9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (3) TMI 376X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irst batch in this bunch of appeals is concerning the employees of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The main judgment under appeal relates to the cadre of Assistant Section Officers working in the High Court. Copyists and Assistants are the two feeder cadres to the post of Assist- ant Section Officer. Prior to 1974 copyists were in the pay scale of ₹ 70~130 and were entitled to additional payment at Re.7.5p. per every 100 words they copy in excess of 42,000 words. As a result of pay revision they were given the pay scale of ₹ 250-430 w.e.f. 1.1.1974 without entitle- ment of remuneration in addition to pay. The copyists repre- sented that in the revised pay scale, the additional emolu- ments which were being earned by them had not been taken into account. On the recommendation of the High Court the State Government agreed to fix the pay of the copyists in the revised pay scale by adding into their basic pay the average remuneration of ₹ 83.34 and the Dearness Allowance admissible thereon. The amount of ₹ 83.34 was taken as average remuneration which each of the copyist was earning prior to 1.1. 1974 in addition to the pay. The pre-revised pay scale of Assist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one D. Gopaliah, Upper Division Clerk who was junior to them. Service particulars of Gopaliah and one of the petitioners Krishnamurthy only need mention. Gopaliah joined as Lower Division Clerk in 1967 and was given Selection Grade in 1974. Family Planning Incentive Increment of ₹ 11 was added to his pay in 1977. He was promoted as Upper Division Clerk in 1979 but was reverted in 1981 as he could not pass the accounts test. He was given further increase in pay as a result of Government Order which provided higher pay to those Lower Division Clerks who completed 15 years service as such. In June, 1983 Gopaliah was drawing ₹ 811 as his basic pay in the cadre of Lower Division Clerks. He was again promoted as Upper Divi- sion Clerk in pay scale 575-950 on 1.7. 1983 and in that cadre his basic pay was fixed at ₹ 861. On the other hand, Krishnamurthy joined as Lower Division Clerk in 1970. He was promoted as Upper Division Clerk on 3rd of November, 1981 and ₹ 615 was fixed as his basic pay in that cadre. On 1st of July, 1983 Krishnamurthy was drawing ₹ 635 as his basic pay. It is under these circumstances that Gopaliah though junior to Krishnamurthy started ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et than his senior the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is violated and the senior is entitled to the same pay. Following its judg- ment the Tribunal allowed two connected petitions. Hence these appeals by the State of Andhra Pradesh. Civil Appeal No. 3 17 of 1988. This appeal also relates to Pay and Accounts Office. In this case the petitioners before the Tribunal were Lower Division Clerks senior to one P. Arunachala Prasad who was initially a typist but was promoted as Lower Division Clerk subsequent to the petitioners. Since he was drawing more pay as typist, on his promotion to the post of Lower Division Clerk his pay fixed was higher than the petitioners. The claim of the petitioners for same pay as paid to Arunachala Prasad was allowed. Civil Appeal Nos. 200 to 203 of 1988. These appeals relate to Animal Husbandry Department of the Andhra Pradesh Government. Some live stock assistants filed a petition before the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal claiming higher pay which was being drawn by their respective juniors in the same cadre. In the reply filed on behalf of State before the Tribunal it was explained that junior live stock assistants were senio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ishnamoorthy, Mr. A.S. Nambiar and Mr. Kanta Rao appearing for the respondents supported the judgments under appeals and contended that grant of higher pay to a junior in the same cadre, doing same work and shouldering same responsibilities, is per se discriminatory and viola- tive of the principle of equal pay for equal work. Our attention was invited to Rule 27 of the Fundamental Rules which permits the competent authority to grant pre-mature increment to a Government servant on a time-scale of pay. They further contended that juniors getting higher pay than a senior in the same cadre is an anomaly causing heart-burn which can be removed by directing the authorities to fix the seniors at par with the juniors by exercising power under Rule 27 of the Fundamental Rules. The factual basis in all these appeals is identical. The facts clearly show that in every case the pay-fixation of the junior was done under the Fundamental Rules and there were justifiable reasons for fixing the junior at a higher pay than his seniors in the cadre. It was not disputed that the said pay fixation was in confirmity with the Fundamental Rules. Neither before us nor before the courts below the validity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dg- ments of the High Court/Tribunal. In Federation of All India Customs & Central Excise Stenographers (Recognised) and others v. The Union of India and others, JT 1988 2 S.C. 5 19, Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. considered earlier judgments of this Court on the point and observed: "Equal pay for equal work is a fundamental right. But equal pay must depend upon the nature of the work done, it cannot be judged by the mere volume of work, there may be qualitative difference as regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference. One cannot deny that often the difference is a matter of degree and that there is an element of value judgment by those who are charged with the administration in fixing the scales of pay and other conditions of service. So long as such value judgment is made bona fide, reasonably on an intelligible criteria which has a rationale nexus with the object of differentiation such differentiation will not amount to discrimination. It is important to emphasise that equal pay for equal work is a concomitant of Article 14 of the Constitution. But it follows naturally that equal pay for unequal work will be a ne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
