TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1718X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f same pay scale to the petitioner on the ground that his appointment on the post of Member, Trade Tax Tribunal was made from amongst the Advocates quota is wholly unjust and unreasonable. There is no dispute to the fact that at the time of appointment of the petitioner as a Member, Trade Tax Tribunal, the pay scale of Member was ₹ 4500-5700 which was ultimately revised to ₹ 5900-6700. Once the pay scale given to the petitioner at the initial stage has been extended to all other members from different two quotas, then the denial of the same benefit to the petitioner is wholly unwarranted. Members of same cadre have right to get same scale of pay and the respondents have failed to established that the classification was based on some intelligible differentia having reasonable nexus with job requirement. There is a invidious discrimination - the impugned order dated 12.7.2001 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of same scale of pay which was admissible to the other members of the Trade Tax Tribunal, who were appointed from amongst the Addl. Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners of the Trade Tax Department is hereby quashed - Petition allowed. - SERVICE B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid the same scales of pay, which are being given to employees of the Central Government on the equivalent post. One Sri Mahesh Prasad along with some other members of the Trade Tax Tribunal, U.P., claimed the same scale of pay, which is available to members of the Sales Tax Tribunal in Delhi Administration. These persons have also filed their objections against the recommendation of the Pay Rationalization Committee, 1987. As no heed was paid by the State Government, therefore, said Sri Mahesh Prasad along with one Sri R.N. Pandey preferred writ petition No. 6531 of 1990 before this Court, which was disposed of finally vide judgment and order dated 15.7.1992, directing the opposite parties to pass just and proper orders on their representation within the specified period. Consequent to the aforesaid direction dated 15.7.1992, a committee under the Chairmanship of the Chief Secretary, U.P. Government was constituted, which considered the representation of the Shri Mahesh Prasad and Shri R.N. Pandey and the same was rejected vide order dated 9.11.1992. Feeling aggrieved, Sri Mahesh Prasad and some other members of the Sales Tax Tribunal again preferred writ petition No. 17 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... given discriminatory treatment in the matter of pay scale and privileges as there is no classification or difference between the Member, Trade Tax Tribunal appointed from amongst the Deputy Commissioner vis-a-vis from advocate quota. It has been emphatically asserted that the order of the State Government denying same scale of pay, which is being given to other members of the Tribunal selected from Trade Tax Department is against the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. The petitioner is subjected to huge financial loss on account of illegal and discriminatory treatment being meted out to him in not allowing the same scale of pay, which is being given to the other members appointed from amongst the Deputy Commissioners, Trade Tax Department. In contrast, learned Standing Counsel while defending the action of the State Government pointed out that there are three channels of recruitment to the post of Member, Trade Tax Tribunal:- 1) Departmental Officer of the Trade Tax Department working as Additional Commissioner, Grade I and Additional Commissioner, Grade II and Commissioner, Trade Tax 2) Judicial Members belonging to Higher Judicial Ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SCC 715: Prem Chand Somchand Shah V. Union of India,(1991) 2 SCC 48, 56. In State of U.P. and others Vs. J.P.Chaurasia and others (1989) 1 SCC 121 it was held as under:- 22. Equal pay for equal work for both men and women has been accepted as a constitutional goal capable of being achieved though constitutional remedies. In Randhir Singh V. Union of India Chinnappa Reddy,J. said : (See p.622, para 8 : SCR p. 304) It is true that the principle of ''equal pay for equal work' is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a constitutional goal. Article 39 (d) of the Constitution proclaims equal pay for equal work for both men and women as a Directive Principle of State Policy. ''Equal pay for equal work for both and women' means equal pay for equal work for everyone and as between the sexes. Directive Principles, as has been pointed out in some of the judgments of this Court have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation. Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the State not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ngst the citizens doing similar work in matters relating to pay. If two classes of employees perform identical or similar duties and carry out similar functions with the same measure of responsibility having almost same academic qualifications and method of selection they would be entitled to equal pay. If one set of employees is denied parity though the relevant considerations are same, the action of the State Government would be in violative of Article 14 16 and the Court, in that situation, has ample power to strike down the discrimination and grant relief to the aggrieved employees. Recently controversy with regard to disparity in the pay scale was considered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab Ors. Versus The Senior Vocational Staff Masters Association Ors. [decided on 18th August, 2017] and the court observed as under:- We are conscious of the fact that a differential scale on the basis of educational qualifications and the nature of duties is permissible. However, it is equally clear to us that if two categories of employees are treated as equal initially, they should continue to be so treated unless a different treatment is justified b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage, does not do so voluntarily. He does so, to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows, that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act, of paying less wages, as compared to others similarly situate, constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation. Coming to the controversy involved in the present case, it would not be out of place to mention that earlier a writ petition was filed captioned as Mahesh Prasad and others vs. State of U.P. and others, in which petitioners were the Members of the Trade Tax Tribunal,U.P constituted under Section 10 of the U.P.Trade Tax Act. They filed the Writ Petition No. 1762 (SB) of 1993 s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Member, Trade Tax Tribunal, the pay scale of Member was ₹ 4500-5700 which was ultimately revised to ₹ 5900-6700. Once the pay scale given to the petitioner at the initial stage has been extended to all other members from different two quotas, then the denial of the same benefit to the petitioner is wholly unwarranted. Members of same cadre have right to get same scale of pay and the respondents have failed to established that the classification was based on some intelligible differentia having reasonable nexus with job requirement. Having considered the material on record and the impugned order, we are of the view that there is a invidious discrimination. The guiding principle of the Article 14 is that all persons and things similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike both in respect of privileges conferred and liabilities imposed vide Satish Chandra V. Union of India, AIR 1953 SC 250 and Kamala Gaind (Smt.) V. State of Punjab, 1990 Supp SCC 800. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.7.2001 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of same scale of pay which was admissible to the other membe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
