Back
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH
KAKHETO SEMA, J
Shri. Vitokhe W/c Labour (Fixed), Office Of The Executive Engineer (Pwd) And 3 Ors - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Nagaland And 3 Ors - Respondent
WP(C) 131 / 2022
Decided On : 06-02-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Equal Pay for Equal Work - Petitioners, work-charged employees, sought minimum scale of pay after 8 to 32 years of service - Respondents denied pay citing lack of policy - Court held that petitioners perform same duties as regular employees and are entitled to equal pay - Principle of equal pay for equal work emphasized. (Paras 17 , 21 , 22 )
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope - Court directed State to grant scale of pay to petitioners along with arrears, emphasizing the need for equal treatment of similarly situated employees. (Paras 22 , 23 )
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, work-charged employees, appointed between 1990 and 2013, sought minimum scale of pay after years of service, but were denied by the State. (Paras 2 - 9 )
Findings of Court:
Petitioners entitled to same pay as similarly situated work-charged employees who received scale of pay, based on equal work principle. (Paras 21 , 22 )
Issues: Whether petitioners are entitled to minimum scale of pay despite State's policy against it. (Paras 10 , 18 )
Ratio Decidendi: Court ruled that equal pay for equal work must be upheld, and the State's failure to provide justification for differential treatment was unacceptable. (Paras 18 , 21 )
Result: Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(KAKHETO SEMA, J.)
Heard Mr. Supongwati Walling, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms.B. Kithan, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking for a direction to quash and set aside the letter No. CON/ENC/LEGAL/GEN-411/2022-23/324, dated 12/04/2022, issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, NPWD, Nagaland, Kohima rejecting the application submitted by the petitioners for granting scale of pay and to pay/grant the minimum scale of pay to the petitioners in the light of judgment & order dated 26/10/2016 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the State of Punjab & Others -versus- Jagjit Singh & Others, reported in 2017(1) GLT (SC) 47.
3. That by the order dated 18/03/1990, the petitioner No.1 was appointed as W/C Labour in the Office of the Executive Engineer (PWD), Kiphire Division, Kiphire, Nagaland. The petitioner is continuously serving the department for about 32 years without any break in service and is presently paid the revised fixed pay of Rs. 5280/-p.m.
4. That by the order dated 06/09/1994, the petitioner No.2 was appointed as W/C Labour in the Office of the Executive Engineer (PWD), Kiphire Division, Kiphire, Nagaland. The petitioner is continuously serving the department for about 27 years without any break in service and is presently paid the revised fixed pay of Rs. 5280/-p.m.
5. That by the order dated 07/03/1991, the petitioner No.3 was appointed as W/C Labour in the Office of the Executive Engineer (PWD), Zunheboto Division, Nagaland. The petitioner is continuously serving the department for about 29 years without any break in service and is presently paid the revised fixed pay of Rs. 5280/- p.m.
6. That by the order dated 28/01/2013, the petitioner No.4 was appointed as W/C Labour in the Office of the Sub-Divisional Officer PWD(H), Phek Sub-Division, Phek, Nagaland. The petitioner is continuously serving the department for about 8 years without any break in service and is presently paid the revised fixed pay of Rs. 5280/- p.m.
7. The petitioners individually submitted their representation on 15/11/2021, 23/11/2021 & 22/11/2021 to the Engineer-in-Chief, NPWD, Nagaland, Kohima for granting the minimum scale of pay. However, as the representations submitted by the petitioners did not evoke any response, the petitioners herein earlier filed W.P.(C) No. 30/2022. The writ petition was disposed by the order dated 16/02/2022 with a direction to the State respondents therein to consider and disposed the representations submitted by the petitioners within a period of 4(four) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
8. Consequent to the order dated 16/02/2022 passed by this Court and in compliance thereto, the Engineer-in-Chief, NPWD, Nagaland, Kohima wrote the letter No. CON/ENC/LEGAL/GEN-411/2022-23/324, dated 12/04/2022, rejecting the representation submitted by the petitioners primarily on the ground that there is no provision or policy adopted by the Government for granting minimum scale of pay to the Work-charged fixed pay employees.
9. It is the letter No. CON/ENC/LEGAL/GEN-411/2022-23/324, dated 12/04/2022, issued by the Engineer-in-Chief, NPWD, Nagaland which is impugned in the present writ petition.
10. Mr. Supongwati Walling, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are performing the same and similar duties as that of any other regular, work-charged employees and/or the work-charged employees in the department, whose service are yet to be regularised, but has been favoured with the scale of pay, but the petitioners have been discriminated by the respondents by paying only a meagre fixed pay of Rs. 5280/- p.m inspite of the petitioners continuously serving the department for the period ranging between 8 to 32 years.
11. Mr. Supongwati Walling has
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 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 ....
Temporary employees performing similar duties as regular employees are entitled to equal pay under the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.
The burden of proof for equal pay claims lies with the petitioners, who must demonstrate they perform identical duties as regular employees to be entitled to the minimum pay scale.
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....
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)
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
