The High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 29-Sep-2025 13:36:46 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.12963 of 2021 (In the matter of an application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India) Durgeshnandini Mohapatra …. Petitioner -versus- of Odisha, State through School Secretary, Education Department and Others represented the Commissioner-cum- and Mass … Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
36. It is well settled by the Supreme Court that only because the nature of work is the same, irrespective of educational qualification, mode of appointment, experience and other relevant factors, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot apply vide Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy [(2004) 1 SCC 347 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 225] . 8. In the instant case it is admitted that the initial appointment of the Petitioner is in Matric CT post, whereas the appointment of Snehalata Mohanty was in a TGT post. Here it is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that though Snehalata Mohanty was appointed in TGT post by the private managing committee of the school, but on the date of taking over by the Municipality (ULB) her services was treated against Matric WP(C) No.12963 of 2021 Page 5 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 29-Sep-2025 13:36:46 CT post and she was granted Matric CT scale of pay. Therefore, according to the Petitioner, said Snehalata Mohanty cannot be treated differently from her to get the benefit of higher scale of pay from an earlier date than the Petitioner. Said submission advanced on behalf of the Petitioner is not found convincing for the reason that the initial appointment of Snehalata Mohanty in TGT post is not disputed. When the school and her service were taken over by the urban local body the initial appointed post of Snehalata was never changed, and it is not the case of the Petitioner that despite her initial appointment to the TGT post, she was appointed against Matric CT post by the ULB while taking over the school in the year 1997. Therefore the benefit granted in favour of Snehalata as per the judgment of the tribunal was for the reason that her initial appointment in the post of trained graduate teacher was never disputed by the State – Opposite Parties nor the school authority. 9. At this juncture looking at Petitioner’s case, it is found that neither she was appointed in TGT post nor she has raised any claim to such post during her promotion effected from 27th September, 2014. The fact of promotion of the Petitioner from LSES cadre to Jr. SES cadre with effect from 27th September, 2014 as per the promotional order under Annexure- 20 is never questioned by the Petitioner who accepted her promotion to WP(C) No.12963 of 2021 Page 6 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 29-Sep-2025 13:36:46 Junior SES cadre with effect from 27th September, 2014. But to claim parity with Snehalata Mohanty the differentiating factor is the initial appointment of the Petitioner which is never disputed by any of the party. Thus the question of standing senior in the gradation list was never a consideration for the Opposite Parties to deny such benefit in favour of the Petitioner and therefore the placement in the gradation list between the Petitioner and Snehalata is immaterial for the purpose of consideration. 10. As stated earlier since the reason for which Snehalata was granted trained graduate scale of pay does not exist in favour of the present Petitioner, her claim to treat her with same benefits would be unjustified.
Arguments
: Mr. Jyotirmay Gupta, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. T.K. Dash, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 23rd September, 2025 B.P. Routray, J. 1. Heard Mr. J. Gupta, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. T.K. Dash, learned AGA for State – Opposite Parties. 2. The Petitioner, who is serving as TGT (Assistant Teacher in Municipal Girls’ High School, Thoriasahi, Cuttack) has prayed to allow her the TGT scale of pay with effect from 28th February, 2004 in place of WP(C) No.12963 of 2021 Page 1 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 29-Sep-2025 13:36:46 27th September, 2014 by quashing impugned orders under Annexure-9 and Anexure-13. 3. The facts of the case are that initially the Petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the Matric CT post in Municipal Girls’ High School, Thoriasahi, Cuttack vide order dated 3rd November, 1993 of the erstwhile Executive Officer of Cuttack Municipality, and she joined on 4th November, 1993. Subsequently all such schools functioning under the urban local body of H & UD Department including Petitioner’s school were taken over by the Government of Odisha in School and Mass Education Department vide resolution dated 28th February, 2004. The Petitioner continued getting Matric CT scale of pay till she was promoted to the cadre of Junior SES with effect from 27th September, 2014 and then used to get her salary in the trained graduate scale of pay from 27th September, 2014. 4. The Petitioner’s grievance is that one Snehalata Mohanty placed below in the gradation list to her was granted trained graduate scale of pay with effect from 28th February, 2004, i.e. from the date of taking over of her school and service by School and Mass Education Department though she was continuing in Matric CT scale of pay alike the Petitioner before taking over of her services. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the WP(C) No.12963 of 2021 Page 2 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 29-Sep-2025 13:36:46 Petitioner contends that present Petitioner, who is standing at the same footing with that Snehalata Mohanty should get the same benefit granted to her pursuant to the direction of learned Tribunal dated 27th August, 2015 passed in OA No.754 of 2011 and subsequently confirmed in WP(C) No.12243 of 2016 by this Court. 5. The State have filed their counter denying the claim of the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner never stood with similar footing with that of Snehalata Mohanty. It is submitted by Mr. Dash, learned AGA that present Petitioner was appointed in the Matric CT post and used to get the Matric CT scale of pay from the date of her joining till the school was taken over by School and Mass Education Department, whereas Snehalata Mohanty was initially appointed in a TGT post and was getting Matric CT scale of pay during her service under the ULB till taken over by the School and Mass Education Department on 28th February, 2004. So there being the difference, the Petitioner cannot claim same treatment as given to Snehalata Mohanty. 6. The facts as stated above that the Petitioner was initially appointed and joined in the Matric CT teacher post and continued to receive her salary in Matric CT Scale of pay till the school was taken over by School and Mass Education Department on 28th February, 2004 is admitted. At WP(C) No.12963 of 2021 Page 3 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 29-Sep-2025 13:36:46 the same time the initial appointment of Snehalata Mohanty in TGT post, but drawing her salary in Matric CT scale of pay under the ULB till 28th February, 2004, is also not disputed. The contention of the Petitioner to get trained graduate scale of pay with effect from 28th February, 2004 as given to Snehalata Mohanty is claimed on the principles of equity and equal treatment. 7. To claim equity and equal treatment on the ground of parity the principles are no more res itegra. In S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand, (2007) 8 SCC 279, it has been observed that; 28. In State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh [(2006) 9 SCC 321 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1804] discussing a large number of earlier decisions it was held by a three-Judge Bench of this Court that the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot apply unless there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups. Moreover, even for finding out whether there is complete and wholesale identity, the proper forum is an expert body and not the writ court, as this requires extensive evidence. A mechanical interpretation of the principle of equal pay for equal work creates great practical difficulties. Hence in recent decisions the Supreme Court has considerably watered down the principle of equal pay for equal work and this principle has hardly been ever applied in recent decisions. Xx .. xx .. xx .. .. 30. In State of U.P. v. Ministerial Karamchari Sangh [(1998) 1 SCC 422 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 287 : AIR 1998 SC 303] the Supreme Court observed that even if persons holding the same post are performing similar work but if the mode of recruitment, qualification, promotion, WP(C) No.12963 of 2021 Page 4 of 7 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 29-Sep-2025 13:36:46 etc. are different it would be sufficient for fixing different pay scale. Where the mode of recruitment, qualification and promotion are totally different in the two categories of posts, there cannot be any application of the principle of equal pay for equal work. Xx .. xx .. xx .. .. 32. In Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers v. Union of India [(1988) 3 SCC 91 : 1988 SCC (L&S) 673 : (1988) 7 ATC 591 : AIR 1988 SC 1291] this Court observed : (SCC p. 104, para 11) “11. In this case the differentiation has been sought to be justified in view of the nature and the types of the work done, that is, on intelligible basis. The same amount of physical work may entail different quality of work, some more sensitive, some requiring more tact, some less—it varies from nature and culture of employment. The problem about equal pay cannot always be translated into a mathematical formula.” Xx .. xx .. xx .. ..
Decision
Thus the writ petition is dismissed without finding any merit in favour of the Petitioner in support of her claim. Judge M.K. Panda/P.A ( B.P. Routray) WP(C) No.12963 of 2021 Page 7 of 7