Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua of the Himachal Pradesh High Court reiterates that Equal pay has to be given for positions equally situated and for an equal value of work.
It cannot be given just because two positions lead to a common post after promotion and because at some point of time, they had similar pay scales. The equation of posts must be determined by various factors like eligibility criteria of the posts, etc.
Brief Facts:
In the current petition, the petitioner is claiming a higher pay scale of Rs. 13500-16800/- w.e.f. 02.08.2007 along with all consequential benefits. He has also prayed for quashing the minutes of the Service Committee Meeting whereby his claim for this pay scale was rejected.
The petitioner was appointed as a Chemist in the respondent’s corporation, then he was promoted to the post of Manager Production and then further to the post of Production Manager and was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 10025-15100/-. There were two feeder categories for promotion to the post of General Manager, one was the post of Production Manager and the other was the post of Chief Finance Officer. One person named R.D. Sublaik who was holding the post of Chief Finance Officer was granted a higher pay scale and the grievance of the petitioner was that on the analogy of the higher pay scale released towards R.D. Sublaik and since both the positions have been at the same pay scale till 01.08.2007, he deserved the increase in the pay scale as well.
This contention of the petitioner was rejected by the Service Committee of the respondent- Corporation, which is why the current writ petition has been preferred.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the posts of Production Manager and Chief Finance Officer were the feeder category posts for promotion to the post of General Manager. Both these positions were in the same pay scale of Rs. 10025 – 15100/-, whereas the promotional post of the general manager was at a higher pay scale. It is contended that if the pay scale of the post of Chief Financial Officer has been raised, then it was incumbent upon the respondents to have granted the same higher pay scale to the petitioner. Further, it is contended that the non-release of a higher pay scale towards a petitioner is an act of discrimination on the part of the respondents as both the petitioner’s post and the CFO’s post were parallel in the promotion channel to the post of General Manager.
Contentions of the Respondents:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondents denied the higher pay scale to the petitioner and submitted that the post of Production Manager and Chief Finance Officer was governed by a separate set of Recruitment and Promotion Rules and the petitioner cannot claim parity with the pay scale attached to the post of Chief Finance Officer. It was also submitted that the release of a higher pay scale for the CFO was withdrawn and was brought down w.e.f. 28.08.2010, hence from that state the claim of the petitioner does not survive.
Observations of the Court:
The Court concluded that the petitioner cannot be granted the relief prayed by him and the reasons for the same were noted. First, the observation of the court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. vs. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai was noted, where it was held that the doctrine of equal pay for equal work could only be invoked when the employees were similarly circumstanced in every way, the mere similarity of designation or similarity in quantum of work was not determinative of equality in the matter of pay scales. Further, it was also noted that the fixation of pay scales is a matter of policy, the Courts can interfere only in exceptional cases, where there is discrimination between two sets of employees appointed by the same authority in the same manner where the eligibility criteria are also the same and the duties are also identical in every aspect. Then the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (State of Uttarakhand vs. Sudhir Budakoti & Others was also referred to, where it was held that mere differential treatment on its own cannot be termed as an “anathema to Article 14 of the Constitution”. It was also held that when a classification is made on the recommendation made by a body of experts constituted for the purpose, Courts will have to be warier of entering into the said arena as its interference would amount to substituting its views, a process which is best avoided. Then the case of the Union of India v. Indian Navy Civilian Design Officers Association and another was noted where it was held that the doctrine “equal pay for equal work” is not an abstract doctrine. Equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. The equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the Executive and not of the Judiciary.
Accordingly, the facts of the current case were analyzed and it was noted that the post of Product Manager and Chief Finance Officer are two separate categories of posts in the respondent-Corporation and they are governed by a separate set of rules. And according to the rules, the eligibility criteria for both posts are different. Therefore, it was held that just because at one point in time, both these posts were in the same pay scale of Rs.10025-15100/- would not mean that these posts are required to be maintained in the same pay scale for all times to come.
The decision of the Court:
No merit was found in the claims of the petitioner and the petition was dismissed.
Case Title: Ramesh Chand Verma v. H.P. Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and others
Coram: Justice Jyotsna Reval Dua
Case No.: CWPOA No. 5455 of 2019
Advocate for the Appellants: Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Parav Sharma, Advocate
Advocates for the Respondent: None for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Mr. Rupinder Singh Thakur, and Mr. Navlesh Verma, Additional Advocates General with Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, for respondents No.3 and 4.
Mr. Manoj Kumar, Marketing Manager, and Ms. Asha Guleria, Legal Assistant
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
