Govt. Technical Employees Union For Blind vs The State of Tamilnadu

K. Chandru, J.—The Petitioner is a Government Technical Employees Union for Blind represented by its General Secretary. The Petitioner

earlier filed O.A. No. 2788 of 1999 before the Tribunal seeking for pay fixation in respect of the employees working in Braille Press. The Tribunal

without going into the merits of the case by an order dated 26.4.1999 directed the Respondent to consider the representation of the Petitioner

association. It was pursuant to the said direction only, by a communication dated 3.8.1999, the Respondent informed the Petitioner association

that their request for revision of scale of pay cannot be considered and in that order they have stated that the V Pay Commission granted a revision

of scale of pay of Rs. 1320-2040. Thereafter, One Man Committee went into the anomaly in the pay fixation and also the grievance projected and

gave a corresponding revision of scale of pay of Rs. 4300-6000 with effect from 1.1.1996. This was done on the principle of ""Scale of pay to

scale of pay"" basis. Further, the One Man Commission constituted to rectify the anomalies if any in the implementation of the revised scale of pay

also rejected the Petitioner''s request for higher scale of pay on the ground that there is no anomaly in the pay scales of these posts considering the

qualification, nature of duties, etc. The Petitioner association was also informed that the Proof Readers/Copy holders in Government Press and

High Court are having lower scale of pay when compared to the similar posts in the Social Welfare Department. Though the minimum educational

qualification required for all these posts is only a pass in SSLC, considering that the Petitioner''s request for higher scale of pay has been granted,

there was no justification for further revision. Challenging the same, the Petitioner association filed O.A. No. 7764 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu

Administrative Tribunal.

The Tribunal ordered Notice of Motion on 24.10.2000. Though the Respondents were served with notice, they have not yet filed any counter

affidavit. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as W.P. No. 40931 of 2006.

Mr. V. Ravikumar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner made three submissions that the persons who are involved in the Braille Press were doing

job of skilled work and they cannot be considered on par with the corresponding post in the Government Press. During the II Pay Commission,

the scale of pay was fixed similar to that of the scale of pay fixed on Graduate Assistant of Schools. During the III Pay Commission, it was fixed

below the scale of Secondary Grade Teacher. Therefore, continuously injustice has been meted out to the members of the Petitioner association.

As far as the peculiar nature of the Department, there are no further avenues of promotion in the Department and that was also not taken by the

authorities.

It must be noted that the pay fixation of a particular post is exclusively a function of the Government and for that purpose Pay Commissions are

constituted with experts on the field. In the present case, the Petitioner cannot make any grievance over the historical injustice caused because

before the V Pay Commission, there were other three Pay Commissions and the Petitioner should have made a grievance before the appropriate

Pay Commission and in the absence of their grievance being considered, they should have redressed their grievance before the appropriate forum.

On the contrary, subsequent to the recommendation of the V Pay Commission, One Man Committee was constituted for going into the anomalies

and the scale of pay was brought on par with the Secondary Grade Teachers also.

The present contention of the Petitioner that they are entitled for higher scale of pay was considered by the Government pursuant to the direction

of the Tribunal and the Government has given cogent reasons, namely entry level qualification for the post in the Petitioner Department is having the

same qualification as that of the Government Press and the Press in the High Court. Secondly, their comparison cannot be with the Education

Department, but only with the Press in the Stationery Department.

Even otherwise, the Supreme Court has held in S.C. Chandra and Others Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, , that in the matter of pay fixation,

the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot have any say and it is exclusively a function of the executive and it was also reminded by the

Supreme Court about the separation of powers and their need to function within the four corners of the powers assigned to each. In paragraphs 35

to 38, the Supreme Court held as follows:

In our opinion fixing pay scales by courts by applying the principle of equal pay for equal work upsets the high constitutional principle of

separation of powers between the three organs of the State. Realising this, this Court has in recent years avoided applying the principle of equal

pay for equal work, unless there is complete and wholesale identity between the two groups (and there too the matter should be sent for

examination by an Expert Committee appointed by the Government instead of the court itself granting higher pay).

It is well settled by the Supreme Court that only because the nature of work is the same, irrespective of educational qualification, mode of

appointment, experience and other relevant factors, the principle of equal pay for equal work cannot apply vide Govt. of W.B. v. Tarun K. Roy.

Similarly, in State of Haryana v. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Assn. the principle of equal pay for equal work was considered in

great detail. In paras 9 and 10 of the said judgment the Supreme Court observed that equation of posts and salary is a complex matter which

should be left to an expert body. The courts must realise that the job is both a difficult and time consuming task which even experts having the

assistance of staff with requisite expertise have found it difficult to undertake. Fixation of pay and determination of parity is a complex matter which

is for the executive to discharge. Granting of pay parity by the court may result in a cascading effect and reaction which can have adverse

consequences vide Union of India v. Pradip Kumar Dey.

In view of the above, I concur with the conclusion arrived at by my learned Brother Hon''ble A.K. Mathur, J. that the appeals preferred by the

Appellants deserve to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.

In the light of the above, no case is made out. Accordingly the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.