Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Ugrasen Pathak – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Rep. by the Secretary, New Delhi – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
1. Heard Mr. H. K. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the batch of four writ petitions and Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury, the learned Deputy SGI who appears on behalf of the respondents.
2. The case of the petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions is that the post of Store Keeper (Technical) in the Border Roads Organization, General Reserve Engineering Force, is at parity with the post of Senior Technical Assistant in the Bureau of Mines as well as General Storekeeper in the Government of India Press, and therefore, the post of Store Keeper (Technical) in the Border Roads Organization, General Reserve Engineering Force should be accorded the scale of pay of Rs. 9,300–34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200/- retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.2006.
3. At the outset, Mr. H. K. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that pursuant to the filing of the instant batch of writ petitions in the year 2014 and the affidavit filed by the respondents in the year 2015, Draft Model Recruitment Rules have been framed wherein the post of Store Keeper (Technical) has been re-designated as Store Keeper Grade-I, an
Claims for pay parity must be based on formally adopted recruitment rules, as affirmed by existing legal principles.
The claim for pay parity based on asserted Model Recruitment Rules without formal adoption lacks merit; entitlement to remuneration must adhere to established legal precedents.
The principle of equal pay for equal work does not entitle employees to claim parity in pay scales if their recruitment processes differ significantly.
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....
Employees performing similar duties must receive equal pay, regardless of differing qualifications, as established by the court's ruling.
Tribunal cannot grant higher promotional pay scale to one cadre's employees matching another distinct cadre's juniors by one-time parity, as it exceeds jurisdiction absent Article 14 violation from r....
Direct appointees entitled to pay parity with transferred employees and departmental counterparts performing identical duties, as unequal pay scales violate Articles 14/16; courts rectify arbitrary a....
Doctrine of equal pay for equal work is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a Court of law i.e. equal pay must be for equal work of equal value.
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
