Back
2017 Supreme(Jhk) 1262
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
D.N. PATEL, RATNAKER BHENGRA, JJ.
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Bhaskar Nandan & Ors. - Respondents
L.P.A. No. 228 of 2014
Decided On : 19-08-2017
For the Appellants : R.R. Mishra (GP-II) and Arbind Kumar.
For the Respondents: K.P. Deo, Ashish Kumar and Ritesh Kumar.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' as enshrined in the Constitution and international law, and its relevance in determining the entitlement of employees to equal pay for similar work.
Headnote:
Equal Pay - Data Entry Operators/Computer Operators - Article 39(d), Article 14, Article 16, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 - (1989) 2 SCC 235, (2006) 9 SCC 321, (2017) 1 SCC 148
Fact of the Case:
The respondents, Data Entry Operators/Computer Operators, sought equal pay as their counterparts working in Sachivalay/Attached offices of different Departments in the State of Jharkhand. The State of Jharkhand appealed against the judgment granting equal pay to the respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents' work was similar to that of their counterparts in Sachivalay/Attached offices, and the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' applied. The court referred to various legal provisions and judgments to support its finding.
Issues: The main issue was whether the respondents were entitled to equal pay as their counterparts working in Sachivalay/Attached offices.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' as enshrined in Article 39(d), Article 14, and Article 16 of the Constitution, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966. The court also relied on legal precedents to establish the applicability of this principle.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgment granting equal pay to the respondents.
D.N. Patel, J.
This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 97 of 2014 dated 16th May, 2014, whereby, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition preferred by the respondents and granted equal pay, which is at Rs. 14,748/- to the respondents (original petitioners), which is at par with the other similarly situated contractual Data Entry Operators/Computer Operators, in the State of Jharkhand. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with by this judgment and order delivered by learned Single Judge, the State of Jharkhand has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
2. Having heard learned counsels for both sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the respondents are the original petitioners. They instituted W.P. (S) No. 97 of 2014 for getting equal pay, which the other similarly situated contractual Data Entry Operators/Computer Operators were getting in Sachivalay/ Offices attached of different Departments with Sachivalay.
3. The respondents (original petitioners) are working as Data Entry Operators/Computer Operators since 2008 and 2010. 'These respondents (original petitioners) are working in Commercial Taxes Department in various districts including the District of Ranchi, within the State of Jharkhand. Their computer work in different Districts within the State of Jharkhand is well connected with the work of Sachivalay through computers. Their work is exactly similar to the work which is being done by Data Entry Operators/Computer Operators who are working in the Sachivalay. There is not an iota of difference except big building of Sachivalay and smaller buildings in the districts. Otherwise, their nature of duty is same and their working hours and recess hours are also same. Neither there is any difference in the nature of work, nor, there is any difference in their duties, nor there is any difference in working hours and recess hours and all the work of the Commercial Taxes Department of all the Districts in the State of Jharkhand is absolutely well connected with the work which is being done by similarly situated Data Entry Operators/Computer Operators who are working at Sachivalay and their work is connected with each other.
4. There cannot be difference of salary amongst those who are working in the nearby vicinity of Ranchi and those who are working at far away places from Ranchi. There cannot be difference in salary for these Data Entry Operators/Computer Operators who are working on contractual basis in other Departments of Sachivalay which are well connected with the districts.
5. Much has been argued out by the counsel for the appellants on the basis of circular issued by the Finance Department, State of Jharkhand dated 20th April, 2013 [Annexure 9 to the memo of W.P. (S) No. 97 of 2014] which enhances the monthly emoluments of the Data Entry Operators/Computer Operators. It is argued out by the counsel for the appellants that these enhancements of emoluments of Data Entry Operators/Computer Operators are only for those who are working in Sachivalay / Attached offices of different Departments. We are not agreeing this contention because the words used in the aforesaid circular of Finance Department dated 20th April, 2013 are even applicable to those Data Entry Operators/Computer Operators who are working in Sachivalay and those who are working with the attached offices of different departments in the State of Jharkhand. The whole circular is meant for contractual workers. Thus, there cannot further classification amongst the contractor Data Entry Operators/Computer Operators.
6. Moreover, looking to the aforesaid circular of the Finance Department dated 20th April, 2013, the said circular is applicable to all the Data Entry Operators/Computer Operators :
(a) who are working in the Sachivalay, and
(b) those who are working in attached offices of different Departments within the State of Jharkhan
