Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.N. MANJULA, J.
R.N. Damodarun - Appellant
Versus
The Secretary to Government of India Ministry of Heavy Industries & Public Enterprises Department of Public Enterprises, New Delhi - Respondent
W.P. Nos. 25428 of 2017, 1506, 13739 of 2018
Decided On : 15-04-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. revision of wages and working hours for employees. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. disparity in pay between seniors and juniors. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments on the right to equal pay under article 14. (Para 7 , 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. claims based on varying work conditions leading to pay disparity. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. precedents on stepping up pay to correct senior-junior disparity. (Para 16 , 17 , 19) |
| 6. court emphasizes fairness and natural justice in salary revisions. (Para 18) |
| 7. application of principles governing stepping up of pay. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 24) |
| 8. compensation in form of leave versus additional pay. (Para 23 , 27 , 28 , 31) |
| 9. government's duty to alleviate pay anomalies. (Para 29 , 30 , 32) |
| 10. necessity for fairness in pay disparities arising from promotions. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 11. court's directive for rectifying pay discrepancy. (Para 38 , 39 , 40) |
ORDER :
1. The petitioners are the employees of the second and third respondents-Corporations. There are two categories in the employees of the Corporations, namely, workmen and non-workmen. While the wages revision for the workmen is usually settled through the memorandum of settlement entered by the Employees Union and the second and third respondents-Managements under Section 18 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The pay for non-workmen will be revised in accordance with the pay revision provisions.
2. On 12.12.2012, a settlement came into effect by giving notional effect for the period between 01.01.2007 to 31.12.2008 and thereafter, by giving actual benefits. Persons who are workmen as on 01.01.2007 and who have been promoted as officers before or after the settlement dated 12.12.2012 are entitled to benefits of settlement till the time they were working in the capacity of workmen.
3. There is a change in working hours for workmen with effect from 16.01.2013 and the said clause also forms part of the settlement. As per the said change in working hours, the work hours have been increased and in view of that, an additional amount of 6% of basic pay is added to workmen from the date of implementation. Clause 9.2 of the settlement would state that the fitment benefits as on 21.12.2006 and as seen under clause 6.0 will be implemented with an additional amount of 6% of the additional basic pay.
4. The above benefit can be availed only by those who continue to remain as workmen on 16.01.2013. This is the date from which the revised working hours is being implemented. Even though these petitioners continued to be workmen as on 01.01.2007 and got the benefit of settlement, they have been promoted before 16.01.2013 and hence, they are not entitled to 6% of additional basic pay revision for fitment of revised pay.
5. So those workmen, who had the benefit of 6% in accordance with Clause 9.2 and who got promotion to officer after 16.01.2013, were getting pay more than the workmen who have been promoted as officers prior to 16.01.2013. In other words, persons who were junior to petitioners were drawing more pay than the petitioners who were seniors to them.
6. The petitioners have submitted various representations to address the anomaly by seeking to step-up their pay. Although assurances were given regarding the implementation of the pay revision, no action was taken. Therefore, the petitioners have filed this Writ Petition, seeking a direction to the respondents to rectify the disparity and to ensure that the issue is resolved within a stipulated time frame.
7. Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, submitted that, extending the special benefit of 6% as one-time settlement only to certain group of workmen is arbitrary and violative of right to equality prescribed under Article 14 of Constitution of India.
8. As the petitioners were promoted from workmen category from 2007 to 2012, they are deprived to get the special benefit of 6% increase. The respondents had also accepted the existence of anomaly between juniors and seniors and replied to the
Promotion without parity in pay creates inequality, violating Article 14, necessitating correction of disparities in public service employment.
Senior's pay must be stepped up to match junior's in same cadre/identical posts when anomaly arises from FR 22(I)(a)(1) application and pay fixation options, per DOP&T guidelines.
Claims for equal pay between directly recruited and promoted Assistants rejected based on service length and pay regulation interpretations, affirming lawful differentiation where settlement clauses ....
The court established that pay anomalies must be corrected retrospectively to uphold the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Seniors are entitled to pay parity with juniors unless the junior's higher pay is due to advance increments or similar exceptions, which were not established in this case.
A subordinate legislation, such as a CIL Circular, must be interpreted in consonance with the statutory Rules governing the same issue, and that the statutory Rules would have precedence.
The principle of stepping up pay must be applied when seniors in the same cadre are receiving lower salaries than their juniors, ensuring equitable pay that adheres to constitutional mandates.
A government employee senior in service must not receive lesser pay than a junior in the same cadre, and the absence of justifiable reasons for pay disparity constitutes a violation of constitutional....
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
