TMI Blog2003 (11) TMI 585X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c ₹ 200-250 Sub-Assistant Engineer ₹ 305-600 It is not in dispute that by reason of statutory rules the minimum qualification required for recruitment for the said two posts were laid down as under: operator-cum-Mechanic (a) Pass in School Final Examination or its equivalent; (b) Pass in Certificate course in the trade of internal compustion engine from ITI or Technical School recognized by the Government. Sub- Assistant Engineer (a) Pass in School Final Examination or its equivalent; (b) Pass in Diploma Course in Engineering from any Government Polytechnic The Government of West Bengal framed The west Bengal Service (Revision of Pay Allowances) Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the 'ROPA Rules') whereby whereunder the pay scale for the post of operator-cum-Mechanic was initially prescribed as ₹ 180-350 which was subsequently revised to ₹ 230-425 with effect from 1st April, 1970. The pay-scale for the post of Sub-Assistant Engineer, however, was prescribed at ₹ 300-600 with higher initial start at ₹ 330 with effect from the same date. By a notification No. 10303 F dated 19th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Engineer is not at all a promotional post for any categories of employees in the State, on the contrary, it is a direct recruitment post. It is not contested that 17 other employees similarly placed as the respondents herein were given the benefits of the said amended notifications and were conferred both status of Sub-Assistant Engineers and also the pay scale thereof for the reason that they were also diploma holder Engineers though they were not in the pay scale of ₹ 300-600. This is a concurrent finding that these respondents have been discriminated and the State Government had acted arbitrarily without any rational basis by conferring benefits of the notification to 17 other employees in other departments while denying the said benefits to the said respondents in the Agriculture Department. [Emphasis Supplied] Another group of Operators-cum-Mechanic who did not possess diploma in engineering and were mere graduates or holding School Final Examination filed a writ petition which was marked as matter No. 2564 of 1988 (Nemai Chand Ghosh and Ors. v. State of West Bengal and Ors.,) claiming the higher pay-scale of ₹ 300 ₹ 600 with higher initial start at &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the facets of the right of equality before law and equal protection of law as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Since such Operator-cum-Mechanics who were not having Diploma or Degree in Engineering and who were otherwise qualified to be appointed as operator-cum-Mechanics, got the relief as aforementioned, the persons who were in the same category and were left-out moved the court and the Learned Single Judge has granted them the same relief as others pursuant to the order of the court in C.R. No. 9167 (W) of 1980. There is some attempt made before us that the order passed by the Ld. Single Judge in the contempt petition is enough for the appellants herein to revert the petitioners C.R. No.l967(W)/1980. This, however, in our opinion, will not be possible unless the judgment in the said case is reversed. In the absence of any appeal, the said judgment has become final. A view contrary to the view in CR 9167(W)/ 1980, in the instant proceeding, shall place the petitioners in the instant proceeding at disadvantage as a class apart from others similarity/similarly situated who were/are petitioners in C.R. 9167(W)/ 1980. SUBMISSIONS: Mr. Bhaskar Gupt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... qualification or irrespective of their source of recruitment or other relevant considerations the said doctrine would be automatically applied. The holders of a higher educational qualification can be treated as a separate class. Such classification, it is trite, is reasonable. Employees performing the similar job but having different educational qualification can, thus, be treated differently. In State of Jammu Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa and Ors., AIR (1974) SC 1, this Court held: Educational qualifications have been recognized by this Court as a safe criterion for determining the validity of classification. The Post of Operator-cum-Mechanic and Sub-Assistant Engineers are technical posts. As noticed hereinbefore, whereas for the posts of Operator-cum- Mechanic the qualification of school final examination and a certificate obtained from the Industrial Training Institute would be sufficient; for the posts of Sub-Assistant Engineer the person must have a diploma from a polytechnic apart from being a matriculate. It is also not in dispute that such qualification was prescribed as far back as in the year 1971 and the respondents herein were appointed thereafter. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s regards the nature of work, responsibilities attached to the respondent without comparing to the regularly recruited Junior Assistants. It cannot be disputed that there was neither necessary averments in the writ petition nor any material was placed before the High Court so as to consider the application of principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. This Court further noticed: ......In the absence of material relating to other comparable employees as to the qualifications, method of recruitment, degree of skill, experience involved in performance of job, training required, responsibilities undertaken and other facilities in addition to pay scales, the learned Single Judge was right when he stated in the order that in the absence of such material it was not possible to grant relief to the respondent. Before giving such direction, the High Court also did not keep in mind as to what would be its implications and impact on the other employees working in the appellant-University. From the averments made in the writ petition extracted above, it is clear that no details were given and no material was placed before the High Court for comparison in order to apply the prin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ench of the Calcutta High Court manifestly erred in refusing to consider the contentions of the appellant on their own merit, particularly, when the question as regard difference in the grant of scale of pay on the ground of different educational qualification stands concluded by a judgment of this Court in Debdas Kumar (supra). If the judgment of Debdas Kumar (supra) is to be followed a finding of fact was required to be arrived at that they are similarly situated to the case of Debdas Kumar (supra) which in turn would mean that they are also holders of diploma in engineering. They admittedly being not, the contention of the appellant could not be rejected. Non- filing of an appeal, in any event, would not be a ground for refusing to consider a matter on its own merits. (See State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, [1995] 4 SCC 683). In State of Bihar and Ors. v. Ramdeo Yadav and Ors., [1996] 3 SCC 493, wherein this court noticed Debdas Kumar (supra) holding: Shri B.B. Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that though an appeal against the earlier order of the High Court has not been filed, since larger public interest is involved in the interpretation given by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law. The respondents furthermore even are not entitled to any relief on the ground of gross delay and latches on their part in filing the writ petition. The first two writ petitions were filed in the year 1976 wherein the respondents herein approached the High Court in 1992. In between 1976 and 1992 not only two writ petitions had been decided. But one way or the other, even the matter had been considered by this Court in Debdas Kumar (supra). The plea of delay, which Mr. Krishnamani states, should be a ground for denying the relief to the other persons similarly situated would operate against the respondents. Furthermore, the other employees not being before this Court although they are ventilating their grievances before appropriate courts of law no order should be passed which would prejudice their cause. In such a situation, we are not prepared to make any observation only for the purpose of grant of some relief to the respondents to which they are not legally entitled to so as to deprive others therefrom who may be found to be entitled thereto by a court of law. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
