Research › Browse › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

1992 DIGILAW 102 (CAL)

JANHABI TALUKDAR v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

1992-03-04

SUSANTA CHATTERJI

body1992
S. CHATTERJI, J. ( 1 ) THE present writ petition has been filed by 15 petitioners, praying, inter alia, for a writ of mandamus challenging the impugned notification dated 14. 6. 85 issued by the Secretary, Department of Agriculture. Government of West Bengal and fixation of revised scale of pay of Rs. 300-685/- according to the provisions of West Bengal Service (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules, 1981. It is stated in details that the petitioners are fitter mechanics employed at different stations under Directorate or Agriculture, Government of West Bengal. After successful completion of the training course and having acquired qualifications the petitioners were allegedly appointed as fitter mechanics in the scale of Rs. 180-360/- under Government order dated 7. 2. 74. The said scale of pay had been revised with effect from 1st April, 1970 by appropriate notifications. The respondent No. 3, Chief Engineer (Agriculture), Government of West Bengal by issuing G. O. No. 14175 (2)-Estt-7c/79 dated 7. 12. 79 transferred the services of the petitioners from the control of the Directorate of Agriculture, West Bengal to the control of Engineering Directorate of Agriculture, Government of West Bengal. It is alleged that all class III staff other the fitters and mechanics ill the Department of Agriculture are reviving pay under the revised scale of pay of Rs. 300-685/- as per manual published by the Government of West Bengal, Finance Department but the said scale has not been extended to the fitter mechanics and there is an allegation of discrimination against them. It is placed on record that the petitioners previously moved a writ petition and the same was disposed of in Civil Order No. 4022 W of 1984 in terms of the judgment made by C. K. Banerjee, J. (as His lordship then was) and the respondents were directed to make provisional payment to the petitioners in accordance with the West Bengal Service (Revision of Pay and Allowance) Rules, 1981. It is assorted that even after the said order the respondent State declined to give the scale of pay to the petitioners without any reason. Stating all these facts in details the petitioners have challenged the impugned notification dated 14th June, 1985 on the ground that the aforesaid notification is contrary to and inconsistent with the actual state of affairs inasmuch as there is denial of principle of equal pay for equal work. Stating all these facts in details the petitioners have challenged the impugned notification dated 14th June, 1985 on the ground that the aforesaid notification is contrary to and inconsistent with the actual state of affairs inasmuch as there is denial of principle of equal pay for equal work. ( 2 ) THE writ petition is contested by the State respondent alleging, inter alia, that steps taken by the State respondent are justified and there is nothing for the writ petitioners to be aggrieved of. ( 3 ) ATTENTION of the court has been drawn to an unreported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1196 of 1986 (State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Debdas Kumar and Ors.) and also a judgment of M. R. Mullick, J. dated April 20, 1989 in Suit No. 2560 of 1988 (Nemai Chand Ghose and Ors. v. State of West Bengal) ( 4 ) HAVING heard the learned lawyers for the petitioners and the respondents in details this court does not find that, the ratio of the said judgements is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The only point raised before this Court is whether the revised pay scale is denied to the petitioners the fitter mechanics while equal pay for equal work is longer a distant issue. Considering the matter in depth this court finds that there is merit in the contention of the writ petitioners and the fitter mechanics are entitled to the same scale which is available to the employees doing similar work. The impugned notification appears to be unjust and cannot be sustained in law. ( 5 ) FOR the foregoing reasons this court finds that there is no bar and/or impediment to allow the writ petition by quashing the impugned notification. There will be an appropriate writ commanding the respondents to release the revised pay in the manner as claimed in the petition within a period of 8 weeks from date of communication. ( 6 ) NO order as to costs. Writ Petition allowed.