High Court
Case Details
WA 151/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.K. GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI (A.K.Goel, C.J.) This order will dispose of Writ Appeal Nos.151 and 316 of 2009 as both t he appeals have been preferred against common judgment of learned Single Judge. The appellants are non unionized supervisors employed with the responden t Corporation. The feeder cadre for the said post is the cadre of workmen called ’W-9’. The cadre of the appellants is known as ’S-1’ and ’S-2’. Pay scales of t he appellants are governed by orders passed from time to time by the Corporation in pursuance of policy of the Central Government as the Corporation is a public sector unit. Justice Mohan Committee was appointed by the Central Government, Departm ent of Public Enterprises to consider the issue of revision of pay scales and in pursuance of its report, notification dated 25.6.1999 was issued by the Centra l Government revising pay scales of non-unionized supervisors with effect from 1 .1.1997 as follows : (cid:28) Existing S-1 Rs.2800-4830 S-2 Rs.3000-5055 Rs.5200-8000 Rs.5600-8600 Proposed Fitment Benefit Upto 20% of basic pay as on 31.12.1996 (cid:29) Pay scales of workmen were revised under a bipartite agreement dated 16. 2.2001 and while earlier the pay scale of ’W-9’ workmen was lower to the appella nts, the same became higher on account of the said settlement with fitment benef it. The revision is as follows : (cid:28)Workmen W-9 Existing scale of pay Revised 2550-4.25% 5950-9030 Fitment (Page-63) Basic pay as on 31.12.06 + 25.5% of basic pay + DA + One additional increment. (cid:29) The difference in the salary of the appellants and ’W-9’ is said to be a bout Rs.600/- per month. Alleging discrimination, appellants approached this Court by way of a wr it petition. Learned Single Judge held that the principle of equal pay for equal work was not applicable as categories of employees was different and nature of their work was not the same. Accordingly, the claim was rejected. However, it was mad e clear that they could approach the Central Government for appropriate relief. The operative part of the order is as follows :-
Legal Reasoning
In the instant case, there is no dispute that both the categories of emp (cid:28)18. loyees i.e. the Supervisors and the Workmen are in different cadres. While the p ay of the Workmen will be revised pursuant to the bipartite agreement/MoU, the p ay revision in respect of the Supervisors was effected pursuant to the direction s of the Central Government. In such a situation, if the Workmen uses to get mor e salary than that of the Supervisors, same cannot be said to be the case of pay anomalies. None of the elements attributable as pay anomaly, requires removal o f the same at the intervention of the pay anomaly. The removal authority being p resent in the instant case, no interference is called for to the decision of the respondent-Corporation, which they have communicated individually to the Superv isors, one of which is the impugned Annexure-’L’ communication dated 19.10.2006. If the petitioners are really aggrieved, they should not be agreed with the rev ision of pay scales effected in respect of the Supervisors and Executives with e ffect from 1.1.1997 to the Central Government. But such grievance cannot relate to the Workmen, whose pay revision was effected pursuant to the bipartite agreem ent/MoU. The respondent-Corporation, of their own, did not do anything but it si mply followed the Central Government guidelines. The analogy, on which the petit ioners have emphasized in reference to the other P.S.Us like, N.T.P.C., B.H.E.L. etc. cannot help the petitioners. If the said two PSUs of their own extend cert ain benefits to similar categories of employees, same binds the respondent-Corpo ration to follow the same rule. The respondent-Corporation will be bound on lega l principles and not on the principles being followed in the said PSUs. It case will have to be understood on the background in the fact situation involved abou t which discussions have been made above. For all the aforesaid reasons, it cannot be said to be a case of pay ano 19. maly requiring intervention of this Court so as to direct the respondent-Corpora tion to remove such pay anomaly and/or to step up the pay of the Supervisors. Th is, however, will not preclude the petitioners to approach the Central Governmen t for appropriate relief in reference to pay revision effected with effect from 1.1.1997 with the 20% fitment benefit, which was 25.5% in respect of the Workmen . (cid:29) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that even though principle of equal pay for equal work may not be applicable, seniors could not be paid less than juniors and principle of relativity was also part of right to equality. Emp loyees in ’W-9’ cadre working as workmen constituted feeder cadre for supervisor s and in this view of the matter, principle of relativity had to be applied and appellants had to be paid at least one rupee higher than the pay of employees in the lower cadre. They could not be paid lesser than the employees in the feeder cadre. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurucharan Singh Grewal and another -Vs.- Punjab State Electricity Board and ot hers, (2009) 3 SCC 94 laying down : (cid:28)17. Something may be said with regard to Mr. Chhabra’s submissions about the di fference in increment in the scales in which Appellant 1 and Shri Shori are plac ed, but the same is still contrary to the settled principle of law that a senior cannot be paid a lesser salary than his junior. In such circumstances, even if there was a difference in the incremental benefits in the scale given to Appella nt 1 and the scale given to Shri Shori, such anomaly should not have been allowe d to continue and ought to have been rectified so that the pay of Appellant 1 wa s also stepped up to that of Shri Shori, as appears to have been done in the cas e of Appellant 2. 18. We are unable to accept the reasoning of the High Court in this regard o r the submissions made in support thereof by Mr. Chhabra, since the very object to be achieved is to bring the pay scale of Appellant 1 on a part with that of h is junior. We are clearly of the opinion that the reasoning of the High Court wa s erroneous and Appellant 1 was also entitled to the same benefits of pay parity with Shri Shori as has been granted to Appellant 2. (cid:29) Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court i n Delhi Veterinary Association -Vs.- Union of India and others, (1984) 3 SCC 1 a s follows : (cid:28)5. cture of the employees of the Government should reflect many other social values In addition to the principle of ’equal pay for equal work’, the pay stru . Apart from being the dominant employer, the Government is also expected to be a model employer. It has, therefore, to follow certain basic principles in fixin g the pay scales of various posts and cadres in the Government service. The degr ee of skill, strain of work, experience involved, training required, responsibil ity undertaken, mental and physical requirements, disagreeableness of the task, hazard attendant on work and fatigue involved are, according to the Third Pay Co mmission, some of the relevant factors which should be taken into consideration in fixing pay scales. The method of recruitment, the level at which the initial recruitment is made in the hierarchy of service or cadre, minimum educational an d technical qualifications prescribed for the post, the nature of dealings with the public, avenues of promotion available and horizontal and vertical relativit y with other jobs in the same service or outside are also relevant factors. Learned counsel for the Corporation submitted that the Corporation was b ound by the notification fixing the pay and they had no discretion in the mater. Learned counsel for the Union of India submitted that there was no bar f or the Corporation to remove the anomalies in the pay of its employees. On due consideration, we find that the employees in higher cadre cannot get lesser pay than the employees in the feeder cadre. There is merit in the con tention raised that the appellants have to be paid at least one rupee higher tha n the employees in the feeder cadre.
Decision
Accordingly, we allow this appeal and direct the respondent Corporation to pass appropriate order to remove the anomaly determining the pay of employees in the higher cadre at least one rupee higher than the pay scale of its employe es in the feeder cadre within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.