SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(HP) 1194

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Ajay Mohan Goel, J.
Raj Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Bhakra Beas Management Board & Ors. - Respondents
CWP No. 10554 of 2012
Decided On : 28-03-2018

Advocates Appeared:
Aman Sood, Naresh Kumar Sood, Varun Rana, Advocates for the appearing parties.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the disparity in pay scales without any intelligible differentia violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which prohibits discrimination.

Headnote:

Discrimination - Pay Scale Disparity - Article 14 of the Constitution of India - [Khansama Appointment] - [Article 14] - The court discussed the appointment of the petitioner and another individual on a temporary basis as Khansamas with different pay scales. The court found that the disparity in pay scales without any intelligible differentia violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The court directed the respondents to pay the petitioner the higher pay scale with all consequential benefits.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis as a Khansama with a lower pay scale compared to another individual appointed on the same terms and conditions but with a higher pay scale. The petitioner filed a petition seeking parity in pay scale and arrears of salary, among other reliefs.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was apparent discrimination in the grant of pay scale to the petitioner compared to another similarly situated individual. The court held that the respondents' act of granting different pay scales without any intelligible differentia violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Issues: The main issue was the disparity in pay scale between the petitioner and another individual appointed on the same terms and conditions as Khansamas on a temporary basis.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disparity in pay scales without any intelligible differentia violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which prohibits discrimination. The court emphasized that as a model employer, the respondent-Board was expected to bring the petitioner's pay at par with the other individual after the appointment of the latter on a higher pay scale.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the court directed the respondents to pay the petitioner the higher pay scale with all consequential benefits. The court clarified that if the arrears were paid within three months, no interest would be payable; otherwise, the arrears would carry simple interest at 6% per annum.

JUDGMENT

Ajay Mohan Goel, J —There is a very short issue involved in the present petition. Vide Annexure P-1, dated 14.05.1997, the petitioner was offered appointment on temporary basis as a Khansama by the respondentBoard in the pay scale of Rs. 750-1410/- with initial start of Rs. 770/-. Vide Annexure P-2, one Sh. Gajraj Singh was also appointed as Khansama purely on temporary basis by the said Board, on the same terms and conditions, on which the petitioner was so appointed, except that the appointment of Gajraj Singh was in the pay scale of Rs. 830-1600/-. According to the petitioner, when both he and Gajraj Singh stood appointed against the post of Khansama, purely on temporary basis, then there could not have been any discrimination intra both of them, as far as grant of pay scale is concerned. It is in these circumstances that the present petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for the following reliefs:

"(i) Direct the respondents to remove the anomaly/disparity in pay scale of the petitioner and grant the petitioner pay scale of Rs.830- 1600/- from the date of his appointment i.e. 16.05.1997.

(ii) Direct the respondents to calculate the arrears of salary due to the petitioner which was not granted to him due to lesser pay scale and pay the same in lump sum.

(iii) Direct the respondents to pay interest @9% p.a. on the due amount from 16.05.1997.

(iv) Direct the respondents to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioner.

(v) Direct the respondents to pay the costs of litigation.

(vi) Or any other orders or directions which this Hon''ble Court may deem fit be passed in the interest of justice."

2. By way of reply so filed by the respondent-Board, the claim of the petitioner has been refuted.

3. When this case was heard on 20.09.2017, this Court passed the following order:

"Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner shall be satisfied in case he is granted parity in the pay scale at least from the month of May, 1997 with other incumbents, who were appointed as Khansamas on temporary basis in the same month in the pay scale of Rs. 830-1600/-.

A perusal of Annexure P-1 demonstrates that the petitioner was offered a temporary post of Khansama in Beas Sutlej Link Project under the respondent-Board in the pay scale of Rs. 750/- with initial start of Rs. 770-1410/-.

On the other hand, Annexure P-2 demonstrates that one Sh. Gajraj Singh was also offered a temporary post of Khansama in Beas Sutlej Link Project under the respondent-Board, but in the pay scale of Rs. 830-1600/-. This communication is dated 20th May, 1997. Why this discrepancy is there in the pay scales of two Khansamas, who have been temporarily engaged in the year 1997 by the respondent-Board, in my considered view, has not been satisfactorily explained in the reply so filed by the respondent-Board. Documents on record also demonstrate that intra department communications exist to the effect that there was discrepancy in the pay scale of petitioner vis--vis similarly situated persons and higher authorities were requested to look into the matter. In these circumstances, before this Court proceeds with the case on merit, let respondent-Board file an affidavit explaining as to why the persons who were offered appointment on temporary post of Khansama in the month of May, 1997 were offered different pay scales. Let the needful be done within a period of four weeks. List on 8th November, 2017."

4. In compliance to the said order, an affidavit has been filed by the Additional Superintending Engineer, BRSC & PD Division, BBMB, Sundernagar, District Mandi, wherein the act of the respondents has been justified on that ground that though the initial appointment of the petitioner as well as Gajraj Singh on temporary basis was as a Khansama, but subsequently, Special Secretary, BBMB decided that petitioner be appointed in the pay scale of Rs. 750-1410/- under the Category of Helper-Cook, whereas Gajraj Singh be appointed in the pay scale o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top