Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH AT KOHIMA BENCH
KAKHETO SEMA, J.
Alemba Jamir – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Nagaland – Respondent
WP (C) No. 130 of 2022
Decided On : 20-07-2023
Equal Pay for Equal Work - Contingency Fixed Paid Employees - [Equal Pay for Equal Work] - [Contingency Fixed Paid Employees] - [RTI Act, 2005, Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966] - The court held that the petitioners, who were contingency fixed paid drivers and bus conductors, were entitled to pay parity with regular drivers and bus conductors on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The court emphasized that the concept of equality is applicable to the issue of pay parity if the work component is the same, and that the State cannot deny pay parity to employees performing the same work as their counterparts in the regular cadre. The court referred to various legal provisions, including the RTI Act, 2005, Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966, to support its decision.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, contingency fixed paid drivers and bus conductors, sought pay parity with regular drivers and bus conductors, as they performed the same nature of work, duties, and responsibilities. The Director of the Treasuries and Accounts confirmed that regular and fixed pay drivers performed the same duties. The petitioners submitted representations and filed a writ petition seeking consideration of their pay parity.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners were performing the same duties as regular drivers and bus conductors, and the State's failure to grant them pay parity amounted to discrimination and exploitation. The court emphasized that the concept of equality is applicable to the issue of pay parity if the work component is the same.
Issues: The issues included the denial of pay and allowances to the petitioners, the State's failure to consider their representations for pay parity, and the State's argument that no policy existed for granting pay parity to contingency fixed paid employees.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principle of equal pay for equal work applies to temporary employees, and the State cannot deny pay parity to employees performing the same work as their counterparts in the regular cadre. The court referred to various legal provisions and international obligations to support its decision.
Final Decision: The court directed the State respondents to pay the petitioners the minimum scale of pay paid to regular drivers and bus conductors, along with arrears from the date of filing the writ petition, within 90 days.
JUDGMENT :
KAKHETO SEMA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Supongwati, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. A. Ayemi, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents.
2. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking for a direction to grant minimum scale of pay as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Jagjit Singh and Others, (2017) 1 SCC 148.
3. That the petitioner No. 1 to 23 were all appointed in service in between the year 2009-2017 by the Principal Director/Director, Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts, Nagaland, Kohima and they have been continuously serving the department without any break in service till date.
4. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed as contingency fixed paid driver @ Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only per month for a period of 6(six) months by the office order dated 26/05/2011 passed by the Director, Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts, Nagaland, Kohima and is presently attached to the Commissioner & Secretary (Finance), Nagaland Civil Secretariat, Nagaland, Kohima.
5. The petitioner No. 2 was appointed as contingency fixed paid driver @ Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only per month for a period of 6(six) months w.e.f. 10/10/2009 by office order dated 29/10/2009 passed by the Director, Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts, Nagaland, Kohima.
6. The petitioner No. 3 was appointed as contingency fixed paid bus conductor @ Rs. 3000/- (Rupees three thousand) only per month for a period of 6(six) months by office order dated 08/09/2010 passed by the Director, Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts, Nagaland, Kohima.
7. The petitioner No. 4 was appointed as contingency fixed paid driver under the establishment of Sub-Treasury Office, Tseminyu for a period of 1 (one) year on contingency basis @ Rs. 4050/- p.m. w.e.f. 17/11/2018 by office order dated 30/11/2018 passed by the Director, Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts, Nagaland, Kohima.
8. The petitioner No. 5 was appointed as driver (fixed) in the Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts, Nagaland, Kohima on contingency basis @ Rs. 4050/- p.m. for a period of 1(one) year by office order dated 05/02/2019 passed by the Director, Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts, Nagaland, Kohima.
9. The petitioner No. 6 & 7 were both appointed as driver on contingency basis @ Rs. 4050/- p.m. (fixed) for a period of 1(one) year by the common office order dated 15/12/2017 passed by the Director, Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts, Nagaland, Kohima.
10. The petitioner No. 8 was appointed as contingency fixed paid driver @ Rs. 3000/- p.m. for a period of 6(six) month by office order dated 01/02/2012 passed by the Director, Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts, Nagaland, Kohima.
11. The petitioner No. 9 & 10 were both appointed as contingency fixed paid driver @ Rs. 3600/- p.m. for a period of 1(one) year w.e.f 01/03/2015 by the common order dated 23/05/2015 passed by the Director, Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts, Nagaland, Kohima.
12. The petitioner No. 11 was appointed as contingency fixed paid driver temporarily attached to the Registrar @ Rs. 4050/- p.m. for a period of 1(one) year by office order dated 15/12/2015 passed by the Principal Director, Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts, Nagaland, Kohima.
13. The petitioner No. 12 was appointed as contingency fixed paid driver @ Rs. 4050/- p.m. for a period of 1(one) year under the establishment of Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts, Nagaland, Kohima by office order dated 17/08/2015 passed by the Principal Director, Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts, Nagaland, Kohima.
14. The petitioner No. 13 was appointed as contingency fixed paid driver @ Rs. 4050/- p.m. for a period of 1(one) year w.e.f. 01/08/2015 by office order dated 19/08/2015 passed by the Principal Director, Directorate of Treasuries and Accounts, Nagaland, Kohima.
15. The petitioner No. 14 was appointed as contingency fixed paid driver @ Rs. 4050/- p.m. for a period of 1
The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of equal pay for equal work, which applies to temporary employees and prohibits the denial of pay parity to employees performing the ....
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 principle of equal pay for equal work mandates that employees performing identical duties must receive the same remuneration, regardless of their employment status.
The principle of equal pay for equal work is applicable if the work component is the same, and workers doing the same work cannot be paid less than others similarly situated.
Point of Law : Principle of “equal pay for equal work” has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charge, daily wage, casual, ad hoc, contractual, and the like)
The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' entitles temporary employees performing similar duties to receive at least the minimum pay of regular employees.
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
