Back
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
PJ Mohana Panicker – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
1. Heard Mr. D. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury, learned Dy.SGI representing the Union of India.
2. As agreed to by the learned counsels for the parties, these two writ petitions are taken up together for final disposal as they involve similar issues and cause of action.
3. The present writ petitions are filed assailing the following orders:-
II. The other challenge is an Office Memorandum No. 20/29/2006- CS
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.
Pay scale – Though Courts would not undertake exercise of determining pay scale keeping in view nature of work by comparing employees who are not similarly placed in cases where exercise of determini....
(1) Principle of equal pay for equal work cannot be applied merely on basis of designation.(2) Pay Commission is a specialized body set up with objective of resolving anomalies.
The judgment establishes that differences in pay scale are justified if the nature of job, responsibilities, experience, method of recruitment, and duties are different, and the doctrine of equal pay....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for establishing parity in pay scales based on comparative job evaluation and equation of posts, and the burden of proof on the pet....
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
