"Pay Disparity Among Personal Assistants - A Fight for Equality"

Introduction

This legal dispute, heard in the High Court of Judicature at Patna, revolves around the issue of pay disparity among Personal Assistants in the government of Bihar, India. The case highlights the grievances of a group of Personal Assistants who were directly recruited, claiming they were unfairly paid less than colleagues who entered the same position through a different route. This situation brings to the forefront questions of equity, seniority, and the complexities of pay structures within government services.

Background

The case involves a group of individuals working as Personal Assistants in various departments of the Bihar government. These Personal Assistants were directly recruited to their positions between 1978 and 1986. Over time, a disparity in pay emerged between these directly recruited Personal Assistants and another group who were initially appointed as Steno Typists and later promoted or upgraded to the position of Personal Assistant.

The crux of the issue lies in the implementation of the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme by the Bihar government. The Steno Typists who were upgraded to Personal Assistants benefited from this scheme, receiving higher pay than the directly recruited Personal Assistants. This created a situation where individuals who had been directly recruited as Personal Assistants were earning less than those who had been promoted into the role.

The Grievance

The directly recruited Personal Assistants felt aggrieved by this pay anomaly. They argued that they were performing the same job as those who had been upgraded from Steno Typist but were being compensated less. They sought a resolution to rectify this disparity and bring their pay on par with their colleagues.

Legal Arguments and Court's Analysis

The appellants' counsel presented legal arguments citing previous court decisions to support their claim for pay parity. They argued that when senior employees are paid less than their juniors, it constitutes an anomaly that should be corrected.

However, the court carefully examined the facts of the case, emphasizing the importance of considering the source of recruitment and service particulars of the employees. The court noted that while both groups of employees were in the same cadre (Personal Assistant), their paths to that position were different. Some were directly recruited as Personal Assistants, while others were promoted from Steno Typist positions.

The court also referred to government circulars that outline the conditions under which pay anomalies can be rectified. These circulars emphasize that pay parity adjustments are typically applicable when employees have similar service records, including the date of joining, increments earned, and examinations passed.

In this case, the court concluded that the pay disparity was not due to factors like pay scale revisions or promotions, but rather due to the different service particulars of the two groups of employees.

Decision

Ultimately, the Patna High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the earlier decision. The court reasoned that the appellants, who were directly recruited as Personal Assistants, could not claim pay parity with those who entered the position through a different route (i.e., promotion from Steno Typist) because their service histories and circumstances were fundamentally different.

Implications

This case illustrates the complexities of pay structures in government service and the challenges in addressing pay disparity grievances. It underscores the importance of considering the nuances of recruitment methods, service history, and government regulations when determining pay equity. While the court acknowledged the existence of a pay difference, it emphasized the need to adhere to established principles and guidelines for rectifying pay anomalies.

Read the full judgement Below;

https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyM5NTEjMjAxNiMxI04=-7sSKLWGseF0=