IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ.
State Of Kerala - Appellant
Versus
The Kerala Vocational Higher Secondary School Lab Technical Assistants' Union, - Respondent
O.P.(KAT).No.180 of 2016
Decided on : 21-10-2022
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 226 – Power of High Court to issue Certain Writs - Two of its individual members seeking parity in pay scale - Skilled Assistants were treated at par with Laboratory Attenders - Over a period of time however, designation of posts changed and skilled - Laboratory Attenders came to be re-designated - It is also well settled that the financial implication of a State is a relevant factor for accepting the revision of pay and that it is not always impermissible to provide two different pay scales in the same cadre on the basis of selection based on merit with regard to experience and seniority. (Para 11).
Findings of the Court :
This finding of Government was patently wrong since G.O. relied on by them clearly indicated that Trade Instructor Grade II was only treated at par with teaching staff for limited purposes of Rule 60(c) of Part I KSR that permitted inter alia teachers, whose date of retirement falls in middle of year, to continue in service till the end of academic year - It is also significant that in UO notes produced by applicants along with their O.A. and which forms back documents for Government order that was impugned before Tribunal, while there is a clear mention of a recommendation by Director of the VHS Department for parity in pay scale of LTA's with Trade Instructor Grade II, said recommendation was not accepted only because of a remark by Finance Department
Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The State and its Director of Vocational Higher Secondary Education are the petitioners herein, aggrieved by the order dated 25.5.2016 of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1644 of 2014. The brief facts necessary for disposal of this O.P.(KAT) are as follows:
The O.A. was filed by a recognised Union of Laboratory Technical Assistants [LTA's] in the Government and aided Vocational Higher Secondary Schools in Kerala and two of its individual members seeking parity in pay scale with Trade Instructors Grade II in the Technical High Schools in the State. When Vocational Higher Secondary Schools were started in Kerala in 1983-84, skilled Assistants working in Technical High Schools were posted on deputation basis to the Vocational Higher Secondary Schools [VHSS's]. The skilled Assistants were treated at par with Laboratory Attenders. Over a period of time however, the designation of the posts changed and the skilled Assistant/Trade Instructor Grade II came to be recognised as the supporting staff of Technical High Schools, whereas Laboratory Attenders came to be re-designated as Laboratory Technical Assistants and recognised as supporting staff of the Vocational Higher Secondary Department.
2. The qualification requirement of the LTA's in the VHSS was always higher, for, they had to be possessed of the qualification of SSLC and Certificate in the concerned Vocational Higher Secondary course OR two years ITI certificate in the branch concerned. The Trade Instructor Grade II, on the other hand, had only to have the qualification of 7th standard and Trade Certificate in the trade concerned. The duties of the LTA's in the VHS Department and Trade Instructor Grade II in the Technical Department were more or less the same. Notwithstanding the above, while implementing the 7th Pay Commission recommendation with effect from 1997, the Trade Instructor Grade II was granted a higher pay scale of Rs.3350 - 5275 in the Pay Band S-5, while the LTA's were granted the pay scale of Rs.3050 - 5230 in Pay Band S-4. This is notwithstanding the fact that the pre-revised pay scale of both categories was Rs.1050-1660.
3. The disparity that was brought about in the Pay Revision led the LTA's in the VHS Department to prefer representations to the State Government which promised to look into the matter in the next Pay Revision. In the 8th Pay Revision that was effected from 2004, the Government took note of the grievance of the LTA's in the VHS Department, and recommended the higher scale for LTA's. Paragraph 5.16.5.4. of the 8th Pay Revision order [Annexure A6] is relevant, and reads as follows:
|
| Higher scale for Laboratory Assistants: |
| 5.16.5.4 | The nature of work of the Laboratory Assistants is different from that of Attenders/Clerical Assistants. Their work requires some basic knowledge relating to scientific equipments such as its functions, usage, precautions in handling scientific equipments etc. Considering the supportive role of Laboratory Assistants in handling scientific equipments and higher qualification required for appointment, the Commission recommend enhancement of the scale of pay from Rs.3050 - 5230 to Rs.3350 - 5275 to the post. |
It is significant that what the Government did was to bring about the pay scale parity between the LTA's in the VHS Department and Technical Assistant Grade II in the Technical Department by making the pre-revised scale equal at Rs.3350 - 5275. This effectively brought both categories of posts into the pre-revised Pay Band S-5. Thereafter, however, while the revised pay scale for LTA's in the VHS Department was retained in Pay Band S-5 and fixed at Rs.5510 - 8590, the revised pay scale for Trade Instructors Grade II was enhanced and fixed in Pay Band S-7 at Rs.6680 - 10790. In effect, therefore, the Government, while addressing
Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) v. Government of India and Others (2006) 11 SCC 709
HEC Voluntary Retd. Employees. Welfare Society v. Heavy Engg. Corporation Ltd. (2006) 3 SCC 708
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited v. Rajesh Kumar Jindal and Others - (2019) 3 SCC 547
Punjab State Electricity Board and Another v. Thana Singh and Others - (2019) 4 SCC 113
State of Haryana and Another v. Ram Chander and Another - (1997) 5 SCC 253
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Vikram Das - (2019) (4) SCC 125
State of A.P. v. A.P. Pensioners' Association - (2005) 13 SCC 161
S.C. Chandra and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Others
Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Dey (2000 (8) SCC 580
Union of India and Another v. Manik Lal Banerjee - (2006) 9 SCC 643
Union of India v. Tarit Rajan Das - (2003) 11 SCC 658
Union of India v. Dineshan K.K. (2008) 1 SCC 586
Union of India (UOI) and Others v. Rajesh Kumar Gond - 2013 (15) JT 186
Union of India v. P.K. Roy -AIR 1968 SC 850
Union of India and Another v. Manik Lal Banerjee - (2006) 9 SCC 643
A mere difference itself does not always amount to discrimination and non-uniformities would not in all events violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The principle of equal pay for equal work under Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution mandates that employees performing similar duties be compensated equally, regardless of title discrepancies.
The principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' requires consideration of educational qualifications and responsibilities, and cannot be applied if qualifications differ.
The principle of 'Equal Pay For Equal Work' is not a fundamental right but a constitutional goal, and entitlement to parity in Pay Scale depends on several factors such as educational qualifications,....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.