TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Trade Tax Tribunal member wins equal pay case, court orders government to pay arrears and benefits.</h1> <h3>Mohammad Zubair Versus State of U.P. Through Pramukh Sachiv and another.</h3> Mohammad Zubair Versus State of U.P. Through Pramukh Sachiv and another. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Revision of Pay Scale2. Equal Pay for Equal Work3. Discrimination Based on Recruitment Source4. Judicial Precedents on Equal Pay5. Legal Provisions and Fundamental RightsIssue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Revision of Pay Scale:The petitioner, a member of the Trade Tax Tribunal, U.P., challenged the State Government's order dated 12.7.2001, which rejected his representation for the revision of his pay scale. He sought a mandamus to the Principal Secretary, Sales Tax and Registration, Government of Uttar Pradesh, to grant him the same pay scale as members of the Trade Tax Tribunal appointed from the Additional Commissioners and Deputy Commissioners of the Trade Tax Department.2. Equal Pay for Equal Work:The petitioner argued that, despite performing similar duties, he was denied the pay scale of Rs. 5900-6700, later revised to Rs. 18400-22400, which was granted to members appointed from the Trade Tax Department. The petitioner cited the principle of 'equal pay for equal work,' as established in Bhagwan Das Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 SC 2049, asserting that the mode of recruitment should not affect pay equality.3. Discrimination Based on Recruitment Source:The petitioner emphasized that denying him the same pay scale as other members appointed from the Trade Tax Department violated the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. The respondents argued that the petitioner, appointed from the advocate quota, could not be compared with departmental officers due to different recruitment channels and service conditions.4. Judicial Precedents on Equal Pay:The court referred to several precedents, including Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 618, which recognized equal pay for equal work as a constitutional goal. The court noted that any discrimination in pay scales must be based on reasonable classification and job requirements. The court also cited State of Punjab Vs. Jagjit Singh (2016), emphasizing that temporary employees performing similar duties as regular employees are entitled to equal pay.5. Legal Provisions and Fundamental Rights:The court examined Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which ensure equality before the law and equal protection of the laws. The court noted that any arbitrary or irrational act by the State violates these constitutional provisions. The court highlighted that the principle of equal pay for equal work is a facet of Article 14, as reiterated in State of Orissa Vs. Balram Sahu (2003) 1 SCC 250.Conclusion:The court found that the denial of the same pay scale to the petitioner was unjust and unreasonable. The petitioner was entitled to the same pay scale as other members of the Trade Tax Tribunal, irrespective of the recruitment source. The court quashed the impugned order dated 12.7.2001 and directed the respondents to pay the petitioner arrears of salary with interest at 6% and other benefits within three months.Order:The writ petition was allowed, and the State Government was directed to pay the petitioner the revised pay scale of Rs. 5900-6700, later revised to Rs. 18400-22400, along with arrears and interest.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
