Delhi High Court
C.S.Gautam & Ors. vs National Termal Power ... on 18 November, 2013
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 7722/1999
% 18th November, 2013
C.S.GAUTAM & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: None.
VERSUS
NATIONAL TERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD. ...... Respondent
Through: Mr. S.K.Taneja, Sr. Adv. with Mr.
Puneet Taneja and Ms. Shweta,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. By this writ petition petitioners who were appointed as
Assistants (Accounts) seek a pay-scale payable to Accountants on the
principle of „equal pay for equal work‟. A reading of the writ petition shows
that the main and possibly the only ground pleaded is that work done by the
petitioners is the same as the work done by the Accountants and therefore
principle of „equal pay for equal work‟ applies.
2. The respondent has denied entitlement of the petitioners and
contended that whereas the petitioners were appointed in the workmen cadre
WPC 7722/1999 Page 1 of 5
at W-5 level, the post of Accountant (the post is stated to be actually of a
Junior Accountant) is a supervisory post. It is pleaded that qualifications for
appointment of an Assistant Accountant are different from a Junior
Accountant and therefore petitioners cannot invoke the principle of „equal
pay for equal work‟. The entire defence of the respondent is concisely given
in para-7 of the counter-affidavit and the same reads as under:-
"7. Para No.7 of the petition is not correct as stated. The pay
structure for a particular post is worked out on certain
established principles. It is wrong that there is no
provision for the post of Assistant (Accounts) in the
offices of the Corporation. It is further denied that the
accounting work is to be performed by an Accountant
only. The Assistant Grade III (Accounts) is a W-5
Workman cadre post which is provided in the
respondent/Corporation. It requires qualification of
B.Com (II Class) having age limit of 30 years with
experience in establishment, accounts, works accounting,
finalisation of accounts, budgeting, store accounting,
auditing etc. and services of this class of employees can
be utilized not only in Accounts but other Sections of the
Department, such as, Stores, Administration and
Establishment etc. Whereas the Junior Accountant‟s post
is of S-1 supervisory category post having age limit of 35
years having SAS(commercial/railways) or intermediate-
ICWA/CA and the services of this class of employees are
specialised for Accounts and they can also be utilized in
any section of Finance Department. It is apparent that
both the posts are a separate class and have different
induction level, age-limit, experience and qualifications
and different pay-scales for each post which is worked
out on established principles. That by doing some
identical work by two classes of employees and reporting
WPC 7722/1999 Page 2 of 5
by a particular employee to some senior officer cannot be
the criteria for holding that the two posts are equivalent
or similar. The hierarchy referred to in this para relates
to supervisory posts and not to the workman category of
posts which are quite distinct and different from the said
posts for which separate working has been made. In the
workman category of posts, hierarchy at present is from
W1 to W11 and previously it was from W1 to
W8."(underlining added)
3. For the application of the doctrine of „equal pay for equal
work‟, inter alia, three ingredients are required to be satisfied. First is that
qualifications for the two posts must be same or more or less similar,
secondly the scope of work and duties of the two posts are the same, and
thirdly, hierarchy of promotions is similar.
4. In the present case, as the counter-affidavit filed by the
respondent shows that qualifications for appointment to the post of Assistant
(Accounts) is different from that of an Accountant/Junior Accountant,
accordingly, the first ingredient is not satisfied. So far as the second
ingredient of same duties are concerned, in the counter-affidavit it is
clarified that the petitioners can be asked to work not only in the Finance
Department but also in other departments such as Stores, Administration and
Establishment, and where the Junior Accountant cannot be posted.
Therefore, even the scope of duties of the Assistant Accountant is different
than the Accountant/Junior Accountant. Even for the sake of argument if we
WPC 7722/1999 Page 3 of 5
take that the scope of the duties are same, however, once the qualifications
for the post are different, the doctrine of „equal pay for equal work‟ will not
come into play. It is relevant at this stage to note that petitioners claim
similar nature of duties by referring to a particular Annexure P-7 in the
rejoinder-affidavit, however, there is no Annexure P-7 which is annexed
with the rejoinder-affidavit and learned senior counsel for the respondent
also states that he has not been given any copy of the alleged Annexure P-7.
Therefore, it is doubtful as to if duties of the petitioners are identical with
that of an Accountant/Junior Accountant. So far as the third aspect of
hierarchy of promotions is concerned, the writ petition is absolutely silent on
this aspect. Learned senior counsel for the respondent has clarified before
this Court that there is a totally separate cadre and promotions hierarchy so
far as the Assistant Accountants are concerned and as stated in para 7 of the
counter affidavit reproduced above. It is further clarified that petitioners
have during the pendency of the petition in fact received the higher
promotions in their own cadre which is different from the cadre of an
Accountant/Junior Accountant.
5. There is therefore no merit in the writ petition and petitioners
cannot claim the higher pay-scale of Accountant/Junior Accountant. The
WPC 7722/1999 Page 4 of 5
writ petition is accordingly dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own
costs.
NOVEMBER 18, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
