AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.K. Misra, J.—The facts in brief are as follows:
The present Respondent No. 2 is working as ""Sheet Metal Maker"" in the Jawaharlal Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research,
Pondicherry (hereinafter referred to as JIPMER). Such post is a Group ""D"" post having a pay scale of Rs. 800-15-1010-EB-20-1150. The
qualification required is passed in 8th Standard with certificate in the relevant field from a recognized institution. The applicant Respondent No. 2
is, however, a matriculate having Diploma in Refrigeration and Air Conditioning from Indian Technical Institute, Bombay. He also obtained a
Machinist Trade Certificate from the Government Industrial Training Institute, Madras. The grievance of the applicant before the Administrative
Tribunal was to the effect that in Safdarjung Hospital in Delhi, person holding the post of Sheet Metal Worker, which is a Group-C post, has a
higher pay scale of Rs. 1150-1500. According to him, the duties of a Sheet Metal Worker in Safdarjung Hospital in Delhi, which is also an
Institute under the Central government, being similar to the work done by the applicant, similar pay scale should be made applicable to both of
them. The Advocate notice issued on behalf of the applicant Respondent No. 2 having been rejected by order dated 21.4.2005, prayer was made
for quashing such order and for directing the respondents petitioners to consider reclassification of the post of Sheet Metal Maker at JIPMER from
Group ""D"" to Group ""C"" at par with the post of Metal Worker at Safdarjung Hospital.
Before the Tribunal, a reply was filed by the present petitioner No. 3, who was Respondent No. 3 in O.A. No. 711 of 2006. In such reply it
was contended that the post of Sheet Metal Maker in JIPMER was a Group ""D"" post with a pay scale of Rs. 800-1150, which was subsequently
revised after V Pay Commission in the pay scale of Rs. 2610-4000. The duties and responsibilities of such post are repair and fabrication of Sheet
Metal Bodies for small equipments or turning work on lathe, arc welding work and repair of different types of trolleys. On the other hand, the post
of Sheet Metal Maker in Safdarjung Hospital in Delhi is a Group ""C"" post having different duties and responsibilities. It was indicated that the
applicant''s earlier representation for upgradation of pay has been forwarded to the Directorate General of Health Services, New Delhi. It was also
pointed out that question of reclassification of the post comes within the purview of the expert bodies like Pay Commission and ultimately by the
Ministry.
The Tribunal, while observing that exact duties and responsibilities of the Sheet Metal Worker in Safdarjung Hospital were not available as
nothing was indicated in the reply, came to the conclusion that in the communication dated 28.11.1998, JIPMER as stated that responsibilities of
the Sheet Metal Maker and Sheet Metal Worker in Safdarjung hospital are almost the same and in view of the communication dated 28.11.1998,
by applying the principle of equal pay for the equal work, directed the authorities concerned, namely, the present petitioners 1 and 2 to consider
the reclassification of the post of Sheet Metal Maker of JIPMER as a Group ""C"" post with corresponding modification in recruitment rules, etc....
This direction is questioned by the Union of India and the Director General of Health Services, which were Respondents 1 and 2 before the
Tribunal as well as by the Director, JIPMER Institute and the Chief Medical Officer, JIPMER Institute, who were Respondents 3 and 4.
In the writ petition, the petitioners have raised a contention that the educational qualification for the post of Sheet Metal Worker in Safdarjung
Hospital is pass in 10th Standard, whereas the educational qualification for the post of Sheet Metal Maker in JIPMER is pass in 8th Standard and
certificate in the relevant field in a recognised institution and, therefore, both the posts cannot be equated as similar. A contention is also raised that
both the posts fall under two different categories and work involved are different from each other and the nature of duties are not being identical,
no direction could have been issued by the Tribunal. It has been specifically indicated ""...The Tribunal failed to afford an opportunity to the
petitioners to compare the services of the two posts and to report tribunal before drawing any presumptions against the petitioners"" (sic. - quoted
from the grounds).
A counter has been filed in the present writ petition by the applicant Respondent No. 2, wherein it is stated that before the Tribunal the present
Petitioners 1 and 2 had not filed any counter and a counter had been filed by the present Respondent No. 3, who had in fact recommended that
the post at JIPMER may be treated at par with the post available at Safdarjung Hospital.
It is no doubt true that as a legal concept there cannot be any dispute that there should be equal pay for the equal work. However, the question
as to whether two posts have same nature of work and responsibilities would depend upon several factors, which are normally to be weighed by
the experts, and courts of law are ill-equipped to consider all the technical aspects in such matters relating to equality of pay.
In this connection, it may be worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in 2007 AIR SCW 5480 (S.C. Chandra and Ors. v.
State of Jharkhand and Ors.), wherein Justice Katju, while concurring with the views expressed by Justice A.K. Mathur, has observed:
Fixation of pay scale is a delicate which requires various considerations including financial capacity, responsibility, educational qualification,
mode of appointment, etc. and it has a cascading effect. Hence, in subsequent decisions of this Court the principle of equal pay for equal work has
been considerably watered down, and it has hardly ever been applied by this Court in recent years.
. . .
It may be mentioned that granting pay scales is a purely executive function and hence the Court should not interfere with the same. It may have
a cascading effect creating all kinds of problems for the Government and authorities. Hence, the Court should exercise judicial restraint and not
interfere in such executive function vide Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workman, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., .
The decision reported in Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Workman, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd., which was referred to
in the above paragraphs, is also to the similar effect.
From a reading of the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that the courts are ordinarily not expected to interfere in such matters relating to parity
of pay scale unless the decision of the competent authority appears to be arbitrary.
Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 has filed a separate typed set of papers in this court referring to earlier recommendations of III and IV
Pay Commission. The present Respondent No. 2, who was the applicant before the Tribunal, was claiming parity on the basis of the doctrine of
equal pay for equal work. Therefore, prima facie the burden was on him to prove that the duties and responsibilities of both the posts were same in
all aspects. On the other hand, the present petitioners 1 and 2 were also duty-bound to produce relevant materials to show that there was basic
difference in the duties involved in both the posts. As a matter of fact, the petitioners 1 and 2 have raised a ground that they did not get sufficient
opportunity to bring on the relevant materials on record.
Having regard to all these aspects, we feel that since all the relevant materials were not placed before the Tribunal by either parties, it would be
more appropriate in the interest of justice to set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the same for fresh consideration so that the present
petitioners, who were Respondents 1 and 2, can bring on record the relevant materials and similarly the applicant present Respondent No. 2 shall
also place before the Tribunal any additional materials which sought to be placed before this Court by way of typed set. It goes without saying that
the Tribunal will reconsider the matter in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both the parties to produce fresh materials. Parties are at
liberty to produce new materials including the recommendations made by VI Pay Commission as well as any subsequent order passed by the
Government thereon. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.