Gauhati High Court
The All Assam Social Welfare ... vs The State Of Assam And 3 Ors on 20 January, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010021512015
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5634/2015
THE ALL ASSAM SOCIAL WELFARE STATISTICAL EMPLOYEES
ASSOCIATION and 2 ORS.
REGISTERED UNDER SOCIETY REGISTRATION ACT, XXI OF 1860, REGD.
OFFICE-HOUSE NO.4, NIRIBILI PATH, 4TH BYE LANE NORTH PANJABARI
RD., P.O. KHANAPARA, DIST. KAMRUP M, ASSAM. REP. BY THE G.S. OF
THE ASSOCIATION, SRI KAMAL KR. DAS, S/O. LT. GOLAP CH. DAS, R/O.
GANDHI BASTI, GHY-03, P.O. SILPUKHURI, DIST. KAMRUP M, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS
REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECY. TO TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM,
SOCIAL WELFARE DEPTT., DISPUR, GHY-06.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.R ISLAM, MS.R A MOSTAFI,MR.D DAS,MR I AHMED,MR.
N BARUA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, FINANCER3and4, MR. J.K. GOSWAMI, ADDL. SR. GA,
ASSAM,SC, SOCIAL WELFARE(R-1&2),
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
For the Petitioners : Shri I Ahmed, Advocate.
For the Respondents : Shri JK Goswami, Addl. Sr. Govt.
Advocate &
Shri R Borpujari, SC, Finance Deptt.
Page No.# 2/8
Date of Hearing : 20.01.2025.
Date of Judgment : 20.01.2025.
JUDGMENT & ORDER
Approach to this writ court has been made by an Association along with two
office bearers with the following reliefs:
"In the Premises aforesaid, it is therefore respectfully prayed that Your
Lordships may be pleased to admit this Petition, call for the records and issue a
Rule calling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why:-
A) a writ of or in the nature of Mandamus shall not be issued directing the
Respondents to constitute an Pay Anomaly Committee for a recommendation for
enhancement of Grade pay of the Statistical Assistants i.e the petitioners, who
are all Graduates with Mathematics, Statistics or Economics, working under the
Director of Social Welfare, Assam to Rs. 2800/- from Rs.2500/- w.e.f 1.1.2006
to 31.12.2010 and Rs. 3300/- from Rs. 3000/- w.e.f 1.1.2011. and
B) a writ of like nature shall not be issued directing the Respondents to make a
recommendation to enhance the Grade pay of the Statistical Assistants i.e. the
petitioners, who are all Graduates with Mathematics, Statistics or Economics,
working under the Director of Social Welfare, Assam to Rs. 2800/- from Rs.
2500/-w.e.f 1.1.2006 to 31.12.2010 and Rs 3300/- from Rs. 3000/-w.e.f
1.1.2011 and provide the petitioners with the Grade pay at par with the Science
Graduate teachers working in the ME/MEM/MV/Senior Basic Schools.
-AND-
Upon cause/s shown and after hearing the parties and perusing the records,
Page No.# 3/8
Your Lordships may be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or to pass such
further or other order/s as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.
-AND-
Pending disposal of the Rule, it shall not be a bar for the Respondents to
enhancement of Grade pay of the Statistical Assistants working under the
Director Social Welfare, Assam to Rs. 3300/- from Rs. 3000/- w.e.f 1,1.2011
onwards and/or to pass such further or other order/s as Your Lordships may
deem fit and proper."
2. The petitioner no. 1 is the All Assam Social Welfare Statistical Employees
Association and it has been averred that members of the petitioner no. 1-Association
were appointed as Statistical Assistants in the year 1996 and thereafter. The grievance
of the petitioners is with regard to fixation of the Grade Pay.
3. I have heard Shri I Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners. I have also
heard Shri JK Goswami, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate, Assam as well as Shri
R Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department, Assam.
4. Shri Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that initially the
members of the petitioner no.1-Association was given Grade Pay of Rs. 2,500/-
whereas their counterparts in the Education Department working as Statistical
Assistants were getting Grade Pay of Rs. 2,800/-. By contending that the duties which
were required to be performed by the members of the petitioners Association were
more strenuous, including field visits, representation was made for enhancement of
the Grade Pay which was accordingly enhanced and made at par at Rs.2,800/-.
Subsequently, on the recommendation of the 6 th Pay Commission whereas the Grade
Pay of Statistical Assistant working in the Education Department was enhanced to Rs.
Page No.# 4/8
3,300/-, those of the members of the petitioners Association were enhanced to Rs.
3,000/-.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that once the Grade Pay
was made at par at Rs. 2,800/-, there was no justification to deny the equal
enhancement to Rs. 3,300/-. He has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-5
which is an extract of the ROP Rules, 2010 pertaining to the Social Welfare
Department to demonstrate that they were getting Grade Pay of Rs. 3,000/-. He has
also drawn the attention of this Court to an extract of the report of the Pay Anomaly
Committee, 2010, more particularly, recommendation against the Sl. No. 44. He has
also submitted that representations were submitted in the year 2011 and 2015 and
only thereafter the instant writ petition has been filed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners accordingly submits that suitable
directions are required to be given for upgrading the Grade Pay of the petitioners
Association to Rs. 3,300/-.
7. Per contra, Shri Borpujari, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department has
submitted that the entire premise on which the present claim is based is fallacious. He
has also raised the issue of maintainability of the writ petition by contending that a
properly constituted Pay Anomaly Committee had looked into the grievance of all the
aggrieved persons before whom the petitioners Association did not approach. He has
submitted that after the Draft Report was submitted, objections were entertained by
the Pay Anomaly Committee. He has also submitted that reference to the Report of
the Pay Anomaly Committee will not come to the aid of the petitioners as the same
relates to a different segment of aggrieved employees whose grievance was
redressed.
Page No.# 5/8
8. As regards the submissions made relating to the nature of the duties, the
learned Standing Counsel has contended that the same would not be of much
relevance as the said issue should have been raised before the duly constituted Pay
Anomaly Committee. In any case, he contends that the averments in the writ petition
are also lacking and only certain vague submissions have been made. He has
submitted that in matters having financial implications, a writ court should be loath in
interfering and giving directions as those are matters within the domain of the
Executive and in this connection, he has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. Vs. Bihar Secondary Teachers
Struggle Committee, Munger & Ors., reported in (2019) 18 SCC 301. The learned
Standing Counsel has submitted that in paragraph 92 of the said judgment,
parameters have been laid down in matters of this nature and the case projected by
the petitioners would not fall within the said parameters.
9. Shri Goswami, learned Addl. Sr. Government Advocate, by endorsing the
submissions of the learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department has also opposed
the writ petition.
10. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials available on
records have also been carefully examined.
11. Though no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the contesting respondents,
this Court is required to examine the claims made in the writ petition from the
materials available before it.
12. There is no dispute that the members of the petitioners Association are
Statistical Assistants and as per the recommendation of the 6 th Pay Commission, they
Page No.# 6/8
were getting a Grade Pay of Rs.3,000/-. Though an extract of the report of the Pay
Anomaly Committee, 2010 has been taken recourse to, it does not appear at all that
the petitioners Association had approached the said Committee with any grievance. A
careful scrutiny of the part of the recommendation of the Pay Anomaly Committee,
2010 against the Sl. No. 44 would reveal that it was the grievance of the Statistical
Assistants working in the Assam Primary Education, Planning and Statistical Seva
Santha, who were Graduates in Mathematics, Statistics and Economics were
recommended to be given Grade Pay of Rs. 2,800/- which was allowed for Graduate
Teacher (Science) in ME/MV/Senior Basic Schools. The said recommendation cannot
be said to be connected with the present claim made by the petitioners who belong to
the Social Welfare Department and at no point of time, had raised any such
demand/claim. This Court has also carefully gone through the averments in the writ
petition and has not found any materials as to how a case of discrimination is made
out vis-a-vis the Statistical Assistants of the Education Department. The annexures
appended to the writ petition also do not reveal any such discrimination or give any
scope for comparison.
13. The Pay Anomaly Committee is constituted to examine any genuine grievance of
a set of employees and there is nothing in this writ petition which would reveal that
the petitioners had approached the Pay Anomaly Committee of the year 2010. Much
water has flown since then and thereafter the Pay Anomaly Committee, 2017 was
constituted and there is no material subsequently brought on record regarding raising
of any such grievance before the subsequent Pay Anomaly Committee. This Court has
also examined the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger & Ors. (supra) wherein a
caveat has been laid in matters of interference by Courts having financial implications.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court by referring to the earlier judgments in the said field has
laid down as follows:
Page No.# 7/8
"92. In S.C. Chandra v. State of Jharkhand [(2007) 8 SCC 279] Markandey
Katju, J. in his concurring opinion observed as under :
"33. It may be mentioned that granting pay scales is a purely
executive function and hence the court should not interfere with
the same. It may have a cascading effect creating all kinds of
problems for the Government and authorities. Hence, the court
should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in such executive
function vide Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Workmen
[(2007) 1 SCC 408].
***
35. In our opinion fixing pay scales by courts by applying the
principle of equal pay for equal work upsets the high constitutional
principle of separation of powers between the three organs of the
State. Realising this, this Court has in recent years avoided
applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, unless there is
complete and wholesale identity between the two groups (and
there too the matter should be sent for examination by an Expert
Committee appointed by the Government instead of the court itself
granting higher pay).
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 State of
W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy [(2004) 1 SCC 347].
37. Similarly, in State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat
Personal Staff Assn. [(2002) 6 SCC 72] the principle of equal pay
Page No.# 8/8
for equal work was considered in great detail. In paras 9 and 10 of
the said judgment the Supreme Court observed that equation of
posts and salary is a complex matter which should be left to an
expert body. The courts must realise that the job is both a difficult
and time consuming task which even experts having the assistance
of staff with requisite expertise have found it difficult to undertake.
Fixation of pay and determination of parity is a complex matter
which is for the executive to discharge. Granting of pay parity by
the court may result in a cascading effect and reaction which can
have adverse consequences vide Union of India v. Pradip Kumar
Dey [(2000) 8 SCC 580]."
14. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the view that the present is
not a fit case for interference.
15. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
