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

2022 Supreme(MP) 1016

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

Advocates Appeared:
Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, Advocate, Kanak Gaharwar, Advocate

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 and 16 - Writ Petition against discrimination in promotion of employees in ordnance factories - The petitioners, Grinders in Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur sought treatment equivalent to employees of other trades for promotion, claiming violation of equal rights. (Paras 1, 8, 17)

(B) Judicial Precedents - Requirements for classification and pay equity - The court held that differentiations in pay must have rational basis as long as they are made bona fide and reasonably according to a valid criterion. (Paras 15, 16)

(C) Administrative Orders - Validity of SRO 357 of 1979 - The court dismissed the petitioners' claims, upholding the SRO as justifiable based on expert evaluation of job roles and classifications. (Paras 11, 17)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners, having been employed as Machinist Grade-II and Grinders from 1972-1973, contended that the SRO unfairly denied equitable treatment in promotion as compared to employees of different trades, citing past rulings that favored similar promotions. (Paras 2, 4)

Findings of Court:
The petitioners’ claims of unjust reclassification and discrimination were found unsubstantiated; the SRO was maintained as it was grounded on expert job evaluations and criteria for promotion. (Paras 17)

Issues: The primary issue was whether the SRO 357 of 1979 was discriminatory against the petitioners regarding their promotional opportunities compared to other trade employees.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that lawful distinctions made in the promotion criteria did not violate equal rights under the Constitution if rationally justified.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

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

    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