Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.
Sumeet Chauhan - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Deptt. Of Home, Prison and Disaster Management and anr. - Respondents
W.P. (S) No. 1663 of 2023
Decided On : 18-03-2024
[EQUAL PAY] - [SALARY DISPUTE] - [ACT SECTION LIST] - [Finance Department Resolution dated 02.06.2017; Supreme Court Judgment in State of Punjab & Others -vs- Jagjit Singh (2017) 1 SCC 148] - [The court discussed the Finance Department Resolution which mandated a specific salary for computer operators and the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' as established in the Supreme Court judgment. The court interpreted that the petitioner, being a daily wage employee, did not meet the criteria for claiming equal pay as he failed to demonstrate that he performed the same duties as regular employees. The court concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to the higher salary as claimed.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, engaged as a computer operator at Lohardaga Jail, sought payment of arrears of salary from May 2018 to December 2020, claiming he was entitled to a higher salary of Rs. 26,300 per month as per a Finance Department resolution, while he was paid only Rs. 10,580. Despite the resolution being communicated to the prison authorities, the petitioner argued he was discriminated against in salary payments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner was employed on a daily wage basis without any formal appointment letter and had received payments accordingly. The court noted that the petitioner could not substantiate his claim of being paid monthly remuneration and that the Finance Department resolution applied to contractual employees, not daily wage workers. The court emphasized that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' did not apply as the petitioner failed to demonstrate he performed the same duties as regular employees.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to the higher salary as per the Finance Department resolution and whether he could claim 'equal pay for equal work' despite being a daily wage employee.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' requires the claimant to prove that they perform the same duties as regular employees. The petitioner did not meet this burden of proof and was not covered under the Finance Department resolution, which was intended for contractual employees.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was not granted the relief sought for higher salary arrears.
JUDGMENT :
Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
And/Or
The petitioner consequently prays for a direction upon the respondent authority for payment of a total amount of Rs.4,24,600/- as arrears if difference of salary along with statutory and penal rate of interest.”
3. As per the writ petition, the petitioner was engaged as computer operator at Lohardaga Jail w.e.f. 16.05.2018 and thereafter he was paid monthly remuneration and salary @ Rs. 10,580/- in spite of the fact that there was a decision of the Cabinet vide Resolution No. 1965 dated 02.06.2017 to pay an amount of Rs. 26,300/- per month to computer operators.
4. The learned counsel has submitted that the said decision was ultimately implemented in the various jails by virtue of letter dated 25.10.2019 wherein the Department of Home had directed the Inspector General of Prisons to implement the enhanced monthly salary in terms of Resolution dated 02.06.2017 with respect to the computer operators working in different jails. As a sequel to the aforesaid letter, another letter no. 69 dated 10.01.2020 was issued by the Inspector General of Prisons to the Jail Superintendent for making payment of difference of arrears of salary to the computer operators.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that in spite of the decision dated 02.06.2017 and communicated to the Inspector General of Prisons on 25.10.2019, followed by another letter dated 10.01.2020, the petitioner was given payment @ Rs. 10,580 per month and consequently the petitioner filed representations dated 10.12.2021 and 21.12.2022 and when no order was passed, the present writ petition was filed.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner cannot be discriminated in the matter of payment of honorarium and denied payment in terms of Government’s Resolution dated 02.06.2017 duly enforced and adopted by the prisons. The resolution does not discriminate between persons engaged on daily basis and on contractual basis.
7. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Others -vs- Jagjit Singh and Others reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148 paragraph nos. 6, 36.2, 36.3, 44, 54, 54.3 and 57 to submit that the petitioner is entitled for pay @ Rs. 26,300 per month on the basis of the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. He has also relied upon a judgment passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3893 of 2016 dated 08.05.2017 (Unmilika Das and another –versus- The State of Jharkhand) and submits that the said judgment has been affirmed in L.P.A. No. 141 of 2019. He has referred to paragraph 16 of the said judgment.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents while opposing the prayer has submitted that the petitioner was engaged to meet the day-to-day requirement of jails and was engaged on daily wage basis and had also taken payment on daily wage basis through vouchers. He submits that there is no question of making payment on monthly basis for daily wager. The learned counsel has also submitted that the petitioner was neither appointed on contractual basis, nor was issued any appointment letter by the respondents and the appointment letter has also not been annexed with the writ petition. The petitioner has already received the daily wages for the period he has worked from 06.05.2018 to 02.12.2020.
9. The learned counsel has also submitted that the Finance Department Resolution dated 02.06.
The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' entitles temporary employees performing similar duties to receive at least the minimum pay of regular employees.
Point of Law : Principle of “equal pay for equal work” has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charge, daily wage, casual, ad hoc, contractual, and the like)
The principle of equal pay for equal work mandates that employees performing identical duties must receive the same remuneration, regardless of their employment status.
Daily wage compassionate Clerk entitled to pay parity with contract basis counterpart from initial appointment for identical work; mode of appointment cannot justify lower emoluments, violating equal....
The principle of equal pay for equal work mandates that employees performing similar duties must receive the same remuneration, regardless of their employment status.
The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' requires the employee to prove that their duties are similar in nature and responsibility to those of regular employees; failure to do so negates the claim....
In determining equality of functions and responsibilities, under principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’, it is necessary to keep in mind, that duties of two posts should be of equal sensitivity, and....
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
