THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Devashis Baruah, J.
Nirab Chandra Adhikary, S/o. Sri Tarini Mohan Adhikary – Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India, Rep. by The Secretary, Deptt. Of Science And Technology, Govt. Of India, & 5 Ors. – Respondents
WP(C) No.3272 Of 2018
Decided On : 03-01-2023
Constitution of India, 1949 – Article 14, 16, 226 – Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010 – Rule 3 – Equality before law – Power of High Court to issue certain writs – Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner learned counsel appears for respondent counsel appears for respondent learned counsel appears for respondent learned counsel appears for respondent learned counsel appears for respondent Finance Department – Held, Court opinion that question of giving pay parity to petitioner with similarly situated Technical Officers Grade-II of Indian Institute of Technology other Institutes of Technology cannot be applied to case of petitioner – Transpire mode of recruitment can be taken as a factor for purpose of accepting or rejecting claim based on principle of petitioners service is not transferable service of Technical Officers Grade different class from that of petitioner – Writ petition stands dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. F.Khan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Roy, the learned counsel appears for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3, Mr. J.K.Goswami, the learned counsel appears for the respondent No.2,Mr. R.Borpujari, the learned counsel appears for the respondent No.4, Mr. S.Bhuyan, the learned counsel appears for the respondent No.5 and Mr. D.Gogoi, the learned counsel appears for the respondent No.6, the Finance Department.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the action of the respondent authorities for not granting the pay protection to the petitioner w.e.f March, 2009 as well as for a direction upon the respondents to fix the petitioner’s pay scale and grade pay w.e.f March, 2009 in pay band-3 and give pay scale of Rs.15,600-39,100/-along with the grade pay of Rs.5,400/-. Further to that, the petitioner has also prayed for an arrear salary dues in the revised pay scale of Rs.15,600-39,100/- and grade pay of Rs.5,400/-.
3. The facts of the instant case is that the petitioner pursuant to a regular selection process was appointed as a Senior Research Assistant vide an Office order dated 08.10.2002, issued by the Registrar of the Institute of Advance Study in Science and Technology (for short IASST). The pay scale of the petitioner upon his appointment was Rs.4,390-90-11,425/-per month. The petitioner continued to discharge his service. In the meantime, on 09.03.2009, the IASST was taken over by the Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, as one of the Autonomous Research and Development Institute. Upon the taking over of the institute by the Government of India, the petitioner became a Central Government employee of IASST and his post was re-designated as Technical Officer-B.
4. At this stage it may be relevant herein to mention that pursuant to the recommendation made by the 6th Central Pay Commission and subsequent to the Cabinet approval and decision taken by the Government of India, the 6th Central Pay Commission was decided to be implemented w.e.f 01.01.2009. Under such circumstances, the petitioner whose pay scale was Rs.4,390-90-11,425/-at the time of his appointment was fixed at Rs.9,300-34,800/-w.e.f March, 2009 in Pay Band-2 with grade pay of Rs.4,800/-. It is also relevant herein to take note of that, in the Central Civil Services Revised Pay Rules, 2008, there was no exact pre-revised scale of Rs.4,300-90-11,425/-. However, equivalent to the said pre-revised scale under the Central Civil Services Revised Pay Rules, 2008 was Rs.7,500-250-12,000. Taking into account that the petitioner fell within the revised pay scale of 7,500-250-12,000/-, the petitioner’s pay was fixed at Rs.9,300-34800/- with grade pay of Rs.4,800/-.
5. The petitioner accordingly enjoyed the pay scale of Rs.9,300-34,800/-with grade pay of Rs.4,800/-. Subsequent thereto, the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010 (for short the Rules of 2010) was notified by the Notification dated 04.02.2010. In terms with Rules 1(b) of the said Rules of 2010, the said Rules were deemed to have been brought into force w.e.f 01.01.2006. Appendix-IV of the said Rules of 2010 stipulated, the revised structure at Sl. No.21 of Appendix-IV, the pay scale of Rs.4,390-90-11,425/-was revised to Rs.12,000-40,000 /- with a grade pay of 5,400/-.
6. Accordingly, in terms with the Rules of 2010, the petitioner who was in service of the State Government till 09.03.2009 became entitled to the revision of pay till 9th of March, 2009 w.e.f 01.01.2006 in terms with the Rules of 2010, by which the petitioners salary was increased in the pay band of Rs.12,000-40,000/-with grade pay of Rs.5400/-. However, in view of the fact that the petitioner’s pay band w.e.f. 09.03.2009 as an employee of the Central Government was reduced to Rs.9,300-34,800/-with grade pay of Rs.4800/-.The petitioner being aggrieved have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also the c
State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger & Ors.
The court ruled that pay fixation must adhere to applicable rules, and claims for parity must consider distinct recruitment modes.
The determination of pay scales is the exclusive domain of the state, and courts should only intervene in cases of constitutional violations.
The principle of equal pay for equal work does not entitle employees to claim parity in pay scales if their recruitment processes differ significantly.
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' is not strictly applied; disparities based on recruitment methods and job responsibilities justify differences in pay.
The classification for pay-scale based on the different qualification existed from the year 1973 and was reasonable and based upon intelligible differentia. The onus to prove about parity in duties a....
Direct appointees entitled to pay parity with transferred employees and departmental counterparts performing identical duties, as unequal pay scales violate Articles 14/16; courts rectify arbitrary a....
The court established that the principle of equal pay for equal work does not apply rigidly when different qualifications and job responsibilities exist, and that the government has the discretion to....
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.