Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vitthal Marutirao Ekbote, was appointed as a Stenographer (English) with the University of Pune on 11 June 1979 and served in the office of the Presiding Officer, Pune Shivaji University College Tribunal. His services were governed by the Maharashtra Non Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code (Terms and Conditions of Service of Non-Teaching Employees) Rules, 1984. He was promoted to Personal Assistant on 27 June 1997 and retired on 31 December 2010 after 31 years and 20 days of service, with 13 years as Personal Assistant. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking pay parity with Personal/Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants of the High Court, claiming the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. He argued that the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal is a High Court Judge, and thus his work was similar to that of High Court PS/PAs. The respondents opposed the petition, contending that the petitioner's service conditions were governed by different rules and that the work and responsibilities were not comparable. The court held that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' applies only when the work and responsibilities are identical or substantially similar. The petitioner failed to discharge the burden of proof to show that his duties, qualifications, and responsibilities were the same as those of High Court PS/PAs. The court noted that the petitioner had accepted the pay scales under the 1984 Rules without challenge and that the High Court PS/PAs are governed by separate rules with different recruitment qualifications. The petition was dismissed, and rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Equal Pay for Equal Work - Principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The petitioner, a Personal Assistant in a University, claimed parity with High Court Secretaries. The court held that the principle applies only when the work and responsibilities are identical or substantially similar. The petitioner failed to establish that his duties, qualifications, and responsibilities were the same as those of High Court PS/PAs. The burden of proof lies on the claimant to demonstrate sameness of work. (Paras 3-15) B) Service Law - Pay Fixation - Comparison of Pay Scales - Maharashtra Non Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code (Terms and Conditions of Service of Non-Teaching Employees) Rules, 1984 - The court noted that the petitioner's service conditions were governed by the 1984 Rules, which prescribe different pay scales. The High Court PS/PAs are governed by separate rules and have different recruitment qualifications and responsibilities. Mere similarity in designation does not entitle parity. (Paras 5-12) C) Service Law - Burden of Proof - Equal Pay Claim - The court emphasized that the claimant must produce evidence to show that the duties, responsibilities, and qualifications are identical. The petitioner did not provide any material to compare his work with that of High Court PS/PAs. The court also noted that the petitioner had earlier accepted the pay scales under the 1984 Rules without challenge. (Paras 13-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, a Personal Assistant in a University, is entitled to pay parity with Personal/Private Secretaries and Personal Assistants of the High Court on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Equal pay for equal work
- Parity in pay scales
- Burden of proof
- Comparison of work and responsibilities
