Retired Book-Binder Wins Case for Revised Pay and Pension; University Ordered to Pay Arrears from 1986 Under 'Equal Pay for Equal Work'.

The DB ruled in favor of the petitioner, a retired Book-Binder, directing the university to grant the revised pay scale from 1.1.1986, based on 'Equal Pay for Equal Work.' The court emphasized the university's obligation to uniformly implement the decision, despite delays in seeking relief. The petitioner was entitled to enhanced pension and arrears, limited to three years before filing the petition. The respondents were ordered to calculate and disburse the enhanced benefits within a specified timeframe, ensuring compliance with the judgment and upholding the petitioner's rights.

---

---

Issues:
Grant of revised pay scale to Book-Binders of a university, denial of equal pay scale, delay in seeking revision of pay scales, entitlement to pension and arrears.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Grant of revised pay scale to Book-Binders of a university
The petitioner sought the quashing of an order rejecting the claim for a revised pay scale along with arrears and benefits. The controversy arose when Book-Binders of a university requested the same pay scale as those in the Haryana Government Press. The Division Bench, citing relevant judgments, held that there was no difference in duties or qualifications justifying unequal pay scales. The court directed the authorities to grant the petitioner the revised pay scale from 1.1.1986, in line with the principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work.'

Issue 2: Denial of equal pay scale
Despite a previous judgment in favor of one Book-Binder, subsequent petitioners faced resistance from the university in granting the revised pay scale. The court noted that the benefit should have been extended to all eligible employees automatically after the initial judgment. The petitioner's entitlement to the revised pay scale was upheld, emphasizing the obligation of the university to implement the decision uniformly.

Issue 3: Delay in seeking revision of pay scales
The petitioner, a Book-Binder, retired without receiving the revised pay scale granted to others. The university rejected the claim citing a delay in seeking relief. However, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, stating that the delay in seeking redress does not negate entitlement to the revised pay scale, especially when others in similar positions had already benefited from the decision.

Issue 4: Entitlement to pension and arrears
The court ordered the re-fixation of the petitioner's pay scale, considering his retirement date. The petitioner was entitled to enhanced pension and retrial benefits, with arrears limited to three years before the petition's filing. The respondents were directed to calculate and facilitate the payment of enhanced benefits within a specified timeframe, ensuring the petitioner's rights were upheld in line with the court's decision.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of equal pay scales, delayed relief, and entitlement to benefits for Book-Binders, emphasizing the principle of equality in pay for similar work. The court's decision highlighted the obligation of authorities to implement judgments uniformly and promptly, ensuring that affected individuals receive their rightful entitlements in a timely manner.

---