Ravindra Chandrakant Indulkar vs State Of Maharashtra And 2 Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 3697 Bom

Rane                                  * 1/10 *             WP-426-2017
                                                          28 June, 2017


  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

           ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                WRIT PETITION NO. 426 OF 2017



Ravindra Chandrakant Indulkar,
Aged : 46 years, Indian Inhabitant of
Thane, Residing at : Room No.29,
Koushik, Shree Nagar, Thane West,
Thane-400 604.                                   .....Petitioner


       V/s.


1. State of Maharashtra
(Through Ministry of Education)
Having its office at :
Higher 7 Technical Education Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032.

2. The Principal Secretary Finance Department,
Government of Maharashtra,
Having Office at : Mantralaya,
Mumbai-400 032.

3. The Directorate of Technical Education,
Directorate of Technical Education,
M.S. Mumbai, having Office at :
3, Mahapalika Marg, Post Box No.1967,
Mumbai-400 001.                            ......Respondents




       ::: Uploaded on - 18/08/2017              ::: Downloaded on - 28/08/2017 08:13:56 :::
 Rane                                  * 2/10 *                  WP-426-2017
                                                               28 June, 2017


                                 *****

Mr. Shailesh K. More, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. A.L. Patki, Advocate for the respondents.



                         CORAM :- SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, &

                                      SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.

DATED : 28TH JUNE, 2017.

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per :- SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) :

1. The petitioner is one of the applicants who had filed

Original Application No.1122 of 2012 before the

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai seeking

parity in wages with Craftsman Instructors in other trades

especially Printing Technology working in Government

Polytechnics. The petitioner is working at Government

Polytechnics (Government Leather Working School),

Kherwadi, Mumbai as "Craftsman Instructor" (subject post)

(Footwear and Leather Goods Technology) since 1988. The

following courses were being run at the Government Leather

Rane * 3/10 * WP-426-2017 28 June, 2017

Working School;

(a) Diploma in Advanced Leather Goods and Footwear

Manufacturing (two years duration),

AND

(b) Certificate course in Artisan course (two years

duration).

Accordingly, post of Craftsman Instructor, besides,

Assistant Superintendent, was created to teach the above

courses. It appears for the subject post, there was no

requirement of passing Diploma in Leather Technology,

however, petitioner holds a Diploma in Advance Leather

Goods and Footwear Manufacturing, which at the given

point of time was of two years' duration. It is the petitioner's

case that, vide G.R. dated 8th December, 1988, all Diploma

Courses were transferred to Directorate of Technical

Education and Certificate Courses to Directorate of

Vocational Education and resultantly the examination of the

Diploma in Leather Technology was started to be conducted

by Board of Technical Education. The petitioner would

Rane * 4/10 * WP-426-2017 28 June, 2017

contend that, once the Diploma Course in Leather

Technology was transferred to Directorate of Technical

Education, who runs Government Polytechnics, the post of

Craftsman Instructor in Leather Technology and other

disciplines should have been treated at par. The petitioner

would contend, after the Sixth Pay Commission, Printing

Instructors in Government Institute of Printing Technology

are getting pay in the pay-band i.e. to Rs.9,300-34,800 with

grade-pay of Rs.4,300, whereas, the petitioner is getting pay

in the grade-pay of Rs.5,200-20,200 plus grade pay of

Rs.2,400/-. The petitioner would contend that, nature of

duties attached to subject post and Craftsman Instructor in

Printing Technology are broadly similar. He would submit

that, if the State has failed to notify the recruitment rules

for the post of Craftsman Instructor in Leather Technology

as are notified in case of Craftsman Instructor in Printing

Technology, the petitioner cannot be blamed or punished for

the same.

 Rane                                  * 5/10 *             WP-426-2017
                                                          28 June, 2017

2. The respondent, State resisted the petitioner's claim

contending that, the Diploma in Leather Technology held by

the petitioner is Certificate Course and not a Diploma in

Engineering. The State would say that, the so called

Diploma held by the petitioner was of two years duration,

whereas, for the post of Craftsman Instructor in Printing

Technology, requirement is Diploma of three years duration.

The State further contended that, duties and responsibilities

of the two posts are different and as such the petitioner is

not entitled to claim pay parity in the scale as claimed by

him. In other words, the State contended that, there is no

violation of principle of equal pay or equal work.

3. The Tribunal held, (i) that the petitioner's could not

prove that the Diploma held by him is a Diploma in

Engineering as held by his counterparts in Printing

Technology, (ii) that there was a Diploma Course in Leather

Technology of three years in Maharashtra since 1962 and

therefore the Diploma held by the petitioner is not

Rane * 6/10 * WP-426-2017 28 June, 2017

equivalent to Diploma in Leather Technology of three years

duration. The Tribunal, further held that, petitioner/

applicant holds, "Certificate Course". It held, a School

(Government Leather Working School) cannot grant

Advanced Diploma, which is issued by Polytechnics and as

such concluded that, Diploma held by the petitioner was

actually a Certificate Course.

4. The Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner,

would submit that, the Tribunal has not recorded a finding

as regard to the nature of duties, the petitioner and his

counterparts discharge in their respective faculties, which

is imperative for answering petitioner's claim. He would

submit that, parity of pay can be claimed by establishing,

that the eligibility, mode of selection/recruitment, nature

and quality of work and duties, functional needs,

responsibilities and status of both the posts are broadly

similar. He relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the

Case of Steel Authority of India Limited and Others.

 Rane                                   * 7/10 *                    WP-426-2017
                                                                  28 June, 2017

V/s. Dibyendu Bhattacharya, (2011) 11 S.C.C. 122

and submitted that the equality clause can be invoked in

respect of the pay scales only when there is

wholesome/wholesale identity between the holders of two

posts. He would submit, Tribunal has not considered and

factually evaluated, parameters/factors as laid down by

Apex Court while deciding issue of pay-parity. He would

therefore submit, let Tribunal decide his claim of pay-parity

afresh in view of law laid down by the Apex Court.

6. In the case in hand, the petitioner has pleaded in

his O.A. that the duties and responsibilities of the Craftsman

Instructor (Footwear & Leather Goods Technology) are

broadly similar to the Craftsman Instructors in Printing

Technology. In paragraphs-16, 17 and 19 of Original

Application, petitioner-applicant has pleaded the duties,

responsibilities, qualification of both the posts. Moreover, a

comparative chart compiled by the Principal of erstwhile

Government Institute of Leather Technology in respect of

Rane * 8/10 * WP-426-2017 28 June, 2017

these two posts was placed on record at Exhibit-J to OA.

Petitioner-applicant has also urged that, apart from the

duties, responsibilities and qualifications being similar with

counterparts, they share a common nomenclature.

6. We have gone through the original application

filed by the petitioner, reply filed by the State, rejoinder and

sur-rejoinder filed before the Tribunal, as well as, the

judgment and order of the Tribunal. In the case of Steel

Authority of India Limited and Others (supra), it has been

observed as under :-

"30. In view of the above, the law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that parity of pay can be claimed by invoking the provisions of Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India by establishing that the eligibility, mode of selection/recruitment, nature and quality of work and duties and effort, reliability, confidentiality, dexterity, functional need and responsibilities and status of both the posts are identical. The functions may be the same but the skills and responsibilities may be really and substantially different. The other post may not require any higher qualification, seniority or other like factors. Granting parity in pay scales depends upon the comparative evaluation of job and equation of posts. The person claiming parity, must plead necessary averments

Rane * 9/10 * WP-426-2017 28 June, 2017

and prove that all things are equal between the posts concerned. Such a complex issue cannot be adjudicated by evaluating the affidavits filed by the parties."

. Thus, it was held that, before granting the pay parity

and/or answering the claim for the pay parity, what is to be

examined is wholesome/wholesale identity between holders

of two posts and the burden of establishing such identity lies

on the person who claims the said right.

7. Herein, petitioner's claim was overturned, only on

the ground that, Diploma he holds, is not a Diploma in

Engineering being issued by Government Leather Working

School and as such it is Certificate Course. On this premise,

his claim for pay-parity has not been accepted. It is however

noticeable that, Tribunal has not examined as to whether

there is wholesome identity between the post of Craftsman

Instructor (Footwear and Leather Goods Technology) and

Craftsman Instructor (Printing Technology), in respect of

duties, responsibilities, qualifications and such other factors.

 Rane                                  * 10/10 *                 WP-426-2017
                                                               28 June, 2017


   .         In view of this fact and in the light of the law laid

down by the Apex Court, we think it would be

expedient in the interest of justice, if the Tribunal

decides the 'issue' of "Pay-Parity" raised in the subject

O.A. afresh on its own merits and in accordance with

law, as expeditiously as possible. Resultantly, order

dated 27th September, 2016 passed by the

Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original

Application No. 1122 of 2012 is quashed and set aside

and the Tribunal is directed to decide the petitioner's

claim for "PAY-PARITY" afresh in accordance with

law. Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J)