"Unequal Pay for Equal Work? Examining the Wage Dispute in Bihar’s Government Jobs"

 


This judgment concerns an appeal filed by several Personal Assistants (PAs) employed by the Government of Bihar, challenging a decision that denied them pay parity with colleagues who were initially appointed as Steno Typists and later upgraded to the position of PA. The core issue revolves around alleged pay anomalies arising from the implementation of the Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme, which the appellants claim has resulted in Steno Typists-turned-PAs earning more than PAs directly recruited into the role. This analysis delves into the details of the case, examining the arguments presented by both sides and the court's reasoning in arriving at its decision.

Background

The case originates from a writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 4501 of 2014) filed by the appellants, who were directly recruited as PAs between 1978 and 1986. The crux of their grievance lies in the perceived pay disparity between them and those who entered the PA cadre via a different route: starting as Steno Typists and subsequently being upgraded.

The State government had a policy of merging Stenographers Grade I and II with PAs, provided they passed certain examinations, effective from March 1, 1977. Steno Typists who didn't pass the required examination for the merger were given an upgrade on August 7, 1987. This created three distinct categories within the PA cadre:

  1. Those who were merged from Stenographer Grade I and II.
  2. Directly recruited PAs.
  3. Steno Typists who were later upgraded.

The appellants, belonging to the second category, argued that the implementation of the ACP scheme exacerbated the pay gap. The Steno Typists who were upgraded on August 7, 1987, were initially granted a 2nd ACP and then a 1st ACP. However, the same benefit was not extended to the directly recruited PAs. This resulted in a situation where Steno Typists, after receiving ACP benefits, ended up drawing more pay than the directly recruited PAs.

Appellants' Arguments

The appellants essentially contended that they were facing a pay anomaly, as individuals who joined the PA cadre later (through the Steno Typist route) were earning more than them. This, they argued, was unjust and warranted a stepping up of their pay to bring them on par with their colleagues.

To bolster their case, the appellants' counsel cited two key judgments:

  1. Commissioner and Secretary to Government of Haryana and Ors vs. Ram Swarup Ganda and Ors: This case dealt with a similar situation where junior employees, who were initially in a lower grade and later promoted, were drawing more pay than their seniors due to the ACP scheme. The Supreme Court ruled that in such cases, seniors were entitled to a stepping up of their pay to remove the anomaly.
  2. Tejbir Singh Dagar and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors.: This Delhi High Court case further supported the principle of removing pay anomalies where juniors were earning more than their seniors due to different modes of recruitment or career progression.

Court's Observations

The court acknowledged the undisputed fact that the appellants constituted a distinct class of individuals who were directly recruited as PAs. The central question before the court was whether this class was entitled to pay parity with Steno Typists who were upgraded to the post of PA and were drawing higher pay.

The court then highlighted the government's policy behind extending the ACP benefit, emphasizing that it was intended for employees who faced stagnation in a particular post for an extended period (12/14 years in this case). The ACP scheme aimed to alleviate frustration arising from a lack of promotions, providing monetary benefits in the form of a higher grade pay without actually granting a promotional post.

Court's Conclusion

The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of the learned Single Judge. The decision rested on the following key points:

  1. Differentia in Recruitment: The court recognized that the directly recruited PAs and the upgraded Steno Typists belonged to two different classes with distinct modes of recruitment. The directly recruited PAs entered the service based on their qualifications and performance in a direct recruitment process. On the other hand, the upgraded Steno Typists were initially recruited as Steno Typists and later elevated to the PA cadre based on their experience and performance as Steno Typists.
  2. Object of ACP Scheme: The court emphasized that the ACP scheme's primary objective was to address stagnation and provide financial relief to employees who had not received promotions. It was not designed to create pay parity between different cadres or to obliterate the differences arising from different entry points and career paths.
  3. No Fundamental Right to Equal Pay: The court reiterated the established legal position that there is no fundamental right to equal pay for equal work, especially when the employees belong to different classes with different qualifications, experiences, and responsibilities. The principle of "equal pay for equal work" applies only when the employees are similarly situated in all aspects.
  4. Stepping Up of Pay: The court distinguished the cases cited by the appellants, emphasizing that those cases involved situations where the employees belonged to the same cadre and faced pay anomalies due to the implementation of the ACP scheme. In the present case, the directly recruited PAs and the upgraded Steno Typists belonged to different cadres with different recruitment rules and career progression paths. Therefore, the principle of stepping up of pay was not applicable.
  5. Financial Implications: The court also took note of the potential financial implications of granting pay parity to the appellants. It observed that doing so would open the floodgates for similar claims from other cadres, leading to a significant financial burden on the State government.

Implications

This judgment has significant implications for government employees and the interpretation of ACP schemes. It clarifies that:

  • The ACP scheme is primarily intended to address stagnation and not to create pay parity between different cadres.
  • The principle of "equal pay for equal work" applies only to employees who are similarly situated in all aspects, including recruitment rules, qualifications, and responsibilities.
  • Courts are cautious in interfering with the government's pay policies, especially when doing so would have significant financial implications.

The case underscores the importance of clearly defining the objectives and scope of ACP schemes to avoid unintended consequences and potential litigation. It also highlights the need for a transparent and equitable pay structure that recognizes the differences in qualifications, experience, and responsibilities across different cadres of government employees.

Read the full judgement Below;

MyM5NTEjMjAxNiMxI04=-7sSKLWGseF0=