Research › Browse › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

1993 DIGILAW 313 (PAT)

Krishna Kumar Verma v. State of Bihar

1993-07-28

N.PANDEY, S.K.SINGH

body1993
Order 1. This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, commanding the respondents to pay the scale of Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 3800/- at par with the pay scale of Deputy Director, Raj Bhasha, Government of Bihar, along with all the arrears and other admissible allowances with retrospective effect. 2. Petitioner at present is posted as Deputy Director Translation Department, High Court, Patna, in the pay scale of Rs. 1800/- to Rs. 3330/-. In the year, 1976, the cadre of Translators was re-organised on the pattern of Raj Bhasha (State Language) in three tier, namely, Junior Translators, Translators and Senior Translators. The educational qualifications, duties, functions and responsibilities of the Translators in the High Court have all along been identical and similar to that of the Translators of Raj Bhasha (State Language) Department, Government of Bihar. Petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Translator on 1.7.1986. 3. In Raj Bhasha Department, Government of Bihar, the post of Deputy Directors had been existing in a revised pay scale of Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 3800/-, as integral part of promotional avenue for the Translation Officers of Raj Bhasha Department. Keeping in view the necessity, for creation of the posts of Deputy Directors as also to bring the full parity with Raj Bhasha Department, High Court made a request to the Government for creation of four posts of Deputy Director at the same pay scale, which was being given to the Deputy Directors of Raj Bhasha Department. Thereafter, the Administrative Personnel Committee of the State Government decided that out of seven posts of Senior Translators, two posts be upgraded in the pay scale of Rs. 1800/- to Rs. 3330/-. Accordingly, on 22.12.1990 a notification was issued by the Secretary, Law (Judicial) Department, Government of Bihar. Consequent to the upgradation of the posts as 3rd rung of promotional avenue of Translation Department, petitioner was promoted as Deputy Director in the pay scale of Rs. 1800/- to Rs. 3330/- by the High Court on 15.2.1991. A copy of such notification is Annexure-5 to the writ application. 4. Petitioner joined the post of Deputy Director and filed a representation, raising a grievance that although the post of Deputy Director has been upgraded on the pattern of Raj Bhasha Department but the respondents have arbitrarily fixed the pay scale of upgraded post at Rs. A copy of such notification is Annexure-5 to the writ application. 4. Petitioner joined the post of Deputy Director and filed a representation, raising a grievance that although the post of Deputy Director has been upgraded on the pattern of Raj Bhasha Department but the respondents have arbitrarily fixed the pay scale of upgraded post at Rs. 1800/- to 3330/- whereas, the Deputy Directors of Raj Bhasha Department for same and similar work were getting the pay scale of Rs. 2000/- to Rs. 3800/-. At the same time the High Court also vide letter dated 29.5.1992 wrote a letter to the Secretary, Law (Judicial) Department to revise the pay scale of the petitioner at par with the pay scale of the Deputy Director of Raj Bhastla Department. 5. Admittedly, the work of Deputy Directors and Translators of the High Court and Raj Bhasha Department are same and similar. In fact, the job of the Translators in the High Court is more arduous, technical and responsible in nature. They have to translate not only from Hindi to English but also from Kaithi, Urdu, Persian, Sanskrit, Bengali, Maithali, Bhojputi, Mahajani and so on into English. They have to reproduce legal documents, including complicated deeds, statement of witnessess, cross examinations, documents of partnership, documents of companies instruments and ancilliary matters. They have not only to perform the work of High Court rather they have to translate several matters on behalf of the Supreme Court for preparation of paper books. The aforesaid position has already been noticed in the report of the 2nd Pay Revision Committee. 6. In the background of the facts, state the above, it has been contended that denial of payment of equal scale to that of the Deputy Director of Raj Bhasha Department is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. The respondents have opposed the writ application by filing counter affidavit. It has been admitted that at the request of the High Court, the matter was examined by the Government and instead of four posts, two posts of Senior Translators were upgraded in the pay scale of Rs. 1800/- to Rs. 3330/-. But the Government did not approve the proposal for creation of the posts of Deputy Directors. Therefore, it is stated that these upgraded posts can not be equated to the posts of the Deputy Directors in the Raj Bhasha Department. 1800/- to Rs. 3330/-. But the Government did not approve the proposal for creation of the posts of Deputy Directors. Therefore, it is stated that these upgraded posts can not be equated to the posts of the Deputy Directors in the Raj Bhasha Department. In support of such contention, our attention has been drawn towards a letter of the Government dated 22nd of December, 1990, whereby, the High Court was communicated that two posts of Senior Translators were upgraded and for promotional avenue, this will be the 3rd rung of promotinal channel. 8. Besides the submissions, what we have already noticed, learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the posts of Deputy Directors in Raj Bhasha Department is an integral part of promotional avenue and is, thus, 3rd rung of promotional channel. In order to give full parity in the pattern of Raj Bhasha Department, at the request of the High Court, the State Government upgraded two posts as the 3rd rung of promotion in Translators. When the post of Deputy Director in Raj Bhasha Department is of 3rd rung of promotion and the government made similar provision for promotion in the cadre of Translators in the High Court, it was not open to them to give a lower pay scale for such posts. 9. There is no denial in the counter affidavit that the Deputy Directors, including the petitioner is performing same and similar function to that of the Deputy Directors of Raj Bhasha Department nor there is any denial that the Deputy Directors of the High Cour1 have to perform most arduous work. Admittedly, the qualifications, prescribed for the Translators of the High Court and for similarly situated employees of the Raj Bhasha Department are same. In that view of the matter, even this question is left undecided, whether the decision of the Government was to create a post or to create an avenue as a 3rd rung of promotional channel, the petitioner's claim for 'equal pay for equal work' cannot be ignored. 10. The question, when two posts under two different wings of the same government are not only identical but also involve the performance of the same nature of duties, are entitled for "equal pay for equal work" have gone into consideration before the Supreme Court as also before this Court on several occasions. 10. The question, when two posts under two different wings of the same government are not only identical but also involve the performance of the same nature of duties, are entitled for "equal pay for equal work" have gone into consideration before the Supreme Court as also before this Court on several occasions. In the case before us, the objection of the respondents in their counter affidavit is that the posts were not created rather upgraded to provide a 3rd rung as promotional avenue in the cadre. The claim of the petitioner that his work and duties are identical to those of Deputy Directors, Raj Bhasha Department, is not in dispute. In the case of Bhagwan Dass & ors. Vs. State of Haryana and ors. A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 2049, while considering the case of "equal pay for equal work" for the persons doing similar work, although their mode of recruitment was different, the Supreme Curt held thus : "We are unable to comprehend how this factor can be invoked for violating 'equal pay for equal work' doctrine. Whether appointments are for temporary periods and the Schemes are temporary in nature is irrelevant once it is shown that the nature of the duties and functions discharged and the work done is similar and the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" is attracted. As regards the effect of the breaks given at the end of every six months, we will deal with this aspect shortly hereafter. That however is no ground for refusing the 'equal pay for equal work' doctrine. Be it realized that we are concerned with the 'equal work for equal pay' doctrine only within the parametres of the four grounds and the fact situation discussed hereinabove." Similarly in the case of Y. K. Mehta & ors. Vs. Union of India and anr., A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1970, it was held when two posts under two different wings of the same Ministry are not only identical but also involve performance of the same nature of duties, it will be unreasonable and unjust to discriminate between the two in the matter of pay. Vs. Union of India and anr., A.I.R. 1988 S.C. 1970, it was held when two posts under two different wings of the same Ministry are not only identical but also involve performance of the same nature of duties, it will be unreasonable and unjust to discriminate between the two in the matter of pay. It would be relevant to quote the relevant passage of the report hereunder : "We have gone through the averments in the writ petitions and those made in the counter-affidavits filed by the Director General of Doordarshan and we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioners perform the same duties as those performed by their counterparts in the Film Division. When two posts under two different wings of the same Ministry are not only identical, but also involve the performance of the same nature of duties, it will be unreasonable and unjust to discriminate between the two in the matter of pay. One of the directive principles of State Policy, as embodied in clause (d) of Article 39 of the Constitution, is equal pay for equal work for both men and women. The provision of Art. 39(d) has been relied upon by the petitioners. The directive principles contained in Part-IV of the Constitution, though not enforceable by any Court, are intended to be implemented by the State of its own accord so as to promote the welfare of the people. Indeed, Article 37 provides, inter alia, that it shall be the duty of the State to apply these principles in making law. Even leaving out our consideration Art. 39(d), the principle of 'equal pay for equal work', if not given effect to in the case of one set of Government servants holding same or similar post, possessing same qualifications and doing the same kind of work, as another set of Government servant, it would be discriminatory and violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such discrimination has been made in respect of the petitioners, who are the Staff Artists of Doordarshan, by not giving them the same scales of pay as provided to their counterparts in the Film Division under the same Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to the same scales of pay as their counterparts in the Film Division." In the case of Surender Singh and anr. The petitioners are, therefore, entitled to the same scales of pay as their counterparts in the Film Division." In the case of Surender Singh and anr. vs. The Engineer in Chief, C.P.W.D. and ors., A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 584 : 1986 PLJR (SC) 15, persons employed on daily wages in the Central Public Works Department, made a claim for equal pay for equal work at par with the other permanent employees in the Department to do the identical work. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, held as follows : "The Central Government, the State Governments and likewise, all public sector undertakings are expected to function like model and enlightened employers and arguments such as those which were advanced before us that the principle of equal pay for equal work is an abstract doctrine which cannot be enforced in a court of law should ill-come from the mouths of the State and State Undertakings. We allow both the writ petitions and direct the respondents, as in the Nehru Yuvak Kendra's case (supra) to pay to the petitioners and all other daily rated employees, the same salary and allowances as are paid to regular and permanent employees with effect from the date when they were respectively employed." On the basis of the principle, laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned decisions, as also other decisions, this Court also in the case of Nandlal Dhibar vs. Ranchi University & ors., 1991 (2) P.L.J.R. 718, and Sumeshwar Prasad Verma vs. The State of Bihar & ors., 1991 (1) P.L.J.R. 718 , dealing with similar questions, held that persons, similarly situated are entitled to equal pay for equal work. Any deviation embodied under Article 39(d) of the Constitution may violate the principle of natural justice as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In view of the undisputed facts that the petitioner is performing same and similar work to that of the Deputy Directors of Raj Bhasha Department, the State Government has no option but to abide by the principles, laid down by the Supreme Court as also of this Court in several cases. It can not be denied that one of the directive principles of the State policy, as embodied under Clause (d) of Article 39 of the Constitution is 'equal pay for equal work'. It can not be denied that one of the directive principles of the State policy, as embodied under Clause (d) of Article 39 of the Constitution is 'equal pay for equal work'. The directive principles are intended to be implemented by the State on its own accord, so as to promote the welfare of the people. Therefore, if the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not given to one set of government servant, holding the same and similar posts, possessing same qualifications and doing the same kind of work, as another set of the government servant, it would be highly discriminatory and thus, violative of the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Having noticed that the petitioner as well as the Deputy Director of the Raj Bhasha Department are performing same and similar kind of work as also possessing the same qualifications, in our view, any discrimination by the Government in payment of "equal pay for equal work" is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, petitioner is, therefore, entitled to the same pay scale as his counterparts in the Raj Bhasha Deptt. 11. In the circumstances, we direct the State Government to pay the same pay scale and other emoluments at par to the Deputy Directors of Raj Bhasha Department. Petitioner, thus, will also be entitled to the substituted scale of pay and consequential benefits. Respondents are further directed, to disburse the petitioner, the arrear amount, being difference of pay scale, within a period of tour months. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed to the extent, indicated. But however, there will be no order as to costs.