Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 301 (JK)

Rasif Majeed Bhat v. State

2013-05-13

Hasnain Massodi

body2013
(Oral) 1. Petitioner responded to advertisement notice no. 01 of 2005 dated 15/01/2005 issued by the respondent Institute inviting applications from the eligible candidates for the post of Computer Operator/Lab Assistant/System Administrator in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000. He participated in the selection process and was selected for the advertised post. The respondent Institute vide IMPA order no. 168 of 2005 dated 29.8.2005 acted upon the recommendation made by the Selection Committee and approved by Vice Chairman, IMPA, and appointed the petitioner as Computer Operator/Lab Assistant/ System Administrator in the pay scale of Rs. 5000-8000 in the Institute. 2. The petitioner accepted the appointment and joined the Institute immediately after he was appointed and has been ever since serving the respondent Institute in said capacity. His probation period was vide IMPA order no. 369 of 2008 dated 24.09.2008 declared to have been successfully completed. 3. The petitioner after serving the department in the aforesaid capacity for more than six years has come up with writ petition on hand complaining that the post of Computer Operator/ System Administrator in other departments of the government carries higher pay scale as compared to the pay scale attached to the post against which the petitioner stands appointed. The petitioner insists that on the principle of "equal pay for equal work", he is required to be placed in the grade attached to the post of Computer Operator/ System Administrator in other departments of the state. The petitioner to reinforce his claim has appended detailed list of government departments having the post of System Administrator/System Analyst/Computer Operator, etc. on their establishment with the pay scales carried by such posts. 4. The respondents oppose the writ petition on the grounds set out in the reply. It is pointed out that the petitioner having accepted the appointment cannot turn around to ask for higher pay scale on the ground that the post held by him carries higher pay scale in other government departments, more so when there is no similarity in the nature of duties discharged by the petitioner and the incumbents in other departments. 5. Heard and considered. 6. The petitioner responded to the advertisement notice and offered his candidature for the advertised post knowing fully well the eligibility Criteria, Job requirement and the pay scale attached to the advertised post. 5. Heard and considered. 6. The petitioner responded to the advertisement notice and offered his candidature for the advertised post knowing fully well the eligibility Criteria, Job requirement and the pay scale attached to the advertised post. He aware of all these aspects of the advertised position participated in the selection process and after his selection joined as Computer Operator/Lab Assistant/System Administrator. The petitioner having so participated in the selection process and taken up the appointment cannot turn around to claim a higher pay scale merely on the basis of similarity in nomenclature of posts in various departments. 7. Well celebrated principle of "equal pay for pay work" does not entitle the petitioner to claim a higher pay scale only on the ground that the post in different departments known by a similar name carries such pay scale. In order to claim pay parity an employee is required not only to plead and prove the similarity in nomenclature, but also to establish that eligibility and job requirement, nature of duties, volume of work to be handled, extent of responsibility, etc, are same and equal for equal treatment. 8. In the present case the petitioner has not made any such exercise before approaching the court with the writ petition based on the principle of equal pay for equal work. To illustrate while the advertised post required an aspirant to have 10+2 qualification and a three-year diploma in computers, a System Administrator in National Institute of Science, Education and Research is to have MCA with 60 per cent marks to his credit and System Analyst in National Informatics Centre is to have B.E. or MCA degree to his credit. Same is true about System Administrator in Centre for Development of Advanced Computing and other departments listed in annexure P4 to the petition. 9. The petitioner in the circumstances cannot claim same pay scale as is carried by the posts shown in column 2 of the annexure in other departments of the state and central government. The petitioner has to realize that the Lab Assistant in J&K Service Selection Board carries a pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000, i.e. lesser pay scale as compared to the pay scale held by the petitioner though the petitioner holds the post of Computer Operator/Lab Assistant/System Administrator. 10. The petitioner has to realize that the Lab Assistant in J&K Service Selection Board carries a pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000, i.e. lesser pay scale as compared to the pay scale held by the petitioner though the petitioner holds the post of Computer Operator/Lab Assistant/System Administrator. 10. To sum up, the question of pay parity does not exclusively hinge on the name given to the posts but a host of other factors like eligibility criteria, job requirement, nature of duties, volume of work to be handled, extent of responsibility, eligibility, etc. In the present case, petitioner places reliance only on similarity in nomenclature of the post held by him and post(s) in other departments that according to him carry a higher pay scale. He does not plead that his claim satisfies other vital requirements. Petitioner's case, therefore, cannot be accepted. 11. Viewed thus, the petition is dismissed.