Equal pay for equal work is essential, and disparities based on departmental distinctions without justifiable grounds are unlawful.

ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the respondent in GO.Ms.No.241 Finance (CMPC) Department, dated 27.10.2021, thereby refused to revise the scale of pay of the Assistant Programmers of Collegiate Education Department by granting scale of pay at Rs.9300- 34800+GP 4500 on par with Assistant Programmers, Govt Data Centre, Department of Industries and Commerce, PWD.

2. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3. The members of the petitioner Association were appointed as Programmer in the cadre of Laboratory Assistants in various Government Colleges. The educational qualification prescribed for the post is B.Sc Computer Science or B.Sc Physics or Statistics as main subject with one year certificate course in Computer Application in a recognized College/ Institute or Diploma in Computer Science from recognized Polytechnic. The Official Committee in the year 2009 has granted revised scale of pay of Rs.5200-20200+GP 1900. Similar posts were also available in other departments of State of Tamil Nadu. All other departments and the petitioner Association submitted representation and accordingly, their posts were re-designated as Assistant Programmer. In the present post, persons who are qualified with degree with Diploma in Computer Application, PG Degree with Diploma in Computer Science and PG degree with M.Phil and Diploma in Computer Science from recognized polytechnic are working in the Department. As per the VI Pay Commission, the scale of pay is Rs.5200-20200-Gr.pay 1900/- Though they had possessed higher qualification, the scale of pay was not revised so far.

4. Whereas, for those who are working in other Departments in the post of Assistant Programmer, the scale of pay was revised and they are getting Grade Pay of Rs.4500/-. Therefore, the petitioner Association made representation to One Man Commission on pay revision to merge with the post of Lab Assistant, Programme Assistant, Programmer into a single nomenclature as Computer Programmer. The request made by the petitioner Association was considered by One Man Commission which had taken into consideration the qualification, nature of work and the job responsibilities for the Lab Assistant with that of the Computer Programmer and found that the post of Computer Programmer in the cadre of Lab Assistant deserves equal pay with that of the Programme Assistant in the same Department.

5. Hence, One Man Commission recommended that the post of Computer Programmer in the cadre of Lab Assistant may be revised on par with the Programmer Assistant/Programme and re-designated the post of Assistant Programmer. Accordingly, the scale of pay was fixed as per GO.Ms.No.271 Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 26.08.2010 was revised in G.O.Ms.No.262, Finance (Pay Cell) Department, dated 22.07.2013 as Rs.9300-34800+Gr.Pay Rs.4400/-. Accordingly, the post of Computer Programmer, Programmer Assistant and Lab Assistant in computer wing/computer science department in the college education department was re- designated as Assistant Programmer as per G.O.Ms.No.390 Finance (Pay Cell) Department dated 05.10.2010. In the Industries and Commerce Department, similar post of Assistant Programmer was available. As per the One Man Commission's report, the duties and responsibilities of the Assistant Programmer were recommended for the revision of scale of pay. Accordingly, their scale of pay was revised as Rs.9300-34800+Gr.Pay 4500/- with effect from 01.01.2006 and with monetary benefits from 01.08.2010. The duties and responsibilities of the Assistant Programmer in the Industries and Commerce Department and the post of Assistant Programmer in the College Education Department are one and the same. Therefore, the One Man Commission also looked into the pay anomalies, but granted Grade Pay of Rs.4500/- in the case of Assistant Programmer working in the Industries and Commerce Department.

Therefore, the petitioner Association made re