2015 (2) TMI 999 - HC - Indian Laws

Variation in salaries of different members of the same Tribunal - Respondent in order to remove dissimilarity reduced the pay scale of those members who getting the higher salary - Held that - Since the petitioner performed the same functions and discharged the same responsibilities as a member of the ATFP as any other member appointed under the NDPSA, 1985, at the time when the petitioner was appointed, he could not have been granted a pay scale or other service conditions, which were less advantageous when compared to a member appointed under the NDPSA, 1985. Such differentiation would be clearly discriminatory. The classification of members of the same Tribunal, i.e. ATFP on the basis of the enactment to which they trace their appointment could not be said to be a reasonable classification much less one having nexus to the object sought to be achieved. The members of the Tribunal being co-equals in terms of their functions, responsibilities and status, such classification was most unreasonable and arbitrary. Consequently, when the petitioner was appointed as the member of the ATFP vide order dated 13.04.1999, he was entitled to the same pay scale that is offered to the other members of the Tribunal appointed under NDPSA, 1985, i.e. ₹ 24050-650-26000. The respondent effectively realized that the two pay scales offered to members appointed under the SAFEMA, 1976 and NDPSA, 1985 led to discrimination and, consequently, sought to amend the rules framed under the aforesaid two enactments by the impugned notification by equalizing the pay scales of the members appointed under both the enactments. However, while doing so, the pay scale permissible to members appointed under NDPSA, 1985 was lowered and made equal to that prescribed for members appointed under the SAFEMA, 1976. - As it is already held that the petitioner was entitled to the higher pay scale of ₹ 24050-650-26000 from the date of his appointment, i.e. 13.04.1999. That being the position, the respondent could not have varied, or altered the terms of his engagement to his disadvantage by reducing the pay scale admissible to him since the petitioner was already entitled to the higher pay scale of ₹ 24050-650-26000. The same could not have been lowered to ₹ 2400-525-24500. - impugned amendment notifications issued by the respondent, altering the conditions of service to the detriment of members of the ATFP by lowering their pay scale, are illegal, unjust and arbitrary, and are, accordingly, struck down. Petitioner was entitled to the higher pay scale of ₹ 24050-650-26000 from the date of his appointment, i.e.13.04.1999. As the petitioner had retired from the post of member, ATFP on 31.12.2002, he is entitled to be granted back wages from the date of his appointment till his retirement. Therefore, we allow the present petition and quash notification No. 10/2001 dated 01.10.2001 amending the ATFP Rules, 1978 and notification dated 24.12.2001 amending ATFP Rules, 1989 and grant to the Petitioner the pay scale of ₹ 24050-650-26000. The petitioner shall be entitled to interest on the arrears on the arrears @ 8% per annum from the date of retirement till payment. - Decided in favour of appellant.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the different pay scales prescribed for members of the Appellate Tribunal Forfeited Property (ATFP) under SAFEMA and NDPSA.
2. Applicability of Rule 13 of the ATFP Rules, 1989 to the petitioner.
3. Principle of "equal pay for equal work" in the context of ATFP members.
4. Legality of the amendment notifications lowering the pay scale for ATFP members.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Different Pay Scales:
The petitioner challenged the notifications dated 24.12.2001 and 01.10.2001, which amended the ATFP Rules, 1978 and 1989, respectively, resulting in different pay scales for members appointed under SAFEMA and NDPSA. The petitioner argued that this discrepancy was discriminatory and violated the principle of "equal pay for equal work."

2. Applicability of Rule 13 of the ATFP Rules, 1989:
The petitioner contended that Rule 13 of the ATFP Rules, 1989, which prevents members from drawing salaries under both SAFEMA and NDPSA, did not apply to him as he was not a member when the ATFP under NDPSA was constituted. The court found that the petitioner was indeed appointed under SAFEMA, and his appointment order specified the pay scale of Rs. 22,400-525-24,500.

3. Principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work":
The petitioner argued that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" was violated by having different pay scales for the same post under two different Acts. The court agreed, noting that all members of the ATFP performed identical functions and responsibilities, regardless of the Act under which they were appointed. The court cited the Supreme Court's judgments in Randhir Singh vs. UOI and Mew Ram Kanojia vs. AIIMS, which upheld the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and emphasized that employees performing similar duties should not be treated differently in terms of pay.

4. Legality of the Amendment Notifications:
The court held that the amendment notifications, which lowered the pay scale for members appointed under NDPSA to match those appointed under SAFEMA, were illegal and arbitrary. The court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Grid Corporation of Orissa vs. Rasananda Das, which stated that conditions of service, including pay scales, cannot be altered to the disadvantage of employees. The court also referred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in The Jullundur District Co-operative Agricultural Service Societies Employees Union vs. State of Punjab, which held that reducing an employee's pay scale is considered arbitrary and can only be done as a measure of punishment.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to the higher pay scale of Rs. 24,050-650-26,000 from the date of his appointment on 13.04.1999. The court quashed the notifications dated 01.10.2001 and 24.12.2001, which amended the ATFP Rules, 1978 and 1989, respectively, and directed the respondents to grant the petitioner the higher pay scale along with interest on arrears at 8% per annum from the date of retirement till payment. The petition was disposed of in these terms.