Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA, AGARTALA
S. TALAPATRA, J.
High Court Employees’ Association and Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Tripura, represented by the Chief Secretary in the Law Department and Others – Respondents
WP(C) NO. 71 of 2015
Decided On : 11-08-2016
EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK - SUBJECT - TRIPURA DISTRICT COURTS MINISTERIAL ESTABLISHMENT (RECRUITMENT AND CONDITIONS OF SERVICE) RULES, 2014 - ACT SECTION LIST - ARTICLE 14, 229(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, High Court Employees Association, Record Keeper, and Senior Administrative Assistant in the High Court of Tripura, sought equal pay for equal work, claiming that the employees of the High Court of Tripura should be granted similar benefits as extended to the employees of the Subordinate Judiciary in terms of the recommendation made by the Justice Shetty Commission and the judgments and orders dated 15.07.2008 and 07.10.2009 by the apex court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court of Tripura, through the Registrar General, requested the Governor of Tripura to grant 1(one) advance increment to the Staff of the Grade of other Non-gazetted Class-III Staff of the High Court service and also granting 2(two) advance increments to all the Class-III Non-gazetted Staff of the Grade of Head Clerk, UDC, Bench Assistant, LDC, Assistant Librarian, Library Assistant, Programmer, Senior Computer Assistant & Personal Assistant of the High Court Service and Group-B & Group-C Non Gazetted Staff of the grade of System Officer and System Assistant of the High Court e-Courts Service having minimum qualification of Graduation.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners have the legal standing to file the writ petition. 2. Whether the employees of the High Court of Tripura are entitled to equal pay for equal work vis-à-vis the employees of the Subordinate Judiciary. 3. Whether the recommendation of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Tripura to grant one advance increment to the employees of the High Court of Tripura is binding on the State Government.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court Employees Association, being the recognized Association of the employees of the High Court of Tripura, has the legal standing to file the writ petition. 2. The employees of the High Court of Tripura are entitled to equal pay for equal work vis-à-vis the employees of the Subordinate Judiciary, as they discharge identical duties and responsibilities, even though they have higher qualifications at the entry level. 3. The recommendation of the Chief Justice of the High Court of Tripura to grant one advance increment to the employees of the High Court of Tripura is not binding on the State Government, but it is a persuasive factor that the State Government should consider.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed to the extent that the employees/officers of the High Court of Tripura are entitled to 1(one) advance increment, equal to the judicial staff of the Subordinate Judiciary w.e.f. 01.04.2003 notionally till 31.12.2014, the preceding year of filing the writ petition. The respondents No.2, 4 and 5, as corollary to the above direction, are further directed to grant, sanction and release necessary fund to meet the contingent requirement within a period of 3(three) months from today to the High Court of Tripura for implementation of this direction.
The doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” is not an abstract doctrine and is capable of being enforced in a court of law, inter alia, observing that equal pay must be for equal work of equal value and that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” has no mathematical application in every case. It has been held that Article 14 of the Constitution permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristic of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who were left out. Of course, the qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object sought to be achieved. Enumerating a number of factors which may not warrant application of the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, it has been held that, since the said principle requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job, normally the applicability of this principle must be left to be evaluated and determined by an expert body and the court should not interfere till it is satisfied that the necessary material on the basis whereof the claim is available on record with necessary proof and that there is equal work of equal quality and all other relevant factors are fulfilled. Thus has been observed by the apex court culling out the core principle of “equal pay for equal work” in catena of decisions, namely State of Haryana vs. Charanjit Singh, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 321, State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Jasmer Singh & Ors., reported in 1996 (11) SCC 77, Orissa University of AGr-Iculture & Technology & Anr. Vs. Manoj K. Mohanty, reported in 2003 (5) SCC 188, Government of West Bengal vs. Tarun K. Roy, reported in (2004) 1 SCC 347 in Union of India vs. Dineshan K.K., reported in (2008) 1 SCC 586.
2. Thus, it is imperative on the petitioners to show that they are entitled to the reliefs as prayed in this writ petition, which has been filed for directing the respondents to grant the benefits to the members of the petitioner No.1 at par with the employees of the Subordinate Judiciary of the State of Tripura in conformity with the judgments and orders dated 15.07.2008 and 07.10.2009 delivered by the apex court in I.A. Nos.71A, 135-138, 142 and 226, arising out of W.P.(C) No.1022 of 1989 [All India Judges Association & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.] following the recommendation of the Justice Shetty Commission w.e.f. 01.04.2009, thereupon directing the respondents to grant the arrears of pay and allowances to the petitioner No.1 and its members w.e.f. 01.04.2003 as provisioned to the employees of the Subordinate Judiciary of the State of Tripura. Further direction has been sought for granting the benefit to the petitioner No.1 and its members in terms of the communication dated 17.09.2014 (Annexure-P/9 to the writ petition).
3. There is no dispute that, by the Notification under No.F.3(2)-FIN(PC)/93(P-III) dated 02.01.2012 (Annexure-P/1 to the writ petition), it had been provided as under :
NOTIFICATION
Sub : Implementation of the Judgment dated 15-07-2008 and dated 07-1-2009 of Hon’ble Supreme Court following recommendation of Shetty Commission.
The Council of Ministers in its meeting held on 02-08-2011 has decided to implement the Judgment dated 15-07-2008 and 07-10-2009 of Hon’ble Supreme Court in IA 71-A, 135-138, 142 & 226 in connection with WP(C) No.1022/1989 (All India Judges Association Vs. The Union of India & others) following various recommendations of Shetty Commission in respect of Subordinate Judiciary staff subject to modification that posts creation/up gradation shall be with prospective effect and other benefits shall be given with effect from 1st October, 2010 in view of financial constraints.
By order of the Governor
Sd/- illegible
(U.K. Chakma)
Deputy Secretary to the Govt. of Tripura
4. The District & Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, had issued the Order under No.F.10(152)(B)-DJ/W/2007/427-47 d
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
