IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.
Malabika Dhar W/o Sanjib Kumar Deb – Petitioner
Versus
The Sate of Assam and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 3481 of 2021
Decided On : 09-10-2023
Pay scale - Recommendation of Shetty Commission - Writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus from this Court directing respondent authorities to take necessary steps enabling petitioner to draw pay scale of Record Keeper as per action plan prepared by Government on basis of recommendation of Shetty Commission – Held, Benefits accrued to employees will have to be decided in terms of Fitment scales which is an exercise required to be undertaken by competent authority to work out benefits allowable or accrued to various employees in appropriate payscales - Averments made in affidavit of Judicial Department does not reflect whether this exercise was undertaken - To decide upon such claims raised by petitioner in present proceedings, a detailed exercise is required to be undertaken by competent authority to ascertain if claims made by petitioner that benefits which had accrued to her under RoP have not yet been conferred in appropriate scale of pay - Court does not find any ground to grant prayer made by petitioner in present petition - Respondent will therefore consider claims raised by writ petitioner and thereupon pass appropriate orders referring to various provisions of RoP as well as taking into consideration notification issued by Government and pass a speaking order - Writ petition disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J.
1. Heard Mr. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H.K. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court, for the respondents no. 1 to 3 and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department for the respondent no. 4.
2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus from this Court directing the respondent authorities to take necessary steps enabling the petitioner to draw pay scale of the Record Keeper as per the action plan prepared by the Government of Assam on the basis of the recommendation of the Shetty Commission. The petitioner was appointed as Record Keeper in the establishment of the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Silchar in the year 1982. She joined the said Department on 19.07.1981 and she has been working there till her retirement in the year 2022. At the time of her appointment the Industrial Tribunals were under the Department of Labour and Employment of Government of Assam. Subsequently, in the year 2010 all the Tribunals including the Labour Courts were brought under the control of the Gauhati High Court and the Judicial Department of Government of Assam. The petitioner was appointed as a Record Keeper vide the appointment order dated 17.07.1982 in the scale of pay of Rs.200-4-224-6-300/- per month plus other allowances as admissible under the Rules. She joined the service on 19.07.1982 and was still in service at the time of filing the present writ petition. Subsequently, she, however, superannuated in the year 2022. The grievance of the petitioner is that as per the Shetty Commission recommendations, Revision of Pay (RoP) that ought to have been made in respect of the petitioner was not done. According to the petitioner, as per the Shetty Commission’s recommendation, pay scale of Record Keeper at scale of Rs.3850-7350 is equivalent to Supervisory Assistant/UD Assistant/Judicial Peshkar/Nazir/Stenographer Grade-III and they are the common category posts as reflected in the action plan. The said action plan was prepared by the Government of Assam in terms of the direction of the Apex Court passed on 07.10.2009 in WP (C) No. 1022/1989 - All India Judges Association and Others vs. Union of India & Other. The directions issued by the Apex Court were required to be complied with for which purpose the Government of Assam had prepared the action plan. The petitioner was a Record Keeper since her appointment but she had been drawing the pay scale of a Record Arranger which is 2650-5200/- instead of allowing her to draw the pay scale of a Record Keeper which is 3850-7350/- with effect from 01.04.2003 as per the Shetty Commission recommendation. The petitioner made several requests to all the competent authorities, however, her plea was not considered. Referring to a communication dated 11.11.2010, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the said communication the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court had communicated to all the District and Sessions judges, the Principal Judges, Family Courts, the Presiding Officers, the Special Judge, CBI Court, the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Guwahati/Dibrugarh, the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati/Dibrugarh/ Silchar, The Judge, Designated Court, Assam, Guwahati and the Chief Judicial Magistrate of all the Districts, the draft action plan submitted by the Government of Assam for furnishing the financial implications/involvement towards implementation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India’s directions passed in WP (C) No. 1022/1989 on 07.10.2009 relating to the revision of pay scales, etc of the Subordinate Court Staff. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the said action plan there are a few “common category posts.” Under the said common category posts at serial no. 5 Record Keeper is shown in the pay scale of 3850-7350/- whereas at serial no. 11 Record Arranger has been shown in the pay scale of 2650-5200/-.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner
S.C. Chandra vs. State of Jharkhand. 2007 (8) SCC 279
State of Haryana vs. Charanjit Singh and Others
Steel Authority of India Limited and Others vs. Dibyendu Bhattacharya
SupremeToday
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 principle of equal pay for equal work does not entitle employees to claim parity in pay scales if their recruitment processes differ significantly.
The principle of equal pay for equal work under Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution mandates that employees performing similar duties be compensated equally, regardless of title discrepancies.
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.