Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

JK 1602251

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 7

VERDICTUM.

IN

Serial No. 08

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH


AT JAMMU
Case:- SWP No. 498/2004

1. Jagdish Kumar, Age 30 years


S/o Sh. Hans Raj
…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
R/o Vill. Pachel. P. O. Arnia,
Tehsil Bishnah

2. Reyaz Ahmed, Age 35 years


S/o Habibullah
R/o Lohar Sanzar,
Kokarnag, Anantnag,
At present, New Plot, Jammu.

3. Princy Thaploo, Age 30 years


D/o P. L. Taploo
203 Krishna Nagar,
Canal Road, Jammu.

Through: Ms. Shivani Jalali, Advocate.

Vs

1. State of Jammu and Kashmir,


Through Principal Secretary to Govt.,
Civil Sectt.,
Srinagar/Jammu

2. State Pollution Control Board,


J&K, Jammu
Through its Chairman
.…. Respondent(s)

Through: Mr. Amit Gupta, AAG.

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE

ORDER
(05.03.2024)

(ORAL)

01. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought the

following reliefs:-

i. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the


nature of mandamus to the concerned respondents for
placing the petitioners in the higher grade i.e. 2000-
2300 (pre-revised) which is being given to similarly
placed persons in other State Govt. departments in order
to satisfy the mandate of Article 39(d), 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.
VERDICTUM.IN

2 SWP No. 498/2004

ii. Direct the concerned respondents to declare the


petitioners as separate cadre of service by framing of
proper recruitment rules in order to safeguard the
service rights of the petitioners in all aspects and
remove the stagnation.

02. The background facts under the shade and cover of which

the aforesaid reliefs are prayed by the petitioners are that

pursuant to an advertisement notice No. 3 of 1997 dated

29.04.1997 issued by J&K Service Selection Board, Jammu

(for short “the SSB”), posts of Data Operators carrying the

grade of 950-1500 (pre-revised) came to be advertised

besides other posts to be filled up in various government

departments including the respondent 2 – State Pollution

Control Board.

03. The petitioners claimed to be possessed of the eligibility

qualification prescribed for the posts applied and after

participation in the selection process conducted by SSB,

came to be appointed in the intending department i.e. State

Pollution Control Board – respondent 2 herein in terms of

Order No. 35 of 1999 dated 11.03.1999, Order No. 60 of

1999 dated 13.04.1999 and Order No. 68 of 1999 dated

24.04.1999 respectively.

04. The petitioners state to have been appointed against the

posts in a lower grade of 950-1500 and alleging to have no

option claim to have joined against the posts carrying the

said pay-scale.
VERDICTUM.IN

3 SWP No. 498/2004

05. It is being stated that the posts of Data Entry Operators

(Computer)/Computer Operator in Agriculture Department

advertised by SSB vide notice No. 3 of 1996 dated

24.12.1996 as also the same posts in the High Court of

J&K carry a higher grade reflected in a letter addressed

inter se the Department of Agriculture to the High Court of

J&K showing the sanctioned posts of Computer Operator

carrying the grade of 1400-2300. It is further stated that

even the pay-scale of Computer Operator in the Forest

Department as well carry the pay-scale of 1400-2300,

which fact is being supported by a letter dated 28.04.1997

addressed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests,

Jammu.

06. It is being further stated by the petitioners that upon

coming to know about the aforesaid disparity in the pay-

scales in the posts in question held by them and the

equivalent posts in the Agriculture Department, Forest

Department and the High Court, a representation came to

be submitted by them to the Chairman, State Pollution

Control Board on 09.02.2000 for removal of the pay

anomaly and the discrimination, which representation was

not responded to necessitating the filing of the instant

petition.

07. Objections to the petition have been filed by the

respondents wherein it is being, inter alia, stated that the


VERDICTUM.IN

4 SWP No. 498/2004

posts of Data Operators carrying the pay-scale of 950-1500

(Pre-revised) in the respondent 2 - Board came to be filled

up after a process of selection was undertaken by the Board

and the petitioners after participating in the process of

selection conducted by the Board came to be selected and

consequently appointed against the posts in question

carrying the grade of 950-1500.

08. It is being further stated that the posts in question i.e. the

post of Data Operator in the Board carrying pay-scale of

950-1500 is distinct and different in nature, nomenclature

and workload from the post referred by the petitioners in

other departments and, as such, the petitioners have no

claim which can be entertained.

09. It is being further stated that the petitioners, upon being

selected and appointed against the posts in the Board

accepted the appointment voluntarily without any

objection, as such, cannot seek a higher grade on any

grounds.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

10. The core issue raised by the petitioners in the instant

petition is traceable to the principle of “equal pay for

equal work”. Article 16(1) read with Article 14 and 39(d) of

the Constitution of India guarantees „equal pay for equal

work‟ so that the court would strike down in equal scales


VERDICTUM.IN

5 SWP No. 498/2004

of pay for identical work which is based on no classification

or irrational classification. However, the person, who

asserts that there is equality in work has to prove it,

however, the equality is not to be based in designation or

nature of work, but on several other factors like,

responsibilities, reliabilities, experience, confidentially

involved, functional need and requirements commensurate

with the position in hierarchy, the qualification required.

A reference in regard to above to the judgment of the Apex

Court passed in case titled as “State Bank of India & Anr.

Vs M. R. Ganesh Babu & Ors.” reported in 2002 (4) SCC

556 would be relevant herein wherein following has been

observed and laid down:-

“It is well settled that equal pay must depend upon the
nature of work done. It cannot be judged by the mere
volume of work; there may be qualitative difference as
regards reliability and responsibility. Functions may be the
same but the responsibilities made a difference. One
cannot deny that often the difference is a matter of degree
and that there is an element of value judgment by those
who are charged with the administration in fixing the
scales of pay and other conditions of service. So long as
such value judgment is made bona fide, reasonably on an
intelligible criterion which has a rational nexus with the
object of differentiation, such differentiation will not
amount to discrimination. The principle is not always easy
to apply as there are inherent difficulties in comparing and
evaluating the work done by different persons in different
organizations, or even in the same organization.
Differentiation in pay scales of persons holding same posts
and performing similar work on the basis of difference in
the degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality
would be a valid differentiation. The judgment of
administrative authorities concerning the responsibilities
which attach to the post, and the degree of reliability
expected of an incumbent, would be a value judgment of
VERDICTUM.IN

6 SWP No. 498/2004

the authorities concerned which, if arrived at bona fide


reasonably and rationally, was not open to interference by
the court.”

11. Having regard to the aforesaid principle and proposition of

law and reverting back to the case in hand, the petitioners

herein for the purpose of seeking parity of scale of pay in

their case have referred to and relied upon the employees

working in the J&K Forest Departments, in the High Court

of J&K as also in Agriculture Department, besides a similar

post advertised in advertisement Notice No. 3 of 1996.

A deeper and closer examination of the plea and the

documents supporting the said plea relied upon by the

petitioners would manifestly show that the parity is being

sought qua advertisement notice No. 3 of 1996 qua the post

of “Computer Assistant” in Fishery Department as also the

post of “Computer Analyst” in the same department and the

post of “Computer Operator” in Forest Protection Force,

besides placing reliance on a letter claimed to have been

addressed by the Director Agriculture to Deputy Registrar,

High Court of J&K dated 26.04.1997 pertaining to the post

of “Computer Operator” carrying the pay-scale of 1400-

2300 as also a letter dated 28.04.1997 addressed by the

Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to the Deputy

Registrar (Computer), High Court of J&K reflecting therein

the grades attached to the post of “Computer Operator” as

950-1400. A reference has also been made for the purpose


VERDICTUM.IN

7 SWP No. 498/2004

of claim of the petitioners on the advertisement notice No. 3

of 1997 also pursuant to which the petitioners came to be

appointed qua the post of “Data Entry Operators” in the

Finance Department carrying the grade of 1200-2040.

12. The petitioner though in order to buttress their claims have

referred to the aforesaid facts and the documents, yet have

failed to show that the aforesaid posts they are appointed

against and the posts with which the petitioners are

seeking parity are same and similar in regard to the

functions, responsibility, reliability and confidentiality. A

general plea raised by the petitioners for invoking the

principle of “equal pay for equal work” without even

remotely showing the applicability of the principles laid

down by the Apex Court in the judgment (supra) cannot be

entertained. The claim of the petitioners seemingly is

misconceived and legally unsustainable.

13. Viewed thus, the petition is found to be without any merit

and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(JAVED IQBAL WANI)


JUDGE
JAMMU
05.03.2024
Bunty
Whether the order is speaking: Yes

Whether the order is reportable: Yes

You might also like