Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose between the appellants, who had been working as Child Development Project Officers (CDPOs) in the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) since July 1999, and the State of West Bengal regarding their entitlement to the salary prescribed for the CDPO post. The appellants were initially appointed as Assistant Child Development Project Officers (ACDPOs) in 1986-87 and were temporarily transferred to act as CDPOs in 1999. They filed an Original Application before the State Administrative Tribunal seeking salary in the pay scale of CDPO, asserting they had been performing the duties of that post. The Tribunal dismissed their application, stating that there was no specific pay scale for CDPOs and that holding a temporary charge did not qualify them for the higher pay scale. The appellants' subsequent writ petition was also dismissed by the High Court, which acknowledged the lack of a specific pay scale for CDPOs but suggested that they should receive an officiating allowance. The appellants argued that their constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 16 entitled them to equal pay for equal work, citing previous judgments that supported their claim. The court analyzed the submissions and noted that the appellants had been performing the duties of CDPO for an extended period without any evidence to suggest they were not fulfilling their responsibilities. The court concluded that the appellants should not be penalized for the government's failure to promote them and directed the respondents to pay them the salary and allowances of the CDPO post retroactively, with specific timelines for payment and future promotions. The appeal was thus allowed, and the previous orders were set aside.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Equal Pay for Equal Work - Entitlement to Salary - Constitution of India, Articles 14, 16, 39(d) - Appellants, acting as CDPOs for several years, claimed salary in the pay scale of CDPO. Court held that denying them this pay scale despite discharging the duties of CDPO was unjust, emphasizing the principle of equal pay for equal work (Paras 11-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants are entitled to be paid salary in the pay scale prescribed for the post of Child Development Project Officer (CDPO).
Final Decision
The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's order was set aside, and the respondents were directed to pay the appellants salary and allowances in the pay scale of CDPO from the date they took charge, with specific timelines for payment and future promotions.
Law Points
- equal pay for equal work
- temporary charge
- promotion rules
- administrative discretion
- constitutional rights
