Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat And Anr. vs Natwarlal Babaldas Patel on 3 March, 1993
Equivalent citations: (1994)ILLJ1010GUJ
JUDGMENT S. Nainar Sundaram, C.J.
1. In the Letters Patent Appeal, the order of the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 878 of 1984 is being put in issue. The respondents in the Special Civil Application have preferred this Letters of Patent Appeal. The petitioner in the Special Civil Application is the respondent herein. For the sake of convenience, we are referring to the parties as per their array in the Special Civil Application.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Librarian and he was posted as Librarian at D. K. V. College, Jamnagar. The proceedings in this behalf are dated December 7, 1970. On March 16, 1971, the petitioner was posted as Librarian at R. G. T. College, Porbandar. On January 21, 1972, the petitioner was posted as Librarian, A. M. P. College, Rajkot. Earlier, the pay scale for the Librarian was Rs. 425-700/-. However, by Government Resolution dated October 6, 1979, there was a revision of the pay scale of Librarian from Rs. 425-700/- to Rs. 550-900/-. The revision of pay scale was made effective from January 1, 1973. The petitioner was denied the benefit of the revision of the pay scale from January 1, 1973 to July 30, 1980, during which period, he was working in District Library. The petitioner approached this Court, impugning the decision denying the benefit of the revision of pay scale for the above period.
3. The learned single Judge, who dealt with the Special Civil Application, adverted to the fact that there was no reply filed on behalf of the respondents controverting the case of the petitioner, when he coveted the benefit of the revision of the pay scale. The learned single Judge accepted two significant factual features for the purpose of according reliefs to the petitioner. One is, that the post of Librarian in the College and the post of Librarian in a District Library are equivalent and are inter-transferable, and the second is, that the duties of both the posts are similar and identical. Thus, finding a warrant for applying the principle of "equal pay for equal work", the learned single Judge allowed the Special Civil Application and directed the respondents to grant the petitioner the benefit of the revised pay scale for the period in question.
4. Miss Rekha M. Doshit, learned Counsel for the respondent/appellants herein, would submit that the Government Resolution dated October 6, 1979, whereunder there had been a revision of the pay scale, is applicable only to the post of a Librarian in Colleges, effective from January 1, 1973, and during the relevant period, the petitioner was not functioning in the post of a Librarian in a college. In answer, Mr. D. G. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner/respondent herein, would submit that there has been ambiguity in the mind of the respondents with reference to similarity of duties, functions and responsibilities, when an incumbent in the post of a Librarian functions either in colleges or in District Libraries and the respondents had given postings to the petitioner without making any distinction between the posts either in District Library or in the colleges. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would submit that the facts of the case eminently warrant the application of the principle "equal pay for equal work".
5. When we assess the proceedings relatable to the appointments and postings of the petitioner in different stations, we find what the learned Counsel for the petitioner urges is tenable and requires acceptance. The petitioner was appointed as a Librarian on December 7, 1970 and was initially posted as Librarian in D. K. V. College, Jamnagar. On March 16, 1971, the petitioner was posted as Librarian, R. G. T. College, Porbandar. On January 21, 1972, the petitioner was appointed as Librarian, District Library, Rajkot. On July 24, 1980, the petitioner was appointed as Librarian, A. M. P. College, Rajkot. There had been no distinction, which had entered into the mind of the respondents with reference to the nature of functioning of the petitioner as a Librarian, on the ground of postings given in various stations. Without any distinction, the petitioner had been posted as Librarian either at colleges or at District Library and discharging similar duties, functions, and responsibilities. The respondents never conceived of any distinction in the discharge of duties, functions and responsibilities at any point of time on the basis of the postings given to the petitioner. The respondents had also been obviously guided by interchangeability and intertransferability, while giving postings to the petitioner. The Government Resolution dated October 6, 1979 primarily refers to the need to revise the pay scale of a Librarian. We are not able to spell out that the intention of the Government Resolution was to give the benefit of the revised pay scale only to those Librarians working in colleges. If that was the case of the respondents, that was not at all advanced by filing any reply in the case. Obviously, such a stand would not stand the scrutiny of the Court, the reason being that the Court cannot deny equal pay for equal work, where there is an irrational classification as amongst persons doing identical work under the same employer. The features taken note of by the learned single Judge are portent on the subject and they do justify the application of the principle "equal pay for equal work", which doctrine of equality is enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In this connection, we are bound to take note of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Pramod Bhartiya & Ors. 1992 II CLR 942, a pronouncement cited by Mr. D. G. Chauhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner wherein for the application of the principle of "equal pay for equal work", the Court is called upon to keep in mind as more important and crucial the aspect of discharge of similar duties, functions and responsibilities. In our view, this testis amply satisfied in the present case and we are not able to appreciate and sustain the projection of a classification sought to be based on the Government Resolution, as done before us for the first time. We can only call this theory as totally irrational and militating against the solemn principle of "equal pay for equal work", the application of which, in our view, is a must to the facts of the present case. This being our conviction, we dismiss this Letters Patent Appeal, making no order as to costs.
6. Now, we have dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal, the interim relief accorded in Civil Application No. 928 of 1988 will stand vacated and the rule issued therein will stand vacated and as per the order of the learned single Judge in the Special Civil Application, the benefit shall be worked out by the respondents and disbursed to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the writ of this Court.