Chattisgarh High Court
Siyaram Nag vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 January, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1/6
2025:CGHC:2423
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 1178 of 2019
• Siyaram Nag S/o Shri Sildar Nag Aged About 50 Years Occupation Service
Librarian, Government Higher School of Blind Deaf And Mute, Police Line
Colony Tifra, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, R/o C-112, Yadunandaon Nagar, Thana-
Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department of Social Welfare,
Mantralaya, Manhanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur,
Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. Director Department of Social Welfare, Directorate At Mahanadi Bhawan,
Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. Superintendent Government Higher School of Blind, Deaf And Mute, Police
Line Colony Tifra, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Ravi Bhagat, Advocate
For Respondents-State : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
ORDER ON BOARD
15/01/2025
1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs.
“10.1 That, the petitioner most humbly and
respectfully prays to this Hon’ble Court to issue
appropriate order/direction to the respondent
authorities to amend and extend the benefit of
the revised pay scale of the Assistant Librarian
to Rs. 9300-34800, pay grade Rs. 4400/- and
PAWAN consequently amend and extend the benefit of
KUMAR
JHA the revised pay scale of the Librarian to Rs.
Digitally 15600-39100/, pay grade Rs. 5400/- with all
signed by
PAWAN
KUMAR JHA
consequential benefits.
2/6
10.2 That, the petitioner most humbly and
respectfully prays to this Hon’ble Court to issue
appropriate order/ direction directing the
respondent authorities to grant suitable interest
to the petitioner.
10.3 Any other relief whatsoever, this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper may also be
granted to the petitioner.”
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was appointed to
the post of Asst. Librarian in the department of Panchayat and Social
Welfare Directorate on 30.03.1998 in the erstwhile State of Madhya
Pradesh. Pursuant to the order of appointment, petitioner joined the
service. After re-organisation of the State of Madhya Pradesh, service of
petitioner was allocated to the newly carved out State of Chhattisgarh
and on the date of filing of petition he was posted as Librarian in Govt.
High School of Blind, Deaf and Dumb, Police Line Colony, Tifra, Bilaspur.
Before carving out of State of Chhattisgarh, Bramh Swaroop Committee
was constituted for considering the existing pay scale of the employees
working in different departments of State of Chhattisgarh. Upon due
consideration, the Bramh Swaroop Committee has made
recommendation for revision of pay of certain posts in some of the
departments and submitted its report to the General Administration
Department of State of Chhattisgarh. Upon receipt of the report, the
General Administration Department of the State of Chhattisgarh has
accepted the recommendation made by the Bramh Swaroop Committee
and has implemented it by its order dated 11.02.2008. In the said order,
post of Asst. Librarian in the Administration Academy and Directorate,
Technical Education is also mentioned. Petitioner after getting the
knowledge about the revision of pay of Asst. Librarian in the aforesaid
department has submitted a representation before the concerned
authority for revising his pay also. Respondent No. 2 has submitted a
comparative chart to Respondent No. 1 with regard to educational
3/6
qualification of other departments and the experience as also the pay
scale fixed in those departments as per service rules. It is submitted that
the educational qualification of Panchayat, Social Welfare Department
and Technical Education Department are one and the same. He also
contended that Respondent no. 1 wrote letter to Respondent No. 2 for
sending proposal for revision of pay for the post of Asst. Librarian in
accordance with prevailing service rules, however, thereafter no decision
has been taken on the claim of petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner
submits that the qualification and the nature of duties which is
discharged by the Asst. Librarian in the Social Welfare Department as
also Technical Education Department are one and the same, hence, no
discrimination can be made in the pay scale. In support of his contention,
he places reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Randhir Singh vs. Union of India reported in (1982) 1 SCC
618.
3. Learned counsel for respondents-State opposes the submission of
learned counsel for petitioner and would submit that the proceedings
initiated by department was placed before the Finance Department as
also the General Administration Department and as per the notesheet
enclosed as Annexure R-1 the General Administration Department has
recorded that it is not consenting to the proposal submitted by the
Finance Department and therefore petitioner is not entitled for the
revised pay scale and no relief can be granted to him.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record
and the documents filed by the respective parties.
5. Claim of petitioner is that the similarly situated employees/ Asst. Librarian
posted in other departments have been extended benefit of
recommendation made by the Bramh Swaroop Committee for revision of
pay and accordingly the General Administration Department has
4/6
implemented it with respect to post of Asst. Librarian working and posted
in Directorate Technical Education and Administration Academy. The
claim of petitioner has been rejected.
6. Perusal of reply submitted by the State counsel would show that the
proceedings initiated by the Respondent No. 1 for revision of pay was
submitted along with the relevant documents before the Finance
Committee which was subsequently placed before the General
Administration Department who has not consented with the proceedings
forwarded by the Finance Department, however, no reason has been
assigned therein. Learned State counsel has not filed any document(s)
to show that the proposal forwarded by the Respondent No. 1-
Department has been rejected after due application of mind by assigning
reasons.
7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Randhir Singh (supra), while
considering the claim of equal pay for equal work of the Drivers in the
Delhi Police Force than those in Delhi Administration and Central
Government has observed thus:
“8. It is true that the principle of “equal pay for
equal work” is not expressly declared by our
Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly
is a constitutional goal. Article 39( d) of the
Constitution proclaims “equal pay for equal work for
both men and women” as a directive principle of
State Policy. “Equal pay for equal work for both men
and women” means equal pay for equal work for
everyone and as between the sexes. directive
principles, as has been pointed out in some of the
judgments of this Court have to be read into the
fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation.
Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the State not to
deny any person equality before the law or the equal
protection of the laws and Article 16 declares that
there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in
matters relating to employment or appointment to
any office under the State. These equality clauses of
the Constitution must mean something to everyone.
To the vast majority of the people the equality
clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing if
5/6
they are unconcerned with the work they do and the
pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have
some substance if equal work means equal pay. …
… The Preamble to the Constitution of the
International Labour Organisation recognises the
principle of ‘equal remuneration for work of equal
value’ as constituting one of the means of achieving
the improvement of conditions “involving such
injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of
people as to produce unrest so great that the peace
and harmony of the world are imperilled”. Construing
Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and
Article 39 (d), we are of the view that the principle
“equal pay for equal work” is deducible from those
Articles and may be properly applied to cases of
unequal scales of pay based on no classification or
irrational classification though those drawing the
different scales of pay do identical work under the
same employer.
9. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the
drivers in the Delhi Police Force perform the same
functions and duties as other drivers in service of the
Delhi Administration and the Central Government. If
anything, by reason of their investiture with the
“powers, functions and privileges of a police officer”,
their duties and responsibilities are more arduous. In
answer to the allegation in the petition that the driver-
constables of the Delhi Police Force perform no less
arduous duties than drivers in other departments, it
was admitted by the respondents in their counter that
the duties of the driver-constables of the Delhi Police
Force were onerous. What then is the reason for
giving them a lower scale of pay than others? There
is none. The only answer of the respondents is that
the drivers of the Delhi Police Force and the other
drivers belong to different departments and that the
principle of “equal pay for equal work” is not a
principle which the courts may recognise and act
upon. We have shown that the answer is unsound.
The clarification is irrational. We, therefore, allow the
writ petition and direct the respondents to fix the
scale of pay of the petitioner and the driver-
constables of the Delhi Police Force at least on a par
with that of the drivers of the Railway Protection
Force. The scale of pay shall be effective from
January 1, 1973, the date from which the
recommendations of the Pay Commission were
given effect.”
6/6
8. Considering the entirety of the facts of the case, nature of claim of
petitioner in the writ petition and forwarded by the Finance Department to
the General Administration Department and further considering that the
General Administration Department has not rejected the claim with
reasons as also the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the
opinion of this Court, claim of petitioner requires reconsideration at the
end of General Administration Department.
9. For the foregoing discussion, this writ petition is disposed of with a
direction to the General Administration Department of the State of
Chhattisgarh to reconsider the proposal forwarded by Respondent No. 1
and placed before it through the Finance Department and to take a
decision afresh supported by reasons within a further period of 04
months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Certified copy as per rules.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
pwn
[ad_1]
Source link