9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondent was entitled to the pay scale of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police based on the principle of "equal pay for equal work". 2. Whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in its direction to grant the pay scale of Rs. 1320-2040 to the respondent. 3. Whether the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission were implemented correctly and whether they were binding. 4. Whether the court should interfere in the fixation of pay scales by the Government. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Entitlement to Pay Scale Based on "Equal Pay for Equal Work": The respondent filed a writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus for equal pay, claiming that his duties as Naik (Radio Operator) in CRPF were more hazardous than those of similar positions in other departments. The principle of "equal pay for equal work" was cited. However, the appellants contended that the Fourth Pay Commission's recommendations were implemented, and no discrimination occurred. The learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition, noting that the respondent, being a Naik, could not claim the pay scale of an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, a promotional post. The Division Bench allowed the appeal, but the Supreme Court found no material for comparison to apply the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and thus, the claim was not substantiated. 2. Justification of High Court's Direction: The Division Bench directed the appellants to fix the respondent's pay at Rs. 1320-2040, citing the hazardous nature of his duties. However, the Supreme Court noted that there was no material before the court to compare qualifications, recruitment methods, and other relevant factors between the CRPF Radio Operators and those in other departments. The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench's direction was unjustified without such comparative material. 3. Implementation and Binding Nature of Fourth Pay Commission Recommendations: The appellants argued that the Fourth Pay Commission's recommendations were implemented in letter and spirit, and the respondent was not discriminated against. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the recommendations alone did not confer any right for a writ of mandamus. The factual statements in the recommendations could not be taken as proof of discrimination or entitlement to a higher pay scale. 4. Court's Interference in Pay Scale Fixation: The Supreme Court emphasized that the fixation of pay scales is primarily the function of the Government, often based on Pay Commission recommendations. The court should not interfere unless there is clear evidence of hostile discrimination. The Supreme Court cited previous judgments, reiterating that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" requires a detailed comparison of duties, responsibilities, and other factors, which was absent in this case. Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in granting the pay scale to the respondent without proper comparative material. The appeal was allowed, the Division Bench's judgment was set aside, and the judgment of the learned single Judge was restored. The court noted that the issue could be reconsidered by the Government or Pay Commission if further representation is made by the respondent.
|
