The Singareni Collieries ... vs D.Gyaneshwar
2022 Latest Caselaw 652 Tel

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 652 Tel
Judgement Date : 15 February, 2022

Telangana High Court

The Singareni Collieries ... vs D.Gyaneshwar on 15 February, 2022

Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, Abhinand Kumar Shavili

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                    AND
     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI



                  WRIT APPEAL No.692 of 2009

JUDGMENT:    (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)


     Learned counsel for the parties have fairly stated before

this Court that the controversy involved in the present case

stands concluded on account of the judgment delivered in an

identical case i.e., W.A.No.1781 of 2008 on 29.12.2021.

     The judgment delivered in W.A.No.1781 of 2008 is

reproduced as under:-

           "The present writ appeal is arising out of order dated
     06.06.2007 passed in W.P.No.11096 of 1998 by the learned
     Single Judge.
           The undisputed facts of the case reveal that four
     employees of Singareni Colleries Company Limited came up
     before this Court by filing a writ petition in respect of
     fixation of their pay, as their juniors, who are respondent

Nos.3 and 4 in the writ petition, were drawing more pay than them.

During the pendency of the writ petition, petitioner No.1 took voluntary retirement and petitioner Nos.2 to 4 were left and therefore, their cases were considered by the learned Single Judge. The undisputed facts of the case makes it very clear that petitioner No.2 joined the respondent/company on 03.10.1979 as Motor Mechanic Grade-IV and he was promoted as Motor Mechanic Grade-V on 01.01.1982 and further as Motor Mechanic Grade-VI on 01.04.1991. Petitioner No.3 joined the services of the company on 01.12.1981 as Motor Mechanic Grade-IV and was promoted as Motor Mechanic Grade-V on 01.01.1982 and further as Motor Mechanic Grade-VI on 01.04.1991. Petitioner No.4 joined the services of the company on 04.12.1982 as Tractor Mechanic Grade-IV and was

promoted as Tractor Mechanic Grade-V on 01.03.1983 and further as a Tractor Mechanic Grade-VI on 16.09.1992.

The disputed facts reveal that respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the writ petition were appointed as apprentices under petitioner No.1 and they have joined the services in the year 1981 and 1982 respectively. The facts also reveal that as per the 1987 wage agreement, the General Manager, Singareni Colleries Company Limited/appellant No.2 in the writ appeal has fixed the petitioners' pay scale at Rs.115.48 and that of respondent Nos.3 and 4 at Rs.118.90 and in those circumstances, the juniors are drawing more pay than seniors. It is certainly undisputed fact that the writ petitioners No.2 and 3 were much senior to respondent Nos.3 and 4 and in those circumstances, the learned Single Judge has allowed stepping up of pay of the writ petitioners No.2 and 3. The operative paragraphs of the order passed by the learned Single Judge are as under:

"The only justification urged on behalf of the respondents for differential wage fixation of the petitioners and the respondents 3 and 4 inter se is that the fixation was done under the National Coal Wage Agreement No.V whereunder the basic pay of the petitioners was fixed at Rs.94.12 and the basic pay of the respondents 3 and 4 at Rs.97.66, on 1.3.1992. With regard to the 4th petitioner, it is stated that he does not belong to the stream of Motor Mechanic, but is a Tractor Mechanic. In any event the 4th petitioner was promoted to Category- V in the Tractor Mechanic stream on 1.7.1993 i.e., after the respondents 3 and 4 were promoted on 1.4.1982 to Category-V. The 4th petitioner is therefore junior to the respondents 2 to 4 in the cadre of Tractor Mechanic/Motor Mechanic Category-V.

In so far as petitioners 2 and 3 are concerned, even on the basis of the facts stated in the counter affidavit it is clear that they were promoted as Motor Mechanic Grade-V on 1.1.1982 as against such promotion of the respondents 3 and 4 on 1.4.1982. These petitioners are therefore seniors to respondents 3 and 4 in the category of Motor Mechanic-V. On application of principles of equal pay for equal work and in identical designation, which is an emanation of the equality injunctions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, petitioners 2 and 3 are entitled to pay on par with respondents 3 and 4. There is nothing in the counter affidavit which sets out a justification for dissimilar treatment between petitioners 2 and 3 and respondents 3 and 4. It is a settled principle of the equality doctrine that mini classifications based on micro distinctions are an antithetical to equality. Clear and straight forward distinctions having a rational nexus with the object

sought to be achieved can alone stand the test of Art.14.

From the averments in the counter affidavit no justification is discernable for fixing the pay of the petitioners 2 and 3 lower to pay fixed for respondents 3 and 4 in the category of Motor Mechanic Grade-V. These petitioners are therefore entitled to the relief.

Accordingly the writ petition is allowed in so far as the 2nd and 3rd petitioners are concerned. The respondents are directed to fix the pay of the petitioners 2 and 3 on par with respondents 3 and 4 in the category of Motor Mechanic Grade-V w.e.f. the date on which the respondents 3 and 4 were given such higher pay fixation benefit, with all consequential and incidental benefits as to arrears on such refixation and in their further career prospects.

The writ petition is dismissed in so far as petitioners 1 and 4 are concerned."

In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned Single Judge was justified in granting stepping up of pay in favour of writ petitioner Nos.2 and 3 (respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the writ appeal) at par with respondent Nos.3 and 4 in the writ appeal in the category of Motor Mechanic Grade-V from the date they have given higher pay scale in the cadre of Motor Mechanic Grade-V. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The other important aspect of the case is that all the respondents/writ petitioners have attained the age of superannuation long back and they are no longer in service. The appellants are granted three months time to implement the order passed by the learned Single Judge.