Employee cannot claim equal pay due to mere similarity of designation: HC

STATE TIMES NEWS

JAMMU: Justice Javed Iqbal Wani of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court holds that employee cannot claim equal pay due to mere similarity of designation.
This significant judgment has been passed in a petition filed by Jagdish Kumar and ors seeking direction to the concerned respondents for placing the petitioners in the higher grade i.e. 2000-2300 (pre-revised) which is being given to similarly placed persons in other State Govt. departments in order to satisfy the mandate of Article 39(d), 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and also seeking direction to the respondents to declare the petitioners as separate cadre of service by framing of proper recruitment rules in order to safeguard the service rights of the petitioners in all aspects and remove the stagnation.
The background facts under the shade and cover of which the aforesaid reliefs are prayed by the petitioners are that pursuant to an advertisement notice No. 3 of 1997 dated April 29, 1997 issued by J&K Service Selection Board, Jammu (for short “the SSB”), posts of Data Operators carrying the grade of 950-1500 (pre-revised) came to be advertised besides other posts to be filled up in various government departments including the respondent 2 – State Pollution Control Board. The petitioners claimed to be possessed of the eligibility qualification prescribed for the posts applied and after participation in the selection process conducted by SSB, came to be appointed in the intending department i.e. State Pollution Control Board – respondent 2 herein in terms of Order No. 35 of 1999 dated March 11, 1999, Order No. 60 of 1999 dated April 13, 1999 and Order No. 68 of 1999 dated April 24, 1999 respectively.
Justice Javed Iqbal Wani after hearing Adv Shivani Jalali for the petitioners whereas AAG Amit Gupta for the respodents, observed that aforesaid principle and proposition of law and reverting back to the case in hand, the petitioners herein for the purpose of seeking parity of scale of pay in their case have referred to and relied upon the employees working in the J&K Forest Departments, in the High Court of J&K as also in Agriculture Department, besides a similar post advertised in advertisement Notice No. 3 of 1996. A deeper and closer examination of the plea and the documents supporting the said plea relied upon by the petitioners would manifestly show that the parity is being sought qua advertisement notice No. 3 of 1996 qua the post of “Computer Assistant” in Fishery Department as also the post of “Computer Analyst” in the same department and the post of “Computer Operator” in Forest Protection Force, besides placing reliance on a letter claimed to have been addressed by the Director Agriculture to Deputy Registrar, High Court of J&K dated April 26, 1997 pertaining to the post of “Computer Operator” carrying the pay-scale of 1400-2300 as also a letter dated April 28, 1997 addressed by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest to the Deputy Registrar (Computer), High Court of J&K reflecting therein the grades attached to the post of “Computer Operator” as 950-1400. A reference has also been made for the purpose of claim of the petitioners on the advertisement notice No. 3 of 1997 also pursuant to which the petitioners came to be appointed qua the post of “Data Entry Operators” in the Finance Department carrying the grade of 1200-2040.The petitioner though in order to buttress their claims have referred to the aforesaid facts and the documents, yet have failed to show that the aforesaid posts they are appointed against and the posts with which the petitioners are seeking parity are same and similar in regard to the functions, responsibility, reliability and confidentiality. A general plea raised by the petitioners for invoking the principle of “equal pay for equal work” without even remotely showing the applicability of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the judgment (supra) cannot be entertained. The claim of the petitioners seemingly is misconceived and legally unsustainable. Viewed thus, the petition is found to be without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.