9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Claim for equal pay based on principle of "equal pay for equal work"; Interpretation of pay scales for storekeepers compared to clerks; Validity of mistake made by Administration in extending higher pay scale to certain employees; Application of doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" in the context of personal pay granted to employees. Analysis: The case involved a dispute regarding the pay scale of storekeepers in a college compared to that of clerks and the validity of a higher pay scale extended to certain storekeepers. The respondents claimed equal pay based on the principle of "equal pay for equal work." The Central Administrative Tribunal upheld their claim, citing a notification requiring the Administration to follow the Punjab Government's pay scale pattern. Initially, storekeepers had a pay scale similar to clerks but were later given a higher scale based on a letter from the college's Principal. The Administration argued that the higher pay scale given to some storekeepers was a mistake and was corrected by the Second Pay Revision Committee. The Tribunal rejected this argument, leading to an appeal. The Supreme Court held that a mistake by the Administration cannot justify granting the same pay scale to all storekeepers. The higher pay scale was considered personal pay for existing incumbents, not a basis for equal pay for future employees. The Court emphasized that personal pay granted for various reasons does not trigger the "equal pay for equal work" principle. The Court concluded that the Tribunal erred in allowing the respondents' claim based on the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work." The mistake in extending the higher pay scale was not a valid basis for demanding equal pay. Personal pay reasons, such as educational qualifications or family planning, do not trigger equal pay requirements. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the Tribunal's order, with no costs awarded.
|
