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

2024 Supreme(Gau) 522

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Kardak Ete, J.
All Assam Newly Provincialised College Employees Association Represented By Its Secretary, Dilip Saikia, Son Of Late Dhurba Ram Saikia - Appellant
Vs.
The State Of Assam and Ors. - Respondent
WP(C) No. 8166 of 2017
Decided On : 30-04-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. K Devi
For the Respondent: SC, Higher Education

Headnote:

Pay Scale - Senior Assistant - ROP Rules, 2010 - [Rule 8(A)(A)(i) of ROP Rules, 2010] - The court analyzed the application of the ROP Rules, 2010 and the fixation of initial pay in the revised pay structure. It highlighted the classification of posts into primary and secondary scales, the application of the multiplying factor of 1.86, and the determination of pay scale for fresh recruits. The court emphasized that the determination of pay scale is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary, and rejected the claim of pay anomaly and principle of equal pay for equal work as well as pay parity.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner association representing Senior Assistants sought a direction to provide the benefit of revised scale of pay in the Pay Band of Rs.7170/- per-month as provided to other similarly situated employees under the ROP Rules, 2010. The petitioner's claim was rejected by the respondent authorities, leading to the filing of the present petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the determination of pay scale is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary. It rejected the claim of pay anomaly, principle of equal pay for equal work, and pay parity. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the rejection of the petition shall not be a bar to consider the case of the petitioners by the respondent authority.

Issues: The main grievance was the granting of pay in the Pay Band of Rs.5380/- to Junior Assistant, a feeder post, and Rs.5200/- to a Senior Assistant. The petitioner contended that the Senior Assistants were being deprived of their legitimate dues and the similarly situated employees were getting a higher scale of pay.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the determination of pay scale is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary. It highlighted the application of the ROP Rules, 2010, the classification of posts into primary and secondary scales, and the application of the multiplying factor of 1.86. The court rejected the claim of pay anomaly and principle of equal pay for equal work as well as pay parity.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the rejection of the present petition shall not be a bar to consider the case of the petitioners by the respondent authority.

 

Heard Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. K. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Higher Education Department, for respondents No.1 and 3 and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned standing counsel, Finance & Taxation Department, for respondent No.2.

2. By instituting this petition, the petitioner association representing the Senior Assistants, prayed for a direction to provide the benefit of revised scale of pay in the Pay Band of Rs.7170/- per-month as provided to the other similarly situation employees under the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ROP Rules, 2010). Challenged is also made to the impugned letter dated 08.08.2017 issued by the Under Secretary, Finance (PRU) Department, whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected stating, inter-alia, that the notification dated 28.07.2010 was issued for 15 grade pays which are meant for direct recruits appointed on or after 04.02.2010 allowing multiplying factor of 1.86 as the post of Senior Assistant being promotional post and secondary scale and as such the petitioners who have appointed on 01.01.2013 will not get the benefit of multiplying factor of 1.86 in terms of the notification dated 28.07.2010.

3. The petitioner is a registered association in the name of Assam Newly Provincialised College Employees Association represented by its Secretary. The members of the petitioner association are the Senior Assistants, Junior Assistants and Library Assistants of various provincialised colleges in the State of Assam and they are serving in the various degree colleges of Assam. The services of the members of the petitioner association were provincialised w.e.f. 01.01.2013 and 14.08.2013 respectively under the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2010 as amended in 2012. It is projected that at the time of provincialislation of the members of petitioner as Senior Assistants, their scale of pay has been fixed at Rs.5200 - 20,200/- plus Grade Pay 2900/-. Prior to the revision of pay under the ROP Rules, 2010, the scale of pay payable to the Senior Assistant plus other admissible pay were Rs.3850/- Basic Pay and Rs.2400/- Grade Pay. After the revision, the scale pay with other admissible pay was Rs.7170/- Basic Pay and Rs.2900/- Grade Pay. According to the petitioner, the Senior Assistants who were in the basic pay of Rs.3850/- are entitled to revision of pay of Rs.7170/- per-month. It is contended that the other Senior Assistant of provincialised colleges earlier are being paid the basic pay of Rs.7170/-.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that although the services of Senior Assistant, Library Assistant and Junior Assistant who are the members of the petitioner association have been provincialised but the respondents are paying the basic pay of Rs.5200/- uniformly to all plus other admissible Grade Pay. It is contended that as per the Assam Pay Commission, 2008, the fitment benefit has been provided and also are being paid to other similarly cadre of employees under the ROP Rules, 2010. But the same has not been provided to the members of the petitioner association, although their services have been provincialised.

5. It is the contention of the petitioner that the Junior Assistant, Library Assistant and Assistant Librarian are getting the same scale of Basic Pay i.e. Rs.5200/- only, though the post of Senior Assistant is higher post than the Junior Assistant etc. Therefore, the Senior Assistants are entitled to higher scale of pay as per ROP Rules, 2010. However, due to wrong fixation of their pay scale, the Senior Assistants are being deprived of their legitimate dues and the similarly situated employees are getting higher scale of pay.

6. The petitioner, being aggrieved, approached the respondent authorities for fixation of correct pay scale as per the provision of ROP Rules, 2010. Thereafter, the writ petition being WP(C) 1832/2016 was filed which was disposed of on 18.03.2016 by this

            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