Court rules pay discrimination for ATFP members under SAFEMA and NDPSA violated equal pay principle. Petitioner granted higher pay.

The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the different pay scales for members of the Appellate Tribunal Forfeited Property (ATFP) under SAFEMA and NDPSA were discriminatory and violated the principle of "equal pay for equal work." The court found that all ATFP members performed identical functions regardless of the appointing Act. The amendment notifications lowering the pay scale for NDPSA-appointed members were deemed illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner was granted the higher pay scale from the date of appointment, and the court directed the respondents to pay arrears with interest at 8% per annum until settlement.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the different pay scales prescribed for members of the Appellate Tribunal Forfeited Property (ATFP) under SAFEMA and NDPSA.
2. Applicability of Rule 13 of the ATFP Rules, 1989 to the petitioner.
3. Principle of "equal pay for equal work" in the context of ATFP members.
4. Legality of the amendment notifications lowering the pay scale for ATFP members.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Different Pay Scales:
The petitioner challenged the notifications dated 24.12.2001 and 01.10.2001, which amended the ATFP Rules, 1978 and 1989, respectively, resulting in different pay scales for members appointed under SAFEMA and NDPSA. The petitioner argued that this discrepancy was discriminatory and violated the principle of "equal pay for equal work."

2. Applicability of Rule 13 of the ATFP Rules, 1989:
The petitioner contended that Rule 13 of the ATFP Rules, 1989, which prevents members from drawing salaries under both SAFEMA and NDPSA, did not apply to him as he was not a member when the ATFP under NDPSA was constituted. The court found that the petitioner was indeed appointed under SAFEMA, and his appointment order specified the pay scale of Rs. 22,400-525-24,500.

3. Principle of "Equal Pay for Equal Work":
The petitioner argued that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" was violated by having different pay scales for the same post under two different Acts. The court agreed, noting that all members of the ATFP performed identical functions and responsibilities, regardless of the Act under which they were appointed. The court cited the Supreme Court's judgments in Randhir Singh vs. UOI and Mew Ram Kanojia vs. AIIMS, which upheld the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and emphasized that employees performing similar duties should not be treated differently in terms of pay.

4. Legality of the Amendment Notifications:
The court held that the amendment notifications, which lowered the pay scale for members appointed under NDPSA to match those appointed under SAFEMA, were illegal and arbitrary. The court cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Grid Corporation of Orissa vs. Rasananda Das, which stated that conditions of service, including pay scales, cannot be altered to the disadvantage of employees. The court also referred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision in The Jullundur District Co-operative Agricultural Service Societies Employees Union vs. State of Punjab, which held that reducing an employee's pay scale is considered arbitrary and can only be done as a measure of punishment.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petitioner was entitled to the higher pay scale of Rs. 24,050-650-26,000 from the date of his appointment on 13.04.1999. The court quashed the notifications dated 01.10.2001 and 24.12.2001, which amended the ATFP Rules, 1978 and 1989, respectively, and directed the respondents to grant the petitioner the higher pay scale along with interest on arrears at 8% per annum from the date of retirement till payment. The petition was disposed of in these terms.

---