Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI
Union of India through the General Manager, South Eastern Railway – Appellant
Versus
Sanjeev Kumar Suman Son of Sri Chandeshwar Prasad – Respondent
ORDER :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. Both the writ petitions are taken up together for hearing since the common issues are involved in these writ petitions and these are preferred against the common order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (Circuit Bench at Ranchi) [in short, the learned Tribunal].
2. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are directed against the common order dated 19.05.2023 passed in O.A No. OA/051/00343/2021 and the second one in O.A No. OA/051/00346/2021 by the learned Tribunal whereby and whereunder direction has been given to grant same pay as Sachin Kumar Gupta and Anurag Kumar to the respondent-applicants from the date they were promoted as Chief Commercial Inspector and the order dated 29.04.2021 passed by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Eastern Railway, Ranchi Division, Ranchi has been quashed.
3. The brief facts of the case as per the impugned order and the pleadings made in the writ petition which require to be enumerated reads as under:
(i) The Grievance of the applicants(respondents herein) is that they were selected for the post of Commercial Apprentice, after due process,
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for establishing parity in pay scales based on comparative job evaluation and equation of posts, and the burden of proof on the pet....
The principle of equal pay for equal work does not entitle employees to claim parity in pay scales if their recruitment processes differ significantly.
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....
The tribunal's refusal to grant pay parity was upheld, emphasizing that pay structure decisions lie within the domain of the Pay Commission, highlighting the non-enforceable nature of pay parity clai....
The tribunal affirmed that similar employees' pay should be upgraded equally, addressing violations of equality in pay scales and ensuring equitable treatment among all central government employees.
Equal pay for equal work mandates uniform application of benefits across similarly situated employees, reinforcing that arbitrary denial of pay parity violates constitutional principles.
Employees similarly situated must receive equitable treatment regarding pay fixation as per Article 14, emphasizing uniform application of benefits.
Tribunal upheld employees' entitlement to retrospective pay fixation from 1996, emphasizing equality under law for similarly situated individuals.
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
