Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court heard an appeal against the Calcutta High Court's judgment directing the Calcutta Municipal Corporation to grant respondent Pijush Kanti Das the pay scale of 660-1600, which was admissible to the post of Education Officer under the Corporation. The respondent had been serving as Education Incharge in the erstwhile Garden Reach Municipality on a pay scale of 380-910. After the merger of Garden Reach Municipality with the Calcutta Municipal Corporation under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980, the Governor issued a notification dated 21 December 1983 under Section 120(2A) read with Section 120(2) of the Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, providing that employees of the Garden Reach Municipality would continue on same terms and conditions until further orders. To rationalize pay scales, the Corporation issued Circular No. 31 of 1985-86 dated 29 June 1985, placing employees of merged units in comparable posts and pay scales. Under this circular, the respondent, formerly Education Incharge, was designated as Education Officer 'Unit' and given the pay scale of 610-1270, equivalent to Assistant Education Officer. Circular No. 35 of 1985-86 later revised the pay scale to 500-1360 for the same post. The respondent filed a writ petition claiming the higher scale of 660-1600 on the ground that he performed the same functions and duties as Education Officer of the Corporation. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, and the Division Bench affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the High Court committed a gross error by ignoring the earlier pay scale and duties of the respondent and by not considering the relevant circulars. The Court observed that applying the principle of equal pay for equal work requires comparison of pay scales and duties of the posts, not merely designation. Since the respondent's earlier pay scale was much lower than that of Assistant Education Officer, and granting the higher scale would amount to promotion over two hierarchies and march over Deputy Education Officers, the Court held that fixing his pay comparable to Assistant Education Officer under Circular No. 31 was neither arbitrary nor irrational. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench were set aside, and the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Equal Pay for Equal Work - Pay Fixation on Merger - Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act, 1980 and Bengal Municipal Act, 1932, Section 120(2A) - Respondent, formerly Education Incharge under Garden Reach Municipality, claimed pay scale of Education Officer under Calcutta Municipal Corporation after merger. Supreme Court held that equal pay for equal work principle requires comparison of pay scales and duties of posts; High Court erred in granting higher scale based solely on designation without considering earlier pay scale and Circular No. 31 of 1985-86 fixing pay in comparable posts. Held that fixing pay comparable to Assistant Education Officer was justified and writ petition dismissed.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' applies to the respondent and whether he is entitled to the pay scale of 660-1600 meant for Education Officer under the Calcutta Municipal Corporation.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; judgment of Division Bench and Single Judge set aside; writ petition filed by respondent dismissed; no costs.
Law Points
- Equal pay for equal work
- comparable posts
- pay fixation on merger
- Circular No. 31 of 1985-86
- Bengal Municipal Act Section 120(2A)
- Calcutta Municipal Corporation Act 1980
