Back
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
Khonsao Lotha – Appellant
Versus
State Of Nagaland, Represented By The Chief Secretary To The Government Of Nagaland – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Kaushik Goswami, J.)
Heard Mr. Joshua Sheqi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. V. Zhimomi, learned Junior Government Advocate for the State respondent.
2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are seeking direction to the State respondent to pay them the equal pay for equal work as per the latest ROP rules as that of the Dobashi’s appointed against sanctioned post through regular selection.
3. The facts of the case is that the petitioners were appointed as Dobashi, Grade-II in between 1996 to 2014 as contingency, casual, temporary or ex-cadre in the pay scale of Rs. 1150-30-1450-35-1800-40-2120.
4. Since, the Dobashis appointed regularly in sanctioned post were granted the benefit of pay under the latest ROP rules, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioners for granting of the same benefit of pay to them as that of the regularly employed Dobashis.
5. Mr. Joshua Sheqi, learned counsel for the petitioners by relying on the judgments of the Apex Court, i.e State of Punjab and Others vs. Jagjit Singh and Others reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 and Sabha Shankar Dube vs Divisional Forest Officer and
Temporary employees performing similar duties as regular employees are entitled to equal pay under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.
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 mandates that employees performing similar duties must receive the same remuneration, regardless of their employment status.
Temporary employees performing the same duties as regular employees are entitled to minimum wages as per the equal pay principle, asserting their right to equitable treatment.
Point of law: A scale of pay is attached to a definite post and in case of a daily-wager, he holds no post. The respondent workers cannot be held to hold any posts to claim even any comparison with t....
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' entitles temporary employees performing similar duties to receive at least the minimum pay of regular employees.
The court upheld that fixed pay contingency employees do not qualify for regularization under work-charged employee policies, emphasizing the need for adherence to established criteria.
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
