Equal pay for equal work requires that similarly situated employees in the same cadre, regardless of timing of promotion, must receive the same benefits, reflecting non-discriminatory treatment under Article 14.

JUDGMENT :

KARDAK ETE, J.

Heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S.K.Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Y. Doloi, learned CGC for the respondents No.1 to 5.

2. Challenge made in this petition is to the letter dated 16.04.2015 issued by the Senior Administrative Officer, Joint Director EG-2 for DGBR, whereby, the representation of the petitioners (GREF personnel) who have been promoted from Vehicle Mechanic to Charge Mechanic has been rejected on the ground that the order passed in WP(C) 51/2009 pertains to the benefits of higher pay scale i.e. Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- in PB-2 of Rs.9300 - 34,800 is only extended to the similarly situated non-diploma holders Superintendent B/R-II, Superintendent E/M-II, Overseer, Charge Mechanic and Charge Electrician, who were holding on the strength of BRO as on 10.09.2010, the day of verdict, therefore, the petitioner are not similarly situated as Charge Mechanics/Charge Electricians who governed by a different set of Recruitment and Promotion Rules. The petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to grant the benefit of pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 (Pay Band- 2) with Grade Pay of Rs.4200/- to the petitioners on the principle of equal pay for equal work.

3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that they are working as Charge Mechanics in the General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF) under the Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India. The petitioners were initially recruited as Vehicle Mechanic, which is the feeder post for promotion to the post of Charge Mechanic. The qualification prescribed for appointment to the Vehicle Mechanic is Matriculate with Motor Mechanic (HMV)/Vehicle/Diesel Mechanic/Tractor Mechanic certificate, issued by ITI, ITC/NCTVT/Defence Trade certificate etc.Following the recommendation of the 6th Central Pay Commission, the respondent authorities, on an apparent error of law, has denied the benefit of revised higher pay scale at PB-2 with its Grade Pay to the promoted overseers/Charge Mechanic having the alternative qualification, other than Diploma in Engineering, on the ground that it has recommended only for having Diploma Engineering and not to the alternative qualification of having technical certificate from ITI etc. The aforesaid decision was put to challenge by one Shri Ghanshyam Vishwakarma by filing WP(C) 51/2009 claiming equal pay for equal work.

4. The said writ petition was allowed on the principle of equal pay for equal work by the judgment and order dated 10.09.2010. The aforesaid judgment was put to challenge in WA 19/2010, which was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 18.03.2011. Thereafter, an SLP against the judgment and order dated 18.03.2011 was preferred and the same was also met with similar fate and accordingly, the SLP was dismissed.

5. Having been denied the benefit of revised higher pay scale at PB-2 to the persons promoted in the equivalent post of Charge Mechanic having the alternative qualification of having technical certificate from ITI etc., while granting it only to the Charge Mechanic having the qualification of Diploma in Engineering, a writ petition being WP(C) 3756/2009 was filed by Promod Singh and 20 others Charge Mechanics before this Court. The writ petition was allowed on the same principle of equal pay for equal work as that of WP(C) 51/2009 by an order dated 01.02.2011. Again a Writ Appeal No.219/2011, was preferred, which wa