Equal pay for equal work supported parity for deputed employees when duties and service conditions matched the comparable cadre.

An earlier writ judgment was recalled because it had been founded on an inadvertent, unauthorised admission that caused an apparent error on the record, and the court's power to correct such error was treated as necessary to prevent injustice. On pay parity, employees deputed and later absorbed were held entitled to the same pay scale and promotional pay scale as the comparable Revenue Department cadre because the posts were shown to be substantially identical in qualifications, duties, responsibilities, and service conditions. The equal pay for equal work principle and the service rules on deputation supported parity.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the earlier writ judgment was liable to be reviewed and recalled for error apparent on the face of the record. (ii) Whether the petitioners, having been sent on deputation and later absorbed, were entitled to the same pay scale and promotional pay scale as Collection Amins in the Revenue department.

Issue (i): Whether the earlier writ judgment was liable to be reviewed and recalled for error apparent on the face of the record.

Analysis: The earlier decision had been made on the basis of an inadvertent and unauthorized admission in a supplementary counter affidavit, without noticing the prior rejection order and the later Government orders. The mistaken concession had misled the Court and prevented adjudication on merits. A court has the power and duty to correct an apparent error in its own record, and perpetuation of such error would defeat the ends of justice.

Conclusion: The review was maintainable and the earlier judgment was rightly recalled.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioners, having been sent on deputation and later absorbed, were entitled to the same pay scale and promotional pay scale as Collection Amins in the Revenue department.

Analysis: The petitioners were appointed on permanent posts, sent on deputation, and retained lien on their original posts until absorption. The record showed identity in qualification, mode of recruitment, duties, responsibilities, and functional nature between the two sets of Collection Amins. Denial of parity rested on an irrelevant and false premise that no promotional channel existed in the Trade Tax department. In such circumstances, the constitutional principle of equal pay for equal work and the service rules governing initial pay on deputation required parity with the Revenue department cadre.

Conclusion: The petitioners were entitled to the same pay scale and promotional pay scale as Collection Amins in the Revenue department.

Final Conclusion: The review was allowed, the earlier order was recalled, and the writ petition succeeded on merits with directions for grant of the corresponding service benefits.

Ratio Decidendi: An order founded on an inadvertent admission can be reviewed when it reflects an error apparent on the face of the record, and employees on deputation are entitled to parity in pay only where the posts are shown to be substantially identical in duties, responsibilities, and service conditions.

---