Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

52. We cannot be oblivious of the fact that the parties started litigating in the year 2002. The dispute had engendered out of a perceived pay anomaly. The State itself acknowledged that there was some disparity in the pay scales that needed to be rectified. Hence, it constituted the Rizvi Committee. That Committee made recommendations, which were broadly fair and just, as various means and measures were recommended to redress the grievances of employees like the Respondents. These measures included the merger of cadres, redesignation and upgradation of posts, the introduction of new pay scales, with an assurance that the redesignated posts would be on a pay scale higher than that of the feeder cadre. Even if these measures were not to the entire satisfaction of the Respondents, the fact remains that the anomalies stood removed.

i. The appeal is allowed in part. The Impugned Judgement of the Division Bench in its entirety and that of the Single Judge of the High Court in part, are set aside.

ii. The 2011 Order is approved in its entirety.

iii. The private Respondents and their colleagues in the same cadre (before and after the redesignation of their posts) are held entitled to the pay scale, strictly in accordance with the 2011 Order. The 9 Abbobaker v. Mahalakshmi Trading Co., (1998) 2 SCC 753.