2017 (12) TMI 1718 - HC - VAT and Sales Tax

Revision of pay-scale - request for same pay- scale as is available to a Member of the Trade Tax Tribunal appointed from amongst the Additional Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners of Trade Tax Department - HELD THAT - We are conscious of the fact that a differential scale on the basis of educational qualifications and the nature of duties is permissible. However it is equally clear to us that if two categories of employees are treated as equal initially they should continue to be so treated unless a different treatment is justified by some cogent reasons. In a case where the nature of duties is drastically altered a differential scale of pay may be justified. Similarly if a higher qualification is prescribed for a particular post a higher scale of pay may be granted. However if the basic qualifications and the job requirements continued to be identical as they were initially laid down then the Court shall be reluctant to accept the action of the authority in according a differential treatment unless some good reasons are disclosed. The denial of same pay scale to the petitioner on the ground that his appointment on the post of Member Trade Tax Tribunal was made from amongst the Advocates quota is wholly unjust and unreasonable. There is no dispute to the fact that at the time of appointment of the petitioner as a Member Trade Tax Tribunal the pay scale of Member was 4500-5700 which was ultimately revised to 5900-6700. Once the pay scale given to the petitioner at the initial stage has been extended to all other members from different two quotas then the denial of the same benefit to the petitioner is wholly unwarranted. Members of same cadre have right to get same scale of pay and the respondents have failed to established that the classification was based on some intelligible differentia having reasonable nexus with job requirement. There is a invidious discrimination - the impugned order dated 12.7.2001 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for grant of same scale of pay which was admissible to the other members of the Trade Tax Tribunal who were appointed from amongst the Addl. Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners of the Trade Tax Department is hereby quashed - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Revision of Pay Scale
2. Equal Pay for Equal Work
3. Discrimination Based on Recruitment Source
4. Judicial Precedents on Equal Pay
5. Legal Provisions and Fundamental Rights

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Revision of Pay Scale:
The petitioner, a member of the Trade Tax Tribunal, U.P., challenged the State Government's order dated 12.7.2001, which rejected his representation for the revision of his pay scale. He sought a mandamus to the Principal Secretary, Sales Tax and Registration, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to grant him the same pay scale as members of the Trade Tax Tribunal appointed from the Additional Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners of the Trade Tax Department.

2. Equal Pay for Equal Work:
The petitioner argued that, despite performing similar duties, he was denied the pay scale of ?5900-6700, later revised to ?18400-22400, which was granted to members appointed from the Trade Tax Department. The petitioner cited the principle of "equal pay for equal work," as established in Bhagwan Das Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 2049, asserting that the mode of recruitment should not affect pay equality.

3. Discrimination Based on Recruitment Source:
The petitioner emphasized that denying him the same pay scale as other members appointed from the Trade Tax Department violated the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. The respondents argued that the petitioner, appointed from the advocate quota, could not be compared with departmental officers due to different recruitment channels and service conditions.

4. Judicial Precedents on Equal Pay:
The court referred to several precedents, including Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 618, which recognized equal pay for equal work as a constitutional goal. The court noted that any discrimination in pay scales must be based on reasonable classification and job requirements. The court also cited State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh (2016), emphasizing that temporary employees performing similar duties as regular employees are entitled to equal pay.

5. Legal Provisions and Fundamental Rights:
The court examined Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which ensure equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. The court noted that any arbitrary or irrational act by the State violates these constitutional provisions. The court highlighted that the principle of equal pay for equal work is a facet of Article 14, as reiterated in State of Orissa Vs. Balram Sahu (2003) 1 SCC 250.

Conclusion:
The court found that the denial of the same pay scale to the petitioner was unjust and unreasonable. The petitioner was entitled to the same pay scale as other members of the Trade Tax Tribunal, irrespective of the recruitment source. The court quashed the impugned order dated 12.7.2001 and directed the respondents to pay the petitioner arrears of salary with interest at 6% and other benefits within three months.

Order:
The writ petition was allowed, and the State Government was directed to pay the petitioner the revised pay scale of ?5900-6700, later revised to ?18400-22400, along with arrears and interest.