TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (12) TMI 1718
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clause, which was allowed vide order dated 10.7.2012 and following relief as relief No. (e) has been added in the relief clause : "(e) Issue a writ order in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned part/line "Vibhagiya Padon Ke liye" of the Government Order dated 20.9.1997 contained in Annexure No.3 to the writ petition in the interest of justice." We have heard Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. According to the petitioner, he along with other Advocates were selected on the post of Member of Sales Tax Tribunal (now called Trade Tax Tribunal) in the pay-scale of Rs. 4500-150-5700 by the Public Service Commission, U.P., Lucknow, in the selection held in the month of June, 1993. His Excellency the Governor of Uttar Pradesh issued appointment letter dated 27.1.1994 to him in pursuance to sub-section 1 (a) and proviso (ii) to Section 10 of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948 (now called as U.P. Trade Tax Act). Pursuant to the appointment letter dated 27.1.1994, the petitioner joined on 27.1.1994 and was given posting as Member, Sales Tax Tribunal, Faizabad. It has been stated that State Government adopted a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e petitioner to make a representation to the State Government on 1.10.1997 followed by reminder dated 6.5.1998. According to the petitioner he was paid salary in the pay-scale of Rs. 4500-5700 [revised scale of Rs. 14200-18,300] on which he was appointed whereas other members of the Trade Tax Tribunal, who were appointed from amongst the Deputy Commissioners, were paid the pay scale of Rs. 5900-6700 ( revised scale of Rs. 18400-22400). As no action was taken on the representation of the petitioner for considerable long time, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition no. 809 (SB) of 2001 which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 2.7.2001 with the direction to the State Government to decide the pending representation of the petitioner by a speaking order. In deference to the aforesaid order dated 2.7.2001, the State Government considered the representation and rejected the same vide order dated 12.7.2001, which is impugned in the present writ petition. On the strength of the decision rendered in Bhagwan Das Vs. State of Haryana; AIR 1987 SC 2049, it has been argued that the person doing similar work cannot be denied equal pay on the ground that the mode of recruitment was di....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is primarily the function of Executive and not of the Court. Moreover, the petitioner cannot claim parity with departmental members whose terms and conditions of service are absolutely different from that of a member belonging to advocate quota and hence the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of Government Order dated 20.l9.1997. ''Equality before the law' means that amongst equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that like should be treated alike. Hence, what it forbids discrimination between persons who are substantially in similar circumstances or conditions. It does not forbid different treatment of unequals. The rule rather is that like should be treated alike and that unlike should be treated differently. The same or uniform treatment of unequals is as bad as unequal treatment of equals vide All India Sainik Schools Employees' Assn. V.Sainik Schools Society, 1989 Supp (1)SCC 205,212: Builders' ASSn. Of India V. Union of India, AIR 1989 SC 1371; Direct Recruit Class II Engineering Officers' Assn. V. State of Maharashtra, (1990) 2 SCC 715: Prem Chand Somchand Shah V. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me scale of pay unless classification was based on some intelligible differentia having reasonable nexus with job requirement. On the strength of the decision rendered in P.K.Ramachandra Iyer and others Vs. Union of India and others (1984) 2 SCC 141, we are of the view that the discrimination created by the respondents is unwarranted and is not based on reasonable classification. In Iyer's case [supra] their Lordship observed that in such a situation Article 39(d), must assist us in reaching a fair and just conclusion. Elaborating the underlying intendment of Article 39(d), Chinnappa Reddy, J. in Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India (1982) 1 SCC 618 observed that the principle ''equal pay for equal work' is deducible from Articles 14 and 16 and may be properly applied to the cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer. We may add here that the purpose of Article 39 (d) is to fix certain social and economic goals for avoiding any discrimination amongst the citizens doing similar work in matters relating to pay. If two classes of employ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as under:- "There is no room for any doubt, that the principle of ''equal pay for equal work' has emerged from an interpretation of different provisions of the Constitution. The principle has been expounded through a large number of judgments rendered by this Court, and constitutes law declared by this Court. The same is binding on all the courts in India, under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The parameters of the principle, have been summarized by us in paragraph 42 hereinabove. The principle of ''equal pay for equal work' has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charge, daily-wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal position, relating to temporary employees, has been summarized by us, in paragraph 44 hereinabove. The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us, yet again. 55. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same work, cannot be paid less than another, who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare state. Such an action ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct No. 33 of 1976). It clearly declares that a person who retired under Fundamental Rule 56 shall be entitled for "retiring pension" and other benefits shall be such as applicable in accordance with law. 9. Qualifying service is prescribed under CSR read with Rules, 1961 and therein if a person has continued to work for 10 years and more he is entitled for pension. In the present case it was not open to respondents to declare through an executive order that service rendered by petitioner is not pensionable when statute itself declare that retiring pension shall be paid to petitioner or any other person who retire under Fundamental Rule 56 read with Section 10(1)(b) of Act, 1948." In view of the aforesaid legal proposition, the denial of same pay scale to the petitioner on the ground that his appointment on the post of Member, Trade Tax Tribunal was made from amongst the Advocates quota is wholly unjust and unreasonable. There is no dispute to the fact that at the time of appointment of the petitioner as a Member, Trade Tax Tribunal, the pay scale of Member was Rs. 4500-5700 which was ultimately revised to Rs. 5900-6700. Once the pay scale given to the petitioner at the initial....