G.S.SINGHVI, B.N.AGARWAL, HARJIT SINGH BEDI
Official Liquidator – Appellant
Versus
Dayanand – Respondent
The Supreme Court emphasized that mere similarity in the duties or work performed by two groups of employees does not automatically entitle them to equal pay or parity in service benefits. The Court cautioned that factors such as the source of recruitment and the cadre controlling authority are crucial in determining entitlement to parity. If the source of recruitment is different or the cadre is managed by a different authority, then employees cannot claim parity as a matter of right solely based on the nature of their work. The decision underscores the importance of examining the recruitment process and administrative control when assessing claims for equality in pay or status, rather than relying solely on the similarity of duties performed.
JUDGMENT
G.S. Singhvi, J. —
1. Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) Nos.12798/2005 and 13838/2006.
2. These appeals are directed against the orders of Calcutta and Delhi High Courts, whereby directions have been issued to the appellants herein to absorb the persons employed by the Official Liquidators attached to those High Courts under Rule 308 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959 (for short ‘the 1959 Rules’) against the posts sanctioned by the Government of India, Department of Company Affairs.
FACTS
3.For the sake of convenience, we have culled out the facts from the pleadings of Writ Petition No.1387 of 2001 filed by Tapas Chakraborty and 109 others in Calcutta High Court, Writ Petition No.2728 of 2001 filed by Smt. Daya Dua and others in Delhi High Court, the record of these appeals and documents filed/produced by the learned counsel for the parties during the pendency of the appeals. These are:
(i) There are two categories of employees in the offices of the Official Liquidators attached to different High Courts. The first category comprises of the employees who are appointed against the posts sanctioned by the Government of India, Department of Company Affairs. They are recruited in accorda
Dr. Chanchal Goyal (Mrs.) v. State of Rajasthan
J.P. Bansal v. State of Rajasthan
Utkal University v. Jyotirmayee Nayak
Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University v. T. Sumalatha (Smt.)
Dr. M.A. Haque v. Union of India
Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society v. Union of India
Food Corporation of India v. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries
M. Ramanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala
Kedar Nath Bahi v. State of Punjab
Mahadeolal Kanodia v. Administrator General of W.B.
.Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. v. Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao
State of H.P. v. Suresh Kumar Verma
Dr. Surinder Singh Jamwal v. State of J&K
E. Ramakrishnan v. State of Kerala
Union of India v. Bishambar Dutt
State of Haryana v. Jasmer Singh
Santosh Kumar Verma v. State of Bihar
State of Haryana v. Surinder Kumar
Union of India v. Mahender Singh
Ashwani Kumar v. State of Bihar (1997) 2 SCC 1 – Relied upon. [Para 51]
Patna University v. Dr. Amita Tiwari
Coir Board, Ernakulam vs. Indira Devi P.S.
Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India
Govt. of India and others v. Court Liquidator’s Employees Association
Dr. Vijay Laxmi Sadho v. Jagdish
Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Mumbai Shramik Sangha
Pradip Chandra Parija v. Pramod Chandra Patnaik
State of Orissa v. Balram Sahu
Bhavnagar University v. Palitana Sugar Mill Pvt. Ltd.
Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das
Apangshu Mohan Lodh v. State of Tripura
A. Umarani v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies
Bharat Petroleum Ltd. v. N.R. Viramani
Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India
Lala Shri Bhagwan v. Ram Chandra
State of Orissa v. Sudhanshu Sekhar Misra
Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. A. Rajappa
Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India
R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah
State of Punjab v. Surinder Kumar
State of Haryana v. Des Raj Sangar
Dr. N.C. Singhal v. Union of India
Randhir Singh v. Union of India
Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief, C.P.W.D., (1986) 1 SCC 639 – Relied upon. [Para 6, 29
Narender Chadha v. Union of India
State of Gujarat v. Ambica Quarry Works
Mewa Ram Kanojia v. A.I.I.M.S.
V. Markandeya v. State of A.P.
State of U.P. v. J.P. Chaurasia
Union of India v. Raghubir Singh
Sundarjas Kanyalal Bhatija v. Collector, Thane
Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation
Dharwad District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees’ Association v. State of Karnataka
Jacob M. Puthuparambil v. Kerala Water Authority
H.C. Puttaswamy v. Hon’ble Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court, Bangalore
Griha Kalyan Workers’ Union v. Union of India
Director, Institute of Management Development, U.P. v. Pushpa Srivastava
State of Haryana v. Piara Singh
J & K Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narinder Mohan
Dr. Arundhati Ajit Pargaonkar v. State of Maharashtra
Ghaziabad Development Authority v. Vikram Chaudhary
State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh
Daily Rated Casual Labour v. Union of India
Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P., (1986) 1 SCC 637 – Relied upon. [Para 6
Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U.P., (1986) 1 SCC 637 – Relied upon. [Para 29
Union of India v. Kishan Gopal Vyas
P. Ravindran v. Union Territory of Pondicherry
Harbans Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Coir Board, Ernakulam, Kerala State v. Indira Devai P.S.
Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi
Avas Vikas Sanghathan v. Engineers Association
Kuldeep Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Ram Pravesh Singh v. State of Bihar
Indian Drugs and Pharamaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen
Gangadhar Pillai v. Siemens Ltd.
Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. v. Dan Bahadur Singh
State of U.P. v. Jeet S. Bisht
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan v. L.V. Subramanyeswara
U.P. Gram Panchayat Adhikari Sangh v. Daya Ram Saroj
Canteen Mazdoor Sabha v. Metallurgical & Engineering Consultants (India) Ltd.
U.P. SEB v. Pooran Chand Pandey
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.