Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
D.J. Jagannadha Raju, J.
T. KRISHNAN UNNI - Appellant
Vs.
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR - Respondent
O.P. No. 10018 of 1993
Decided On : 10-04-1995
EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK - DIRECT RECRUITS - Ext.P1 Circular - Rs. 820-1480, Rs. 960-1710 - The court held that the exclusion of direct recruits from the purview of Ext.P1 is unjustified and not based upon any rational basis. The denial of higher scale of pay under Ext.P1 has an adverse spin off effect and the petitioners' claim is perfectly justified. The court allowed the original petition, quashing Exts. P4, P5, P6, P11 and P16 as arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16. The court also directed the first respondent to give the petitioners the benefit of Ext.P1 Circular and fix their pay in the higher scale of 960-1710 from January 1, 1984 and refix their salary in accordance with the Rules applicable for the subsequent years, and in substance of Exts.P2 and P3 shall be implemented and consequential benefits given on that basis. Clause (f) of Ext.P1 and the words 'who were promoted to' in Clause (a) of Ext. P1 were quashed and deleted respectively.
Fact of the Case:
The original petition was filed by two direct recruits who joined as Junior Engineers and were denied the benefit of higher scale of pay under Ext.P1 Circular. They were granted the scale of Rs. 960-1710 under Exts.P2 and P3 orders, but subsequently informed that they were not eligible for the option. The petitioners sought relief for quashing Exts. P4, P5, P6, P11 and P16 which were considered arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the exclusion of direct recruits from the purview of Ext.P1 was unjustified and not based upon any rational basis. The denial of higher scale of pay under Ext.P1 had an adverse spin off effect and the petitioners' claim was perfectly justified. The court allowed the original petition, quashing Exts. P4, P5, P6, P11 and P16 as arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16. The court also directed the first respondent to give the petitioners the benefit of Ext.P1 Circular and fix their pay in the higher scale of 960-1710 from January 1, 1984 and refix their salary in accordance with the Rules applicable for the subsequent years, and in substance of Exts.P2 and P3 shall be implemented and consequential benefits given on that basis. Clause (f) of Ext.P1 and the words 'who were promoted to' in Clause (a) of Ext. P1 were quashed and deleted respectively.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to the benefits of higher scale given by Ext.P1 Circular and whether cancellation of Exts.P2 and P3 orders under Exts. P4 and P5 orders was proper. The court also considered the validity of Clause (f) of Ext.P1 and the words 'who were promoted to' in Clause (a) of Ext. P1.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the exclusion of direct recruits from the purview of Ext.P1 was unjustified and not based upon any rational basis. The denial of higher scale of pay under Ext.P1 had an adverse spin off effect and the petitioners' claim was perfectly justified. The court allowed the original petition, quashing Exts. P4, P5, P6, P11 and P16 as arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16. The court also directed the first respondent to give the petitioners the benefit of Ext.P1 Circular and fix their pay in the higher scale of 960-1710 from January 1, 1984 and refix their salary in accordance with the Rules applicable for the subsequent years, and in substance of Exts.P2 and P3 shall be implemented and consequential benefits given on that basis. Clause (f) of Ext.P1 and the words 'who were promoted to' in Clause (a) of Ext. P1 were quashed and deleted respectively.
Final Decision: The original petition was allowed, quashing Exts. P4, P5, P6, P11 and P16 as arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16. The court also directed the first respondent to give the petitioners the benefit of Ext.P1 Circular and fix their pay in the higher scale of 960-1710 from January 1, 1984 and refix their salary in accordance with the Rules applicable for the subsequent years, and in substance of Exts.P2 and P3 shall be implemented and consequential benefits given on that basis. Clause (f) of Ext.P1 and the words 'who were promoted to' in Clause (a) of Ext. P1 were quashed and deleted respectively.
ORDER :
D.J. Jagannadharaju, J.—This original petition is filed by two direct recruits who joined as Junior Engineers on April 7, 1993 and on August 29, 1983 in the service of the first respondent. They were in the scale of Rs. 820-1480. First respondent issued Ext.P1 Circular dated September 26, 1985 proposing to extend the grade of Rs. 960-1710 to those who were in the scale of Rs. 820-1480 as on January 1, 1984. The employees were given an option. The petitioners exercised the option and both the petitioners were granted the scale of Rs. 960-1710 under Exts.P2 and P3 orders dated December 11, 1985. Subsequently by communication dated February 27, 1986 the petitioners were informed that they were not eligible for the option to come to the scale of Rs. 960-1710. Exts.P4 and P5 were the orders under which they were informed. The re-fixation of salary made by P2 and P3 orders were cancelled. Representations were made to the Joint General Manager to reconsider the matter. Subsequently representations were repeatedly made but the management insisted upon saying that as direct recruits they are not entitled to the benefits of Ext.P1 Circular and they are not entitled to the higher scale of pay. Only those people who have been promoted to that scale and who were in that post on January 1, 1984 could be entitled to the higher scale of pay. Finally the request of the petitioners was rejected under Ext. P16 dated April 26, 1993 and hence the petitioner had to file this original petition for quashing Exts. P4, P5, P10, P11 and P16 which are arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India.
2. Ext.P1 Circular relates to Junior Managerial Personnel who are in the grade Rs. 820-1480 on April 1, 1984. They were rightly given the higher scale of Rs. 960-1710 with effect from January 1, 1984. The same was cancelled without any notice and without giving them an opportunity to represent their case. As a result of the Circular Ext.PI persons promoted as Junior Engineers and subsequently appointed after the petitioners as junior Engineers are given the higher salary. The Catena of decisions of the Supreme Court held that persons who are doing similar work are entitled to the same salary on the principle of equal pay for equal work. By a wrong application of Ext.P1 juniors to the petitioners were given the higher scale of pay and the same higher scale of pay is denied to the petitioners. Subsequently when the multiple grade system was introduced with effect from January 1, 1988 all persons who completed six years in the grade of Rs. 960-1710 were given the higher grade of Rs. 1060-1930. Many of the juniors of the petitioners got benefit of that higher grade. But the petitioners are denied similar treatment. Mere protection of the seniority of the petitioners is not a solace. The petitioners only seek the benefit of the principle of equal pay for equal work. The denial of the same to trie petitioners violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Petitioners pray for a writ of certiorari quashing Exts. P4, P5, P6, P11 and P16 as arbitrary, unjust and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Petitioners also pray for a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to give the benefit of Ext.P1 Circular to the petitioners and to give them the grade Rs. 960-1710 from January 1, 1984 and consequential benefits and to refix their salary and pay the arrears of salary as per the refixation.
3. The original petition is opposed by a counter filed on behalf of the first and second respondents. In short the counter mentioned as follows: Ext.PI Circular dated September 26, 1985 clearly mentions that all employees who were promoted to the lowest managerial positions on or before January 1, 1984 and were on the grade Rs. 820-1480 as on January 1, 1984 will be given the higher grade of Rs. 960-1710. The Circular does not apply to direct recruits. Clause (f) of Ext.P1 specifically states that the existing orders will
AI
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
