Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/12 vs The Gauhati High Court And 4 Ors on 6 March, 2025
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/12
GAHC010221832018
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/7021/2018
MRINMAY KUMAR DAS AND ANR.
SON OF SRI BANAMALI DAS, ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN, GAUHATI HIGH
COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN- 781001.
2: HIRANYA KALITA
SON OF SRI SRIRAM KALITA
LIBRARY ASSISTANT
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN- 781001
VERSUS
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AND 4 ORS.
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, GAUHATI HIGH COURT,
GUWAHATI, ASSAM, PIN- 781001.
2:GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.
3:THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF FINANCE (BUDGET DEPARTMENT)
DISPUR
GUWAHATI- 781006.
4:THE REGISTRAR (ESTABLISHMENT)
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
Page No.# 2/12
PIN- 781001.
5:FINANCE AND ACCOUNTS OFFICER
GAUHATI HIGH COURT
GUWAHATI
ASSAM
PIN- 781001
Advocate for the Petitioners : Mr. F. Faridi, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondents : Mr. H.K. Das, SC, GHC
Mr. J. Handique, Advocate
Mr. R. Borpujari, Advocate
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
Date of Hearing : 06.03.2025
Date of Judgment : 06.03.2025
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
Heard Mr. F. Faridi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners. I have also heard Mr. H. K. Das, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1, 4 & 5; Mr.
J. Handique, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent Nos.2 as well as Mr. R. Borpujari, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent No.3.
2. The short question which arises for consideration in the
instant writ petition is as to whether the petitioners herein who
are working as Library Assistants would be entitled to the equal
Grade Pay to that of the Judicial Assistants?
Page No.# 3/12
3. The petitioner No.1 was appointed to the post of Library
Assistant on 19.07.2013 and the petitioner No.2 was appointed
to the said post of Library Assistant on 14.03.2014. At the time
of appointment, the scale of pay for both the petitioners were
Rs.5200-20,200 (PB-II) with Grade Pay of Rs.3000/- per month.
It is further relevant to take note of that at that relevant point of
time, the Judicial Assistants of the Registry of the Gauhati High
Court were also drawing the same scale of pay with Grade Pay of
Rs.3000/-. However, with the implementation of the Assam
Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2017 (ROP, 2017), the
petitioners’ Grade Pay was reduced to Rs.7,400/- whereas the
Grade Pay of the Judicial Assistant was raised to Rs.8,700/-.
4. From the materials on record, it is further seen that the
petitioners, immediately upon the issuance of the notification
dated 17.03.2017 by the Government of Assam was given the
Grade Pay of Rs.8,700/- for the month of June, 2017 but
subsequently, the same was reduced back to Rs.7,400/- on the
ground that the upgradation of the Grade Pay of the Library
Assistant was done without any express authority. It is seen that
the petitioners herein represented before the Gauhati High Court.
However, the grievances of the petitioners remained unaddressed
for which the instant writ petition has been filed challenging the
Resolution dated 09.04.2018 as well as the communication dated
Page No.# 4/12
22.05.2018. In addition to that, the petitioners had also sought
for a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby to place the
petitioners in the pay scale of Rs.14,000-49,000 with Grade Pay
of Rs.8,700/- w.e.f. the month of July, 2017 with arrear monetary
benefits since the date of implementation of the Assam Services
(Revision of Pay) Rules, 2017.
5. It is relevant to take note of that pursuant to the filing of
the instant writ petition, the Gauhati High Court had filed an
affidavit-in-opposition. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, it was
mentioned that historically there was a parity in the pay scale of
Judicial Assistant with the post of Library Assistant. However,
with the notification dated 17.03.2017 notifying the Assam
Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2017, the Pay Band and the
Grade Pay of the Junior Administrative Assistant in the Assam
Secretariat was revised from Rs.5200-20200 plus Grade Pay of
Rs.3000/- to the Pay Band of Rs.14,000-49,000 with Grade Pay
of Rs.8700/-. It was further mentioned that before the
implementation of the ROP 2017, the scale of pay of Judicial
Assistant and Library Assistant were the same of Rs.5200-20200
plus Grade Pay of Rs.3000/- and the corresponding revised
Grade Pay of Rs.3000/- is the Grade Pay of Rs.7400 as per the
Rules of 2017. Be that as it may, the Grade Pay of Junior
Administrative Assistant in the Assam Secretariat was enhanced
Page No.# 5/12
from Rs.3000/- to Rs.3300/- in the light of the Government of
Assam’s Resolution accepting the recommendation of the 7 th
Assam Pay and Productivity Pay Commission, and therefore, as
per the ROP 2017, the revised Grade Pay of Junior Administrative
Assistant in Assam Secretariat was fixed at Rs.8,700/- instead of
Rs.7,400/- which is corresponding to old Grade Pay of Rs.3,000/-.
It was further mentioned that as per the communication of the
Government of Assam dated 13.06.2017, the officers and staff of
the Registry of this Court were also drawing the revised pay as
per the ROP 2017 and as an interim measure, the Principal Seat
of the Gauhati High Court taking into consideration that the post
of the Judicial Assistant in the Registry of the Gauhati High Court
is equivalent to the post of Junior Administrative Assistant in
Assam Secretariat, and to maintain parity, the revised pay
fixation of the Judicial Assistant of the Gauhati High Court was
done taking into consideration of Rs.8,700/- as Grade Pay. It was
further mentioned that there is no post of Library Assistant in the
Assam Secretariat, and therefore, in the case of Library Assistant,
the revised Grade Pay corresponding to Rs.3000/- was Rs.7,400/-
had been taken into account resulting in less pay to the Library
Assistant in comparison to the Judicial Assistant.
6. It is very pertinent herein to mention that in terms with
Article 229(2) of the Constitution, the Chief Justice of the
Page No.# 6/12
Gauhati High Court had made the Gauhati High Court (Revised
Pay) Rules, 2013 (herein after referred to as the”Draft Rules”)
and taking into account the proviso to Article 229(2) of the
Constitution, the same was placed before the State Government
for its approval.
7. It appears from the submission from both the parties that
there is some dispute as regards the approval granted to the
Draft Rules. However, the question which is of vital importance
that in the said Draft Rules, the Chief Justice, who is the had
equated the pay scale in respect of the post of Library Assistant
with the post of Judicial Assistant. This aspect of the matter is
important in view of the fact that the employer of the petitioners
who is Chief Justice had equated the services of a Library
Assistant with that of a Judicial Assistant.
8. This Court further finds it pertinent to take note of the
affidavit so filed by the Finance Department. In the said affidavit
so filed, it was an admitted fact that in the Assam Secretariat,
there is no post of Judicial Assistant or Library Assistant, but the
post which is there is the post of Junior Administrative Assistant
which was upgraded to Pay Band-II of Rs.14,000-60,500 plus
Grade Pay of Rs.8,700/-. It was further mentioned that the pay
structure of the Judicial Assistant in the Gauhati High Court was
revised to Pay Band-II of Rs.14,000-60500 plus Grade Pay of
Page No.# 7/12
Rs.8700/- at par with Junior Administrative Assistant of the
Assam Secretariat. In the said affidavit filed by the respondent
No.3, there were further details provided in respect to the
various establishments/Departments under the State of Assam in
respect to the scale of pay to the post of Library Assistant. In the
Directorate of Library Science, the scale of pay of the Library
Assistant is in Pay Band-II of Rs.14000-60,500 plus Grade Pay of
Rs.8,700/- which is again equivalent to the pay scale of Junior
Administrative Assistant in Assam Secretariat and the Judicial
Assistant in the Gauhati High Court. However, in respect to other
establishments such as Assam Administrative Reforms and
Training Department, Cultural Affairs Department, State Council
of Education Research and Training, Government Law College,
Sanskrit College, Health and Family Welfare Department,
Industrial Training Institute and Panchayat, the Library Assistants
although was the post of Library Assistant in Pay Band-II but
their Grade Pay varied from Rs.5,600/- to Rs.7,600/-. It was
further mentioned that there being no recommendation of the
7th Assam Pay and Productivity Pay Commission for upgradation
of Grade Pay of Library Assistant, the Grade Pay of Library
Assistant cannot be increased and brought at par with Judicial
Assistant.
9. In the backdrop of the above pleadings, this Court has
Page No.# 8/12
heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties at
length. In addition to that, this Court has also perused the
materials on record. From the materials on record, it is seen that
there was a historical parity in the pay scale in the post of Library
Assistant with that of Judicial Assistant in the Gauhati High
Court. The change only happened with the implementation of the
ROP 2017. It is also very relevant to take note of that there is
also no recommendation in the 7 th Assam Pay and Productivity
Pay Commission in respect to Judicial Assistant. The
recommendation was only in respect of Junior Administrative
Assistant of the Assam Secretary. It is also seen that the Junior
Administrative Assistant prior to the ROP 2017 was drawing the
equal pay scale along with the Grade Pay to that of the post of
Library Assistant as well as Judicial Assistant and the Grade Pay
was Rs.3000/-. On account of a decision being taken by the
Government of Assam to increase the Grade Pay of the Junior
Administrative Assistant from Rs.3000/- to Rs.3300/- and the
corresponding increase in the Grade Pay to Rs.8700/-, the
Judicial Assistant in the Gauhati High Court were also given the
same Grade Pay.
10. This Court further takes note that the Gauhati High Court
(Revised Pay) Rules, 2013 was made by the Chief Justice of the
Gauhati High Court and the same was placed before the State for
Page No.# 9/12
the approval of the Governor. The question whether it has been
approved or not is not relevant for the purpose of the instant
dispute. But, what is relevant is that the employer of the
petitioners, i.e. the Chief Justice of the Gauhati High Court has
put the posts of Library Assistant and Judicial Assistants to be
entitled to the same pay scale on the basis of equal work and for
which recommended for equal pay.
11. This Court finds it relevant to take note of the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Manmatha Nath Ghosh &
Others vs. Baidyanath Mukherjee & Others, reported in (2005)
13 SCC 630 wherein the Supreme Court categorically observed
that the assessment of the quality of work done by the two
categories of employees must necessarily be left to the judgment
of the employer, i.e. the High Court in question.
12. This Court further in this regard finds it relevant to take
note of the judgment of the learned Division Bench of this Court
in the case of Shyamal Saikia & Others vs. State of Assam &
Others, reported in (1984) 1 GLR 144 wherein the learned
Division Bench of this Court opined that when the Appointing
Authority, namely, the Chief Justice had held their employees
under him did equal work and should get equal pay, an outside
agency cannot nullify the conclusion and hold to the contrary.
Paragraph No.5 of the said judgment is reproduced herein
Page No.# 10/12
under:-
“5. There is no semblance of doubt that since 1962, the High Court
and the Government considered that the LDAs and the LAs of the
High Court should get the same scales of pay on the principle of
equal pay for equal work. Since 1964 there was only one post in the
High Court designated as Lower Division Assistants including Library
Attendants and the LDAs including LAs enjoyed the same scales of
pay on the basis of equal pay for equal work. Until the Govt. by their
unilateral action raised the scales of pay of the LDAs, the status of
the LDAs and the LAs was the same. There was no question of
getting promotion from LA to LDA. In fact, along with raising the
pay scale of “LDAs'” there should have been proportionate revision
of pay scales of other ministerial staff of the High Court and it
appears that their cases were completely overlooked. Indeed, the
post of Asstt. Librarian was a promotional post when the pay scale
of LDAs and LAs was the same. In view of the withholding of the
increase in the pay scale of the LAs, the Asstt. Librarians were
getting higher scales of pay and it was a promotional post at all
relevant time when the enquiries were made. However, the crucial
question was whether on the revision of pay scales of the LDAs, the
pay scales of the LAs, who were all along treated at par insofar as
status, pay scale, qualification and quantum of work were
concerned, should have been altered and raised or not. When “the
appointing authority”, namely, the Chief Justice held that the
employees under him did equal work and should get equal pay, we
feel that no other outside agency can nullify the conclusion and hold
Page No.# 11/12to the contrary. Any such contrary opinion or conclusion of such
agency must be held arbitrary and perverse, unless strong reasons
are coming. In fact in many respects, as is revealed from the
records placed at our disposal, we find that the work done by “the
LAs” are more rigorous and need more expartise than that of the
LDAs. In any view of the matter the petitioners rightly contended
that when the Chief Justice, the appointing authority, had made the
recommendation for revision of pay scale of “the LAs” that is, their
scales of pay should be at par with the LDAs and the Govt. could
not have Violated the mandates of Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) and
229(2) of the Constitution in turning down the recommendation of
the Chief Justice. When the employer opines that the employees
were doing equal work and they were entitled to equal pay, as held
by the Supreme Court in Randhir Singh (supra), the principles
enunciated were violated in not granting the petitioners the scales
of pay as desired by the Chief Justice.”
13. Taking into account the above proposition of law, this Court
is of the opinion that the petitioners herein who are the Library
Assistants are entitled to the equal Grade Pay to that of the
Judicial Assistants w.e.f. the date on which the Judicial Assistants
were granted Grade Pay at the rate of Rs.8,700/-.
14. Consequently, all decisions which are contrary to the above
observations and findings are set aside and quashed and the
respondent authorities are directed to take appropriate steps for
release of the arrear amounts to the petitioners as per the above
Page No.# 12/12
observed entitlement.
15. Accordingly, the instant writ petition therefore stands
disposed of with the following observations and directions:-
(i) The petitioners herein who are the Library Assistants
would be entitled to the Grade Pay of Rs.8,700/- which is
equal to that of the Judicial Assistants w.e.f. the date on
which The Judicial Assistants have been granted the Grade
Pay of Rs.8,700/-
(ii) All decisions which are impugned in the instant
proceedings are set aside and quashed.
(iii) The respondent authorities are directed to re-compute
the arrears of the petitioners on the basis of the above
observations and thereupon pay the arrears to the
petitioners within 4(four) months from the date of a
certified copy is served upon the respondent No.1.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant