Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. In Steel Authority of India Limited and Ors. Vs. Dibyendu Bhattacharya , reported in (2011) 11 SCC 122, the Apex Court was yet again examining the claims of parity of pay. The Apex Court held that parity of pay can be claimed by invoking the provisions of Article 14 arid 39(d) of the Constitution of India by establishing that the eligibility, mode of selection/recruitment, nature and quality of work and duties and effort, reliability, confidentiality, dexterity, functional need and responsibilities and status of both the posts are identical. The functions may be the same but the skills and responsibilities may be really and substantially different. Granting of parity in pay scales depends upon the comparative evaluation of job and equation of posts. The person claiming parity must plead necessary averments and prove that all things are equal between the posts concerned. Such a complex issue cannot be adjudicated by evaluating the affidavits filed by the parties. In other words, the equality clause can be invoked in the matter of pay scales only when there is wholesome/wholesale Page No.# 17/21 identity between the holders of two posts. The burden of establishing right and parity in employment is only on the person claiming such right. The Apex Court held that that it is not always impermissible to provide two different pay scales in the same cadre on the basis of selection of merit with due regard to experience and seniority. Non-uniformity would not in all events violate Article

Page No.# 18/21

16. Upon due consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and the law laid down by the Apex Court, it is clear that mere similarity in the nomenclature of the post does not ipso facto entitle the employee to claim for parity of pay scale. For a pay scale to be equivalent there must be a proper evaluation of the nature of work, responsibility, etc by the competent authority which in the facts of the case has not been shown to have been undertaken by the competent authority. There are instances where even where the nature and responsibility of 2 (two) posts are similar, even then, the parity in pay scale cannot be a granted as a matter of right unless the competent authority takes a decision in that regard.

17. The writ petitioner nowhere brings into comparison the nature of duties of a Record Keeper in the Industrial Tribunal and the duties of the Record Keeper in the establishment District and Sessions Judge. The person claiming parity must plead all necessary facts and support the claim of the parity of the posts. Such facts are not found to be pleaded in the present proceedings. The respondents have maintained that the similar nomenclatures of the posts are not sufficient to claim parity of pay scale and give the benefit to the petitioner.

20. Under such circumstances, although this Court does not find any ground to grant the prayer made by the petitioner in the present petition. However, in view of the pertinent question which is raised regarding the parity of pay scales in respect of 2 (two) posts having similar nomenclature under the 2 (two) different establishments both under the department of Law and Justice as well as the Administrative control of the High Court, the relief claimed by the petitioner required to be moulded and this Court therefore directs the respondents to adjudicate upon the representations preferred by the petitioner in respect of the claim of parity of pay scale and thereby pass a speaking order upon giving the opportunities to the petitioner. The respondent Judicial Department will therefore consider the claims raised by the writ petitioner and thereupon pass appropriate orders referring to the various provisions of the RoP as well as taking into consideration the notification dated 30.07.2012 issued by Page No.# 21/21 the Government of Assam and pass a speaking order. While disposing of the application, the competent authority will clearly indicate the scale of pay in which such benefits were conferred. If upon evaluation of the entire matter, the competent authorities are of the view that the pay scale in the post of Record Keeper in the Labour and Industrial Tribunal and in the establishment of District and Sessions Judge are to be treated as one and the same, then appropriate orders to that effect should be passed. If such an order is passed then the claim made by the petitioner is required to be entertained and all benefits that accrue to the petitioner should also be granted to her in terms of the Revision of Pay Scale with effect from 01.04.2003. The exercise as directed above should be conducted as expeditiously as possible but within the outer limit of 90 (ninety) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.