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

2019 Supreme(Mad) 723

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. VENUGOPAL, SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, JJ.
R.N. Arul Jothi & Others - Appellants
Versus
The Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Cts.V) Department, Secretariat, Chennai & Another - Respondents
W.P.No. 22730 of 2018
Decided On : 24-04-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:M/s. J. Nagarajan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:A. Ansar, Government Advocate, M/s. Durai Easwar, Advocate.

The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of equal pay for equal work, as well as the constitutional provisions under Article 229 and Article 14 governing equal protection and prohibition of invidious discrimination.

Headnote:

Equal Pay for Equal Work - Pay Disparity in High Court - Article 229, Article 14, Equal Protection - [SUMMARY OF ACT SECTIONS]

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners sought an order directing the acceptance and implementation of the recommendation for pay structure revision in the High Court. The petitioners claimed pay disparity with the State Secretariat and sought parity with the pay structure of the Supreme Court and Delhi High Court.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioners' claim for equal pay for equal work was based on the nature of duties being similar across all High Courts and the Supreme Court. The court noted the constitutional provisions under Article 229 and Article 14, emphasizing the principle of equal protection and the prohibition of invidious discrimination.

Issues: The issues revolved around the disparity in pay structure between the High Court and other institutions, the constitutional provisions governing the control over staff, and the feasibility of implementing the recommended pay structure.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the constitutional goal of equal pay for equal work and the principle of equal protection under Article 14. It highlighted the need for similar treatment in similar circumstances and the prohibition of invidious discrimination. The court also noted that the High Court should not ordinarily issue a writ of mandamus and should allow statutory authorities to perform their duties.

Final Decision: The court directed the matter to be listed for further hearing, allowing the 1st Respondent to file an additional counter if desired. The 2nd Respondent was directed to prepare for the hearing.

JUDGMENT :

The Petitioners in the present Writ Petition has sought for passing of an order by this Court in directing the 1st Respondent to accept and implement the recommendation of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Madras High Court, as communicated by Registrar General through letter in RoC.No.61942/B/2016/G2, dated 10.02.2017 for the revision of the pay structure in favour of the staff of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India within a frame as may be determined by this Court.

2. According to the Petitioners, the Hon’ble High Court is one of the three pillars of the world’s biggest Democracy. As a matter of fact, once pay disparity was claimed with that of the service of the State Secretariat and it was granted after much persuasion and deliberation. Furthermore, this parity claimed was lower than the pay structure of both the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

3. The stand of the Petitioners is that the service of the Hon’ble High Court requires high calibre and also requires late hour sitting after the Office Hours. Because of the nature of same service condition and work nature of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and all the High Courts, the pay structure would be on the basis of ‘Equal Pay for Equal Work’. Indeed, the pay structure of Delhi High Court is on the higher side than the other other High Courts and equivalent to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In reality, the nature of duties is one and the same for all High Courts in India and the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the pay structure of the various cadres under all categories of this Hon’ble High Court are at alarming variance.

4. The version of the Petitioners is that the pay structure of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court was enhanced to the level of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India after a Court’s Order. Further, the Petitioners’ Association made an earnest Appeal to the Hon’ble Chief Justice in regard to their claim/demand for pay structure on par with that of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi and in this regard, had submitted a Representation dated 08.08.2016. The said Representation of the Petitioners’ Association was forwarded by the 2nd Respondent/Registrar General, High Court, Madras to the 1st Respondent/Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Courts-V) Department, Secretariat, Chennai with the recommendation of Hon’ble Chief Justice for grant of enhanced pay structure in favour of the Staff Members of the Madras High Court on par with the pay structure of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. That apart, such a recommendation of the Hon’ble Chief Justice of this Court was communicated by the 2nd Respondent/Registrar General, High Court, Madras on 10.02.2017 in RoC.No.61942/B/2016/G2 to the Government for issuance of necessary orders.

5. It comes to be known that the 2nd Respondent/Registrar General, High Court, Madras had addressed a communication in RoC.No.61942/B/2016/G2 dated 10.02.2017 to the 1st Respondent/Principal Secretary to Government, Home (Cts.V) Department, Secretariat, Chennai forwarding the proposal (as regards the representation submitted by the Madras High Court and Madurai Bench Officers and Staff Association, High Court, Madras dated 08.08.2016) pertaining to the revision of pay structure on par with the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

6. Moreover, in the further mentioned communication dated 10.02.2017, the 2nd Respondent/Registrar General, High Court, Madras had stated that the proposal for the enhanced pay, in regard to certain categories of posts is based on the similar pay band of other categories in the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and also taking into consideration, the hierarchy of categories and their pay scales in the Madras High Court Service and also a comparative analysis regarding the pay structures of various High Courts, was done and the pay structure proposed is based on the Delhi High C





























































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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top