Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 43 (TRI)

Parimal S. Debbarma v. State of Tripura

2020-03-05

AKIL KURESHI

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. Petitioners have challenged a decision of the Finance Department of the State of Tripura dated 10.05.2019 rejecting the request for upgradation of their pay scale. This challenge arises in following background: 2. Petitioners are the General Managers working in Tripura Industrial Development Corporation Limited (TIDCL, for short). They have been agitating since long for improvement of their pay scale which they contend is too low compared to the workload. They compare their position with that of the General Managers of Tripura State Electricity Corporation Limited (TSECL, for short). They point out that the General Managers of TSECL draw salaries in much higher pay scales as compared to them. Both Corporations being Government Corporations and the workloads and qualifications in both posts being similar, such diverse prescription of pay scales is not justified. The petitioners would point out that after implementation of Revision of Pay Rules, 2009 the pay scale prescribed for the post of General Manager, TIDCL was Rs.13,575- 37,000 with a Grade Pay of Rs.5,600. Whereas the pay scale prescribed for the post of General Manager, TSECL is Rs.24,625- 40,600 with Grade Pay of Rs.6,500. 3. Under the Board s meeting dated 11.12.2007 the TIDCL had resolved to recommend as under: 'In view of the work load, the pay scale of GMs in TIDC appears to be low and may be made on par with the General Managers of TSECL which is Rs.24,625/- - 40,000/- called the HAG+ scale with Grade Pay of Rs.6,500/- in place of existing scale Rs.13,575 37,000/-, GP:5,600/- of GM in TIDC.' 4. This recommendation was reiterated by the Board in its 165th meeting dated 26.11.2012. Despite this, the Finance Department of the State Government was not accepting such suggestion. The petitioners thereupon filed WP(C) No.54 of 2015 which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by a judgment dated 11.02.2019 in following manner: '12. However, at this stage, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India should not dictate the Government compelling to fix a specific pay scale for a particular employee or employees working in a department under the Govt. or any of its instrumentalities. However, at this stage, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India should not dictate the Government compelling to fix a specific pay scale for a particular employee or employees working in a department under the Govt. or any of its instrumentalities. Be that as it may, this Court is inclined to pass a direction upon the Govt., especially, the respondent No.1, to consider the issue raised by the TIDC Ltd. and DIC, as well, in regard to the up-gradation of pay scale of the writ petitioners at par the pay scale of the General Managers of TSECL. 13. It is made clear, the said exercise is to be completed by the Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura within a period of 3(three) months from the date of obtaining certified copy of this order. Liberty reserves with the petitioners to take appropriate course of law if they are aggrieved by any decision of the respondents. With these observations and direction, the instant writ petition is disposed of.' 5. The Finance Department thereupon considered the requests and representations of the petitioners and disposed them of by a speaking order dated 10.05.2019 which is impugned in this petition. While rejecting the request for upgradation of the pay scale in the said order following reasons are cited: 'Whereas, Finance Department has examined the case in light of the aforesaid records as well as records placed by the concerned administrative Department, decision of the Board of Director, TIDCL and the recruitment rules of the post of General Manager, TIDCL and TSECL. Upon examination of the aforesaid records, it has been observed that there is a wide variation in the educational qualification and experience required for being eligible for the post of General Manager under TIDCL and TSECL respectively. That the educational qualification for being eligible to the post of General Manager, TIDCL is Graduation with professional qualifications in the respective disciplines like CA/ICWA/CS/LLB/MBA/ B.Tech and an experience of 5 years in the post of Manager. That the educational qualification for being eligible to the post of General Manager, TIDCL is Graduation with professional qualifications in the respective disciplines like CA/ICWA/CS/LLB/MBA/ B.Tech and an experience of 5 years in the post of Manager. As compared to that, the educational qualification for being eligible to the post of General Manager, TSECL is consistent good academic records with at least 55% marks (or an equivalent grade in a point scale wherever grading system is followed) in Master s Degree in Human Resource Management/ Personal Management from any University recognized by the UGC; preference to be given to candidates having Ph.D and MBA with specialization in Human Resource Management/First class in two years full time Post Graduate Diploma in Management with specialization in Human Resource Management from any Institution/University recognized by AICTE/UGC and an experience of minimum 20 (twenty) years of Industry/profession at Managerial level in Human Resource Planning etc., Further, the services offered by these two different organisations are different; the nature of job responsibilities of General Manager under TIDCL and TSECL are also vastly different. Therefore, even though the nomenclature of the post is the same yet it is not possible to draw uniformity among the post existing in two different organisations. Pay scale attached to a post is determined on the basis of several factors. Moreover, equal pay must be for equal work of equal value. It is difficult to apply the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' mechanically in every case. Therefore, in the present scenario the difference in pay scales of the General Manager, TIDCL and TSECL appears to be in order. And Whereas, the Hon ble High Court is its judgement dated 11.02.2019 in WP(C) No.54/2015 has already observed that 'it is difficult to accept the submission of the Ld. Senior Counsel that there was an implied commitment made by the Government regarding the upgradation of pay-scale of the petitioners.' Now, therefore, in compliance to judgment dated 11.02.2019 of the Hon ble High Court in WP(C) No.54 of 2015, Finance Department; after examination of matter in light of the pronouncements delivered by the Hon ble Supreme Court and considering the facts of the case as discussed above; is of the view that the General Manager, TIDCL and General Manager, TSECL for two separate classes of employees and therefore, doctrine of equal pay for equal work does not apply to this case. Mere nomenclature designating a person is not enough to come to the conclusion that he is doing the same work as another person of same designation. The quality of work which is produced may be different and even the nature of work assigned may be different. It is not just a comparison of physical activity. The application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' requires consideration of various dimensions of a given job. The accuracy required and the dexterity that the job may entail may differ from job to job. It cannot be judged by the mere volume of work or mere similarity in the nomenclature of the post. There may be qualitative difference as regards responsibility. Functions may be the same but the responsibilities make a difference. Therefore, the proposal of the Department for upgradation of pay scale of the post General Manager, TIDCL at par with that of General Manager, TSECL cannot be agreed to.' 6. Appearing for the petitioners, learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Sankar Deb submitted that as per the TIDCL itself the pay scale attached to the post of General Manager is low and should be brought in at par with that of General Manager of TSECL. The Government has not cited proper reasons for rejecting such proposal. The difference in educational qualifications between the two posts cited in the impugned order is not a valid reason. He drew my attention to the Recruitment Rules for the post of General Manager in TIDCL and pointed out that in addition to the qualification of graduate, the incumbent must also possess professional qualifications in respective disciplines like CA, ICWA, CS, LLB, MBA, B.E. or B.Tech. Thus, for being a General Manager in TIDCL, the candidate must have specialized educational qualifications. Such qualifications are in no way inferior to those prescribed for the post of General Manager, TSECL. 7. On the other hand, learned Addl. Government Advocate opposed the petition contending that it is essentially for the Government to consider equation of two posts which must depend on range of factors. Nomenclature alone would not be sufficient. Finance Department has examined the issue minutely and come to the conclusion that no case for comparing the two posts arises. This decision, therefore, calls for no interference. 8. Nomenclature alone would not be sufficient. Finance Department has examined the issue minutely and come to the conclusion that no case for comparing the two posts arises. This decision, therefore, calls for no interference. 8. The materials on record would show that the petitioners essentially seek upgradation of pay scales so as to match them with the pay scales prescribed for the post of General Manager, TSECL. Undisputedly, both the posts are created under different organisations. As is often stated, the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' flowing from Articles 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India, can be applied only if on all aspects such as, the qualifications of education and experience, the workload and all such other factors, there is commonality. Such principle cannot be applied in abstract. Reference in this respect can be made to the decision of Supreme Court in case of Union of India v. Tarit Ranjan Das reported in (2003) 11 SCC 658 . 9. The Finance Department, in addition to recording that the nature of work involved in both the posts is vastly different, has also highlighted the qualifications prescribed under the respective Recruitment Rules for both the posts. It is noted that for the post of General Manager, TIDCL the educational qualification required is graduation with professional qualifications in the respective disciplines like CA, ICWA, CS, LLB, MBA, B.Tech. The experience required is of 5 years on the post of Manager. As against this, for the post of General Manager, TSECL minimum educational qualification required is consistent good academic record with at least 55% marks or equivalent in Master s Degree in Human Resource Management/Personal Management from any recognized University; preference to be given to candidates having Ph.D and MBA with specialization in Human Resource Management/First class in two years full time Post Graduate Diploma in Management with specialization in Human Resource Management and experience of minimum 20 (twenty) years of Industry/profession at Managerial level in Human Resource Planning. Thus, there is a vast difference in educational and experience qualifications prescribed for both the posts. There is nothing on the record to hold that the nature of duties performed and the workload involved in both the posts is comparable. The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' in such circumstances would have no applicability. 10. Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.