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

2019 Supreme(Online)(KER) 47817

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
ANU SIVARAMAN, J
P.SAJEEV BABU – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
WP(C)/24685/2018



Advocates:
SRI.D.KISHORE SMT.MINI GOPINATH SMT.MEERA GOPINATH SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN (MALAKKARA), SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN SMT.S.INDU, SRI.PRATHEESH.P SMT.RENY ANTO, SRI.V.A.MUHAMMED SRI.M.SAJJAD, SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS (SR.) SRI.RONY JOSE SMT.SUZANNE KURIAN

The court affirmed the principle of equal pay for equal work, directing government consideration of pay equality for Special Public Prosecutors despite employment status changes.

Headnote:

Pay - Appointment of Special Public Prosecutors - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act - Sections 32 - The court ruled on the entitlement of additional pay to Special Public Prosecutors, emphasizing equal pay for equal work, and directing the government to address the discrepancies in remuneration.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, appointed as Special Public Prosecutors under the POCSO Act, sought enhanced pay following a government order that retroactively increased pay for certain Special Public Prosecutors. They argued this created discrimination against them despite performing similar duties.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the petitioners entitled to equal pay for equal work, noting no rational basis for their exclusion from the benefits outlined in the government order. The lack of evidence supporting claims of lighter work by petitioners affirmed their entitlement.

Issues: Whether the petitioners are entitled to the enhanced consolidated pay as provided in the government order despite their termination and subsequent appointment as Special Public Prosecutors.

Ratio Decidendi: The principle of equal pay for equal work was established, mandating that remuneration should be based on the nature of work performed rather than the employment status at the time of the order.

Final Decision: The court ordered the government to consider the petitioners' representation for enhanced pay and directed payment of any due amounts within one month.

JUDGMENT

[WP(C).10536/2018, WP(C).18080/2018, WP(C).24685/2018, WP(C).11284/2019 &

WP(C).5847/2019]

Dated this the 9th day of October 2019

1.These writ petitions are filed by the Special Public Prosecutors appointed under the the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act for short) seeking the payment of enhanced consolidated pay of Rs.60,000/- per month as provided in Government Order dated 24.11.2018.

2.Heard Sri.Bechu Kurian Thomas, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.5847/2019, Sri.D.Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. (C).No.10536/2018, Sri.S.Shanavas Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.18080/2018, Sri.Pratheesh P, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C).No.24685/2018, Sri.V.A.Muhammed, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.

(C).No. 11284/2019, and the learned Government Pleader.

3.It is contended that the petitioners were appointed as Additional Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor in the District and Sessions Court. The appointment was for three years from the date of assumption of charge. Later they were reappointed for three years. While so, the 2nd respondent appointed the petitioners along with others as Special Public Prosecutors in the Additional District and Sessions Court for conducting cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act for short) in terms of Section 32 of the Act. It is stated that the Government terminated the services of the petitioner as Additional Government Pleader and Additional Public Prosecutor by granting one month salary in lieu of notice. However, the appointment as Special Public Prosecutor under the POCSO Act continued. Thereafter, the appointment of the petitioners as Special Public Prosecutors was also terminated and substitutes were appointed in their place. It is stated that thereafter, by Government Order dated 24.11.2018, the consolidated pay of the Special Government Pleaders had been enhanced to Rs.60,000/- per month. However, the benefit was limited to the Special Public Prosecutors who were in service at the relevant time, but it was given retrospectively from the date they assumed charge. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are identically situated as the persons who have been granted the benefit of the Government Order and the petitioners have been discriminated only due to extraneous reasons and have been denying their benefits on the political grounds. It is stated that the duties carried out by the petitioners were exactly similar to the duties carried out by the Advocates who have received the benefit of the Government order dated 24.11.2018. In the circumstances, it is contended that the refusal to grant them the benefits by introduction of provision in the Government Order is completely unsustainable.

4.The learned counsel for the petitioners place reliance on the decision of theState of West Bengal and another v. West Bengal Minimum Wages Board and others [ (2010) 5 SCC 225 ],M.V. Mathai v. State of Kerala [ 1995 KHC 338 ], Kalabharathi Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania [ (2010) 9 SCC 437 ] .

5.A detailed counter affidavit has been placed on record by the

2nd respondent in W.P.(C).No.10536/2018. It is contended therein as follows:-

9. Government have decided to fix the remuneration for the Additional Government Pleaders &Additional Public Prosecutors who were terminated from that post and continued as Special Public Prosecutors under the POCSO Act for the period for which they functioned exclusively as Special Public Prosecutors for the time being. Government have considered the number of POCSO cases handled by the Prosecutors and the work load etc. and decided to fix Rs.10,000/-per month as consolidated pay to the above said Special Public Prosecutors.

10.Smt. Sandhya, Rani who was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor, was given the remuneration as per G.O.(Ms) No.215

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