Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
SANJEEV KUMAR, M.A.CHOWDHARY, JJ.
Haroon Rashid Lone son of Abdul Aziz Lone – Appellant
Vs.
State of J&K through Commissioner Secretary to Government Law Justice and Parliamentary Affairs – Respondent
SWP No. 1187 of 2016
Decided on : 12-07-2024
(A) SRO 16 of 1991 and SRO 234 of 1991 - Pay scale entitlement - The petitioner, a retired Deputy Registrar, challenged the rejection of his claim for a higher pay scale based on the precedent set in a similar case involving another Chief Librarian. The court found that the previous judgment was a judgment in personam, not in rem, and did not establish a general entitlement for all similarly situated employees. The petitioner was deemed a 'fence sitter' for not pursuing his claim earlier. (Paras 1, 5, 11, 17)
(B) Equal pay for equal work - The principle was invoked by the petitioner but not substantiated independently of the previous judgment. The court noted that the issue of pay parity remains open for future consideration. (Paras 5, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, appointed as Chief Librarian in 1999, sought to be placed in a higher pay scale similar to his counterpart who had successfully litigated for the same. His claim was rejected by the authorities, leading to this petition. (Paras 1, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court dismissed the petition, affirming that the previous judgment did not create a right for the petitioner and that he had delayed in asserting his claim. (Paras 19)
Issues: The main issues included whether the petitioner was entitled to the same pay scale as his counterpart and the implications of the previous judgment. (Paras 5, 11)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the previous judgment was specific to the individual case and did not extend benefits to others in similar positions, emphasizing the principle that delay in asserting claims can bar relief. (Paras 11, 19)
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENTSanjeev J
1. The petitioner is an ex-employee of this Court and has retired as Deputy Registrar after attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2014. He is aggrieved of and has called in question a communication of the Department of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs dated 15.01.2015 and an order dated 15.10.2015 passed by respondent No.2 rejecting his representation for placing him in the pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 (pre-revised) on the analogy of Sh. P.S.Jamwal.
2. Before we advert to the grounds of challenge urged to assail the impugned communications/orders, we deem it appropriate to state briefly the facts germane to the disposal of this petition.
3. The petitioner was appointed as Chief Librarian in this Court at Srinagar in the year 1999 vide order No. 535 dated 06.10.1999 in the pay scale of Rs.6700-200-10700 (revised). The petitioner, at the time of his appointment, was having Master‟s Degree in Library Science. He claims that in terms of SRO 16 of 1991 and SRO 234 of 1991, he was entitled to be placed in the grade of Rs.2200-4000 (pre- revised) and Rs.8000-13500 (revised) w.e.f the date of his appointment so as to bring the Chief Librarians of the High Court on a par with the Chief Librarians serving in other Departments of the State. He claims that he represented before the competent Authority for redressal of his grievance. The Chief Librarian Mr. P.S.Jamwal, who was working in Jammu wing of this Court was similarly aggrieved and filed SWP No. 157/2007 claiming, inter alia, the benefit of SRO 16 of 1991 and SRO 234 of 1991. The writ petition filed by Mr. Jamwal was allowed by a Single Bench of this Court ["the writ Court‟] vide order and judgment dated 26.03.2008. The respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner Mr. Jamwal for his placement in the Gazetted cadre and release of pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 (revised) in terms of SRO 16 of 1991 and SRO 234 of 1991. Mr. Jamwal was also held entitled to all consequential benefits including the arrears of salary for a period of three years prior to the filing of the writ petition. The Government was aggrieved and challenged the order of Writ Court before the Division Bench in LPA(C) No. 5/2010. A Division Bench of this Court vide order and judgment dated 30.11.2011 dismissed the appeal of the respondents-State. The respondents-State filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said SLP too met the same fate and came to be dismissed on 5.08.2013. While the SLP against the order of Division Bench of this Court was pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in which the Supreme Court declined to pass any interim order of stay, the Government complied with the judgment of Writ Court upheld by the Division Bench of this Court and issued Government Orderdated 30.04.2010. Sanction was accorded to the implementation of the judgment of Writ Court dated 26.03.2008 and Registrar General of this Court was authorised to pass necessary orders for the placement of Mr P.S.Jamwal in the higher pay scale as per the judgment with a rider that placement of Mr. Jamwal in the higher pay scale would be subject to outcome of SLP or other pending cases before the Court. Consequently, the Registrar General of this Court issued order dated 14.09.2012 and placed Mr. P.S.Jamwal Chief Librarian in the higher pay scale of Rs.8000-13500 (pre-revised) retrospectively w.e.f 03.02.2004 i.e the date three years prior to the filing of the writ petition. The placement of Mr. Jamwal in the higher pay scale was, however, kept subject to outcome of the SLP. As stated above, the SLP was ultimately dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. The petitioner herein, who was holding the post of Chief Librarian in Srinagar wing of this Court woke up from his slumber after he found that his counterpart Mr. Jamwal has been placed in the higher pay scale pursuant to the directions passed by this Court in the litigation initiated by Mr. Jamwal in the year 2007. He filed a represen
The court ruled that a previous judgment granting a pay scale increase was specific to an individual and did not create a general entitlement for similarly situated employees, emphasizing the princip....
All persons similarly situated should be treated similarly, and the court may consider unexplained delay and inordinate laches in writ actions.
(1) Doctrine of delay and laches do not apply to a continuing cause of action.(2) Pay Scale – Parity – Financial implications and administrative convenience cannot override constitutional guarantees ....
Equal pay for equal work must consider seniority, qualifications, and nature of work, establishing that discrimination against meritorious employees is unconstitutional.
Discriminatory denial of higher entry pay scale to similarly situated employees violates Arts. 14 & 16 once granted selectively to others.
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....
Homogeneous cadre of Assistant Librarians entitled to uniform pay scales including UGC benefits despite post-new rules regularization, as appointments predated prospective 2010 rules; parity prevents....
The principle that a senior employee cannot receive less pay than a junior is upheld, prompting the court to direct equal pay adjustments based on established seniority and promotion timelines.
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
