Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by a retired Personal Assistant of the University of Pune, who sought parity of pay scales with Personal Secretaries and Personal Assistants working in the High Court. The petitioner had served as a Stenographer from 1979 and was promoted to Personal Assistant in 1997, working mainly with the Presiding Officer of the Pune Shivaji University College Tribunal, a post held by a retired High Court Judge. His services were governed by the Maharashtra Non Agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code (Terms and Conditions of Service of NonTeaching Employees) Rules, 1984. The petitioner contended that his duties and responsibilities were identical to those of High Court Personal Assistants/Personal Secretaries because the Presiding Officer was a retired High Court Judge. He made several representations to the State Government and the University, seeking the Fifth and Sixth Pay Commission pay scales with revised designations. The University had recommended his case, but the State did not grant the relief. The petitioner argued violation of the principle of equal pay for equal work, citing Government Resolutions that granted higher scales to High Court staff. The State opposed the petition, asserting that pay scales are determined by expert committees and that no parity could be claimed across different establishments. The High Court examined the claim and held that the Tribunal established under a statute cannot be equated with the High Court established under the Constitution. The mere requirement that the Presiding Officer be a retired High Court Judge does not confer any right on the petitioner to claim equal pay with High Court employees. The court emphasized that the Personal Assistants of the Tribunal and the High Court work in completely distinct establishments, and the doctrine of equal pay for equal work applies only when employees are similarly situated under the same employer and perform identical work. The petitioner failed to place on record any material to demonstrate the exact nature of duties of High Court staff to establish equivalence. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the rule discharged.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Equal Pay for Equal Work - Applicability of doctrine across different establishments - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 14, 16 - The petitioner, a retired Personal Assistant of the University Tribunal presided over by a retired High Court Judge, claimed pay parity with High Court Personal Assistants/Personal Secretaries on the principle of equal pay for equal work. The High Court held that the principle applies only when the employees are similarly situated, discharge similar functions under the same employer; as the Tribunal is a distinct establishment from the High Court, the claim fails. Held, the petition is dismissed (Paras 13-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a Personal Assistant serving with the University Tribunal presided over by a retired High Court Judge is entitled to parity of pay with Personal Secretaries/Personal Assistants of the High Court on the principle of equal pay for equal work.
Final Decision
Writ Petition dismissed. Held that the Tribunal is not equivalent to the High Court, the establishments are distinct, and the principle of equal pay for equal work does not apply when employees work in different establishments. No discrimination.
Law Points
- Equal pay for equal work applies only when employees are under same employer and discharge identical work
- Tribunal presided over by retired High Court Judge not equivalent to High Court
- personal assistants of Tribunal and High Court are in distinct establishments hence no parity of pay
