Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D.KARIA, J.
Gujarat Rajya Pachhat Varqa Chhatralaya Karmachari Maha - Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat - Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 26938 of 2006
Decided on : 29-07-2022
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 14, 16, 226 – unconstitutional – Cadre of Warden, Assistant Warden, Cook, Assistant Cook and Watchman as illegal – Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 – Section 2(m), 51 – Petitioner-Gujarat has prayed for appropriate writ to declare that action of State Government in not paying pay at running scale to members of petitioner-Union in cadre of Warden, Assistant Warden, Cook, Assistant Cook and Watchman as illegal, unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India – Held, In view of above conspectus of law and considering facts of present case, there is no difference between appointment procedure, qualification and duties discharged by employees of hostel getting 90% grant and employees of hostel getting 100% grant – Therefore, members of petitioner-Union discharging identical duties cannot be treated differently in matter of their pay merely because they are employed in hostels getting 90% grant-inaid – It is apparent that members of petitioner-Union are performing their duties of same quality and of same degree as that of similar employees of Ashram Shalas and hostels getting 100% grant – There is nothing on record to point out that members of petitioner-Union are having different degree of responsibility reliability and confidentiality which entitles them to get only fixed pay vis-à-vis employees of Ashramshala and hostels getting 100% grant – Only because there is a difference of amount of grant-in-aid from State Government by different NGOs, there cannot be any discrimination for payment of pay of members of petitioner- Union as per parameters laid down by Apex Court for applying principle of "equal pay for equal work" as stated here in aboveIn view of above stated legal position with regard to application of principle of "equal pay for equal work" in facts of case, members of petitioner-Union are entitled to get at-least minimum pay scale payable to employees who are similarly situated in Ashram Shalas/hostel getting 100% grant from the State Government – Allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(1.) Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta for learned advocate Mr. Hasit Dave for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Jayneel Parikh for the respondent-State.
(2.) Draft amendment filed on 18.06.2014 is granted.
(3.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Gujarat Rajya Pachhat Varga Chhatralaya Karmachari Maha Mandal (here-in-after referred to as "the petitioner-Union") has prayed for appropriate writ to declare that the action of the State Government in not paying the pay at the running scale to the members of the petitioner-Union in the cadre of Warden, Assistant Warden, Cook, Assistant Cook and Watchman as illegal, unconstitutional, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It is also prayed to declare that the members of the petitioner Union are entitled to receive the pay scale as per the Government Resolution dated 31.08.2000.
(4.) Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Shalin Mehta with learned advocate Mr. Hasit Dave for the petitioner-Union submitted that this petition was earlier dismissed by this Court (Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jayant Patel, As His Lordship was then) vide order dated 7.1.2008. It was submitted that Letters Patent Appeal No. 876/2008 preferred by the petitioner Union was disposed of by the Division Bench (Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.S. Jhaveri, As His Lordship was then and Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.G. Uraizee, As His Lordship was then) vide order dated 28.04.2014 by remitting the matter back to decide afresh considering the documents at page nos. 128 to 290 of the paper book filed with the appeal. During the course of hearing of Letters Patent Appeal, it was pointed out by learned AGP that in view of notification dated 3.3.2014 increasing the pay of the members of the petitioner-Union, the appeal would not survive. The Division Bench therefore, also permitted the petitioner-Union to challenge the order dated 3.3.2014 in this petition by way of an amendment.
(5.) It was therefore, submitted by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Mehta that the petition is required to be decided afresh considering the documents produced by the petitioner-Union at page nos. 128 to 290 before the Division Bench.
(6.) It was further pointed out that by order dated 1.5.2015, the petition was dismissed for non prosecution which was restored later on by order dated 8.5.2015.
(7.) By way of an amendment, the petitioner-Union has placed on record page nos. 128 to 290 which were placed before the Division Bench as Annexure-I (page 98/A to 98/Z-137) and also prayed to quash and set aside the notification dated 3.3.2014.
(8.) It appears that the petitioner-Union preferred Civil Application No. 5268/2017 to pay the basic minimum wages which was disposed of by the Court (Coram : Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.P.Bhatt, As His Lordship was then) by order dated 27.4.2017 as under :
2. Learned AGP appearing for Respondent State placed on record the Resolution issued by Tribal Development Department, Government of Gujarat dated 27.03.2017 which provides that the salary of the employees working in grant in aid Chhatralaya is enhanced and the said Resolution is implemented and accordingly the pay of such employees shall be revised. The said Resolution is taken on record.
3. In view of the aforesaid Resolution, the members of the Petitioner Mandal will get the revised pay and, therefore, the present Civil Application is required to be disposed of. Accordingly, the Civil Application stands disposed of.
4. The learned advocate for the Petitioner submits that the pay revised by the Respondent State is also below mini
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' and the emphasis on the need for a factual determination of whether employees are di....
The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' applies to temporary employees, and the State Government is obliged to extend the same pay scales to temporary employees on par with regular employees.
The court ruled that employees of an NGO funded by the state performing equivalent duties to government employees are entitled to equal pay and benefits under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Equal pay for equal work applies to absorbed employees from merged entities performing identical duties as regulars, entitling pay scale parity, benefits, arrears despite initial lump sum irregular a....
The principle of equal pay for equal work mandates that employees performing similar duties must receive the same remuneration, regardless of their employment status.
The fixed pay policy for Group-C and Group-D employees is constitutional, aimed at employment generation, and does not violate the principle of equal pay for equal work without proving equality in al....
The principle of equal pay for equal work mandates that employees performing identical duties must receive the same remuneration, regardless of their employment status.
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
