IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Ravi Malimath, Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, JJ.
Kamal Kant Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Through The Secretary & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 5746 of 2005
Decided On : 19-04-2022
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioners in the instant writ petition have sought for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash order dated 20.04.2005 passed in O.a.No.375-2004 by the Central administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'CaT') with a further prayer to strike down S.R.O.357 of 1979 while commanding the respondents to treat the petitioners similar to the members of other trades by safeguarding their present position along with their pay.
2. The case of the petitioners is that they were employed as Machinist Grade-II and Grinders in Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur. all the petitioners, although were appointed between 1972 and 1973 but at one point of time, they congregated into a trade of Grinders, therefore, the grievance of the petitioners is common. They submit that in the Ordnance Factories and Ordnance Equipment Factories (Group 'C' and Group 'D' Industrial Posts) Recruitment Rules, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the 'SRO of 1979') were applicable. There were three categories of Grinder i.e. 'C', 'B' and 'a'. There was a special category 'special Grade Grinder'. There were other trades like Miller, Turner and Fitter etc. and the categories in those trades were 'D', 'C', 'B' and 'a'. according to them, the Grinder 'C' was equivalent to other trade category 'D' . Grinder 'B' was equivalent to other categories 'C'. Grinder 'a' was equal to 'B' Grade and other trades and Grinder special was equivalent to 'a' Grade of other trades. all the petitioners were originally in 'C' Grade Grinders. In the year 1974-1975, they were made Grinder 'B' Grade. In nutshell, from 1974-1975, Grinder 'B' Grade became equivalent to 'C' Grade of other trades. The petitioners stated that a person belonging to trade of Miller in 'a' Grade is entitled to be promoted as Supervisor 'B' Grade, whereas, his equivalent in the Grinder trade holding the designation of Grinder, highly skilled Grade-II continued to remain without being promoted to the post of Supervisor Grade 'B'.
3. Petitioners stated that there was discrimination in classification of the Grades. The respondents have created an artificial disparity by an executive order between the Turner and other trades. The Grinders 'a' Grade claim the relief to the extent that they should be treated equivalent to the employees of the other category having the chance of promotion as Supervisor 'B'. Similarly situated employees had filed petition before the CaT at Calcutta as T.a.No.1361-1986 and T.a.No.1248-1986. The Calcutta Bench of CaT vide judgment dated 30.10.1987 allowed the Original applications. The Factory Order Part-I dated 07.01.1983 and Factory Order dated 03.01.1984 were struck down. Creation of new Grade/Posts of Grinders Special Highly skilled by Office order dated 25.1.1980 was also struck down. The respondents in that case challenged the order passed by the CaT before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The SLP was dismissed.
4. The petitioners, who are belonging to Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur have approached CaT Jabalpur in O.a.No.391-1989 and another O.a.No.421-1989 filed by Grinders belonging to GCF, Jabalpur. On 31.08.1980, CaT Jabalpur decided both the O.as granting similar reliefs as was granted by the CaT at Calcutta to the petitioners therein. Concluding para of CaT order dated 31.08.1990, it was held as under :-
'Hence we direct the respondents to 'grant similar reliefs to the other Grinders who have filed this petition as follows:-
(1) Treating the Grinder 'a' as equivalent as Turner 'a' Fitter 'a', Borer 'a' and Miller 'a'.
(2) The pay of Grinder 'a' shall be fixed in the pay scale of H.S.Grade-II notionally w.e.f. 16.10.81 but actually paid from 31.8.90 the date of this judgment.
(3) Grinders 'a' who were in existence prior to 16.10.1981, the date when the Expert Classification Committee report was implemented by the authorities shall be considered for promotion to the cadre of Supervisor 'B' but without awarding higher pay scales.
(4) Their pay shall be refixed
Central Excise Stenographers and others vs. Union of India and others (1988) 3 SCC 91
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited vs. Rajesh Kumar Jindal and others (2019) 3 SCC 547
State of U.P. and others vs. J.P.Chaurasia and others (1989) 1 SCC 121
State of U.P. and others vs. J.P.Chaurasia and others (1989) 1 SCC 121
Tribunal cannot grant higher promotional pay scale to one cadre's employees matching another distinct cadre's juniors by one-time parity, as it exceeds jurisdiction absent Article 14 violation from r....
The determination of pay scales is the exclusive domain of the state, and courts should only intervene in cases of constitutional violations.
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 principle of equal pay for equal work does not entitle employees to claim parity in pay scales if their recruitment processes differ significantly.
Important PointDifferent educational qualifications would not by itself be a criterion to deny equal pay for equal work to the employees otherwise similarly circumscribed.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.