. arguments supporting pay scale upgradation. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 21)
3. court's analysis on pay parity and legal principles. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
4. conclusion on entitlement for pay scale. (Para 49 , 50)
5. final outcome of the petition. (Para 51 , 52 , 53)

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for issuance of appropriate writ to quash and set aside order dated 27th August 2012 and for directing the respondents to grant benefit of upgraded pay scale of Rs.6500-10500 with consequential benefits and arrears thereof to the petitioner.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. In April 1998, the petitioner herein, qualified the All India Competitive Exam of the year 1996 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission and was inducted into government service as Stenographer Grade `D'. The petitioner joined the Indian Coast Guard at New Delhi. Respondent no.3/Department of Telecommunications, vide letter bearing No.10-16/2000-Restg. dated 4th September 2000 conveyed that 16 categories of temporary posts in Respondent No.1/Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal were created with a sanction of competent authority. Out of the 16 categories of temporary posts, 3 posts of Stenographer Grade `C' in the pay-scale of Rs.5500-175-9000 were created. All the posts were to be filled up by Respondent No. 1 on deputation basis from persons holding analogous posts in that pay-scale or from persons eligible to be promoted in that pay-scale.

3. The respondent no.3 vide Order bearing no.10-16/2000-Restg, dated 7th November 2000, conveyed the sanction of the President for creation of 6 categories of temporary posts in respondent no. 1, including 2 posts of Assistants in Central Secretariat Service (hereinafter "CSS") in the pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000. All the posts were to be filled up by the respondent no. l on deputation basis from persons holding analogous posts in that pay-scale or from persons eligible to be promoted in that pay-scale. On 8th November 2000/30th November 2000, Ministry of Communications issued a Circular bearing no. A-22013/11/2000-Admn.II for filling up of temporary posts in respondent no. 1. Vide aforesaid circular, it was proposed to fill up the temporary posts in Respondent No. 1 from amongst the officials/officers from all the Ministries/Departments of the Government of India on deputation basis, which included 3 posts of Stenographer Grade 'C. in the pay-scale of Rs.5500-9000 and 2 posts of Stenographer Grade 'D' in the pay-scale of Rs.4000-6000.

4. Respondent No.3 issued a Notification bearing G.S.R.575(E) dated 2nd August 2001, making the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal (Salary, Allowances and other Conditions of Service of the Officers and Employees) Rules, 2001.

5. Thereafter, on 5th June 2003, the Respondent No.3 made the Telecom Disputes Settlement and Appellate Tribunal Group 'C and Group 'D' Posts Recruitment Rules, 2003, wherein number of posts, classification and scale of pay have been specified in the Schedule attached thereto. The classification of posts of Stenographer Grade 'D' is General Central Service Group `C' Non-Gazetted - Ministerial' having a pay scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 and are required to be filled up by direct recruitment. Stenographer Grade 'D' is the feeder post for promotion to the post of Stenographer Grade 'C., for which recruitment rules are yet to be finalized. The post of Stenographer Grade 'D' is equivalent to the post of Stenographer Grade 'D' in Central Secretariat Stenographer Service (hereinafter "CSSS") in terms of its nomenclature as well as scale of pay and classification.

6. Respondent No.1 advertised for filling up the temporary posts and in pursuance of the said advertisement, the Petitioner applied and jo

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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top