Back
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH
AMAN CHAUDHARY
Harnek Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Aman Chaudhary, J. (Oral)
1. These cases involve similar issues and therefore, are being disposed of together and for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP-3928-2002.
2. Prayer made in the present petition is for directing the respondents-State to grant the pay scale of Rs.7880-13,500/- with an initial start of Rs.8,000/- alongwith the four tier scale w.e.f. 01.01.1996.
3. The petitioners are/were working as Works Manager, few of whom as direct recruitees possessing the qualifications of Degree and few as promotees possessing matriculations and diploma, the requisite qualifications for the same, petitioner No.1 was further promoted to the post of General Manager while petitioner No.2 on the officiating basis. They were given parity vide notification dated 15.02.1990 with the Assistant Mechanical Engineers and Assistant Divisional Managers, in the scale of Rs.2200-4000/-. The recommendations of the 3rd Pay Commission were in favour of the petitioners, however, it is in the 4th Pay Commission that the parity came to be broken. The Director, State Transport, vide Annexure P-7, had proposed that the Works Managers be placed in the pay scale at par with the Sub Divisi
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....
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 determination of pay scales is the exclusive domain of the state, and courts should only intervene in cases of constitutional violations.
The principle of equal pay for equal work does not entitle employees to claim parity in pay scales if their recruitment processes differ significantly.
The State of Himachal Pradesh is not mandated to follow pay scales set by another State; employer discretion in service conditions is reaffirmed.
The burden of proof for establishing pay parity lies with the employee claiming discrimination, and judicial review in pay matters is limited to unreasonable administrative actions.
The principle of equal pay for equal work under Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution mandates that employees performing similar duties be compensated equally, regardless of title discrepancies.
The principle of equal pay for equal work mandates that employees performing similar duties must receive the same remuneration, regardless of their employment status.
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
