The principle of equal pay for equal work applies, necessitating a rational and justifiable basis for any distinctions in remuneration among similar public roles.

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 the State 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.215/2013/L