Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh v. 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Mantralaya, Manhanadi Bhawan
Case Details
1 / 6 2025:CGHC:2423 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1178 of 20 19 • Siyaram Nag S/o Shri Sildar Nag Aged About 50 Years Occupation Service Librarian, Government Higher School of Blind Deaf And Mute, Police Line Colony Tifra, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, R/o C-112, Yadunandaon Nagar, Thana- Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Mantralaya, Manhanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director Department of Social Welfare, Directorate At Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Superintendent Government Higher School of Blind, Deaf And Mute, Police Line Colony Tifra, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner :
Legal Reasoning
they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal pay. … … The Preamble to the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation recognises the principle of ‘equal remuneration for work of equal value’ as constituting one of the means of achieving the improvement of conditions “involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperilled”. Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Article 39 (d), we are of the view that the principle “equal pay for equal work” is deducible from those Articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer. 9. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the drivers in the Delhi Police Force perform the same functions and duties as other drivers in service of the Delhi Administration and the Central Government. If anything, by reason of their investiture with the “powers, functions and privileges of a police officer”, their duties and responsibilities are more arduous. In answer to the allegation in the petition that the driver- constables of the Delhi Police Force perform no less arduous duties than drivers in other departments, it was admitted by the respondents in their counter that the duties of the driver-constables of the Delhi Police Force were onerous. What then is the reason for giving them a lower scale of pay than others? There is none. The only answer of the respondents is that the drivers of the Delhi Police Force and the other drivers belong to different departments and that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” is not a principle which the courts may recognise and act upon. We have shown that the answer is unsound. The clarification is irrational. We, therefore, allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to fix the scale of pay of the petitioner and the driver- constables of the Delhi Police Force at least on a par with that of the drivers of the Railway Protection Force. The scale of pay shall be effective from January 1, 1973, the date from which the recommendations of the Pay Commission were given effect.” 6 / 6 8. Considering the entirety of the facts of the case, nature of claim of
Arguments
Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Advocate For Respondents-State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu ORDER ON BOARD 15/01 / 2025 1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs. “10.1 That, the petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays to this Hon’ble Court to issue appropriate order/direction to the respondent authorities to amend and extend the benefit of the revised pay scale of the Assistant Librarian to Rs. 9300-34800, pay grade Rs. 4400/- and consequently amend and extend the benefit of the revised pay scale of the Librarian to Rs. 15600-39100/, pay grade Rs. 5400/- with all consequential benefits. PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA 2 / 6 10.2 That, the petitioner most humbly and respectfully prays to this Hon’ble Court to issue appropriate order/ direction directing the respondent authorities to grant suitable interest to the petitioner. 10.3 Any other relief whatsoever, this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be granted to the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed to the post of Asst. Librarian in the department of Panchayat and Social Welfare Directorate on 30.03.1998 in the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh. Pursuant to the order of appointment, petitioner joined the service. After re-organisation of the State of Madhya Pradesh, service of petitioner was allocated to the newly carved out State of Chhattisgarh and on the date of filing of petition he was posted as Librarian in Govt. High School of Blind, Deaf and Dumb, Police Line Colony, Tifra, Bilaspur. Before carving out of State of Chhattisgarh, Bramh Swaroop Committee was constituted for considering the existing pay scale of the employees working in different departments of State of Chhattisgarh. Upon due consideration, the Bramh Swaroop Committee has made recommendation for revision of pay of certain posts in some of the departments and submitted its report to the General Administration Department of State of Chhattisgarh. Upon receipt of the report, the General Administration Department of the State of Chhattisgarh has accepted the recommendation made by the Bramh Swaroop Committee and has implemented it by its order dated 11.02.2008. In the said order, post of Asst. Librarian in the Administration Academy and Directorate, Technical Education is also mentioned. Petitioner after getting the knowledge about the revision of pay of Asst. Librarian in the aforesaid department has submitted a representation before the concerned authority for revising his pay also. Respondent No. 2 has submitted a comparative chart to Respondent No. 1 with regard to educational 3 / 6 qualification of other departments and the experience as also the pay scale fixed in those departments as per service rules. It is submitted that the educational qualification of Panchayat, Social Welfare Department and Technical Education Department are one and the same. He also contended that Respondent no. 1 wrote letter to Respondent No. 2 for sending proposal for revision of pay for the post of Asst. Librarian in accordance with prevailing service rules, however, thereafter no decision has been taken on the claim of petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the qualification and the nature of duties which is discharged by the Asst. Librarian in the Social Welfare Department as also Technical Education Department are one and the same, hence, no discrimination can be made in the pay scale. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Randhir Singh vs. Union of India reported in (1982) 1 SCC 618. 3. Learned counsel for respondents-State opposes the submission of learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that the proceedings initiated by department was placed before the Finance Department as also the General Administration Department and as per the notesheet enclosed as Annexure R-1 the General Administration Department has recorded that it is not consenting to the proposal submitted by the Finance Department and therefore petitioner is not entitled for the revised pay scale and no relief can be granted to him. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record and the documents filed by the respective parties. Claim of petitioner is that the similarly situated employees/ Asst. Librarian posted in other departments have been extended benefit of recommendation made by the Bramh Swaroop Committee for revision of pay and accordingly the General Administration Department has 4. 5. 4 / 6 implemented it with respect to post of Asst. Librarian working and posted in Directorate Technical Education and Administration Academy. The claim of petitioner has been rejected. 6. Perusal of reply submitted by the State counsel would show that the proceedings initiated by the Respondent No. 1 for revision of pay was submitted along with the relevant documents before the Finance Committee which was subsequently placed before the General Administration Department who has not consented with the proceedings forwarded by the Finance Department, however, no reason has been assigned therein. Learned State counsel has not filed any document(s) to show that the proposal forwarded by the Respondent No. 1- Department has been rejected after due application of mind by assigning reasons. 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Randhir Singh (supra), while considering the claim of equal pay for equal work of the Drivers in the Delhi Police Force than those in Delhi Administration and Central Government has observed thus: “8. It is true that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a constitutional goal. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims “equal pay for equal work for both men and women” as a directive principle of State Policy. “Equal pay for equal work for both men and women” means equal pay for equal work for everyone and as between the sexes. directive principles, as has been pointed out in some of the judgments of this Court have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation. Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the State not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws and Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. These equality clauses of the Constitution must mean something to everyone. To the vast majority of the people the equality clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing if 5 / 6
Decision
petitioner in the writ petition and forwarded by the Finance Department to the General Administration Department and further considering that the General Administration Department has not rejected the claim with reasons as also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the opinion of this Court, claim of petitioner requires reconsideration at the end of General Administration Department. 9. For the foregoing discussion, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the General Administration Department of the State of Chhattisgarh to reconsider the proposal forwarded by Respondent No. 1 and placed before it through the Finance Department and to take a decision afresh supported by reasons within a further period of 04 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Certified copy as per rules. Judge pwn Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu)