Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Petitioners have submitted that till 01.01.2006, their pay scales were in parity with the scales granted to the Clerks as also the Junior Technicians. By virtue of 2012 Rules, the pay scale of Clerk was revised to Rs. 10300-34800 + Rs. 3200 as Grade Pay and the pay scale of Junior Technicians was revised by allowing them grade pay of Rs. 2400.

According to the petitioners, they have been discriminated. The classification drawn by the respondents is not reasonable and has no intelligible .

.

13. Equally settled is the proposition that the decision as to fixation of pay and its revision vis-a-vis various categories of its employees is exclusive domain of the government. These are the matters to be decided of by the experts and it is not for the Court to substitute its own opinion. Similarly in the cases of parity in pay scales rt on the basis of nature of duties and responsibilities, it has been repeatedly held that the expert job cannot be undertaken by the Court and in case of any challenge being made on the ground of disparity the burden of proof in establishing parity in pay scales and nature of duties as also responsibilities is on the person claiming such right.

(ii) The responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer holding a post, the extent of territorial or other charge held or .

responsibilities discharged;

(iii) The minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post; and

(iv) The salary of the post (vide Union of India and Another v.

P.K. Roy and Others.

23. The burden of proof in establishing parity in pay scales of and the nature of duties and responsibilities is on the person claiming such right. The person claiming parity must produce material before the court to prove that the nature of duties and functions are similar and that they are entitled to parity rt of pay scales. After referring to number of judgments and observing that it is the duty of an employee seeking parity of pay to prove and establish that he had been discriminated against, this Court, in SAIL, held as under:-

rt29. It has been reiterated in Jagjit Singh case (supra) that parity in pay, under the aforesaid principal of 'equal pay for equal work' cannot be claimed merely on the ground, that an earlier point of time, the subject post and the reference post were placed in the same pay scale. The principle 'equal pay for equal work' is applicable only when it is shown, that the incumbent of the subject post and the reference post discharge similar duties and responsibilities while claiming parity in pay scales under principle of 'equal pay for equal work' equation in the nature of duties is of paramount importance and there is no comparison between one set of employees in one organization and another set of employees in different organisations, there can be no question of equation of pay scale under this principle."