GOVT. OF INDIA AND ORS. versus COURT LIQUIDATORS EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 62 · Decided: 27-08-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GOVT. OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
COURT LIQUIDATOR'S EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND ORS. 
AUGUST 27, 1999 
B 
[K. VENKATASWAMI AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Parity in employment-Respondents working as Company Paid Staff in 
C the office of the Official Liquidator/Court Liquidator for 10-25 years being 
paid very low scale of pay without any permanent or quasi-permanent status 
vis-a-vis Government paid staff in the same office-Rationality of-Held, 
there is no rational or reasonable basis for making classification between 
the two groups of employees or denial of equal treatment, when they are 
found to turn out the same and similar nature of work-The respondents 
D cannot be denied the benefits and status which are enjoyed by their 
counterparts employed in the office of Official Liquidator/Court Liquidator-
Judgments of the two High Courts directing the regularisation of the service 
of the respondents and grant of benefits of pay fixation and other allowances, 
upheld-However, in the interest of justice, an opportunity given to the 
E appellants to frame a scheme for absorption of Company Paid Staff modelled 
on the 1978 Scheme of Department of Company Affairs and implement it 
within six months-Companies (Court) Rules, 1959-Rules 308 and 309-
Equal pay for equal work-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 39(d). 
In Civil Appeal No. 5642/94, the respondents were the employees in the 
F office of the Court Liquidator in Calcutta High Court. Aggrieved by the 
disparity in pay-scales and deprivation of allowances and retiral benefits vis-
a-vis the employees of the Central Government, they moved High Court by 
filing a writ petition for grant of full status of permanent Central Govt. 
employees and other benefits. The said petition was allowed by learned 
Single Judge of the High Court. Aggrieved, the appellants preferred an 
G appeal to th_e Division Bench of the High Court. The said appeal \\'.as dismissed 
by the Division Bench thereby holding that there was no reasonable basis 
for making classification or denial of equal treatment between the employees 
of the Court Liquidator and the Official Liquidator when they were found to 
turn out the same and similar nature of work. Hence the present appeal. The 
H Company Paid Staff of the Official Liquidator of High Court of Madras was 
62 
... 
-.__ 
GOVT. OF INDIA v. COURT LIQUIDATOR'S EMPLOYEES ASSON. 
63 
also allowed to implead/intervene in the present civil appeal. 
A 
... 
In Civil Appeal 5677/94, the respondents were working as Estate 
Clerks, known as Company Paid Staff in the office of the Official Liquidator, 
High Court of Kerala, having been appointed by the Official Liquidator 
pursuant to the orders of the High Court under Rules 308 and 309 of the 
Companies (Court) Rules, 1959. The said respondents had been discharging B 
their duties and functions identical to those of the staff employed by the 
Central Government in the office of the Official Liquidator but their service 
was not regularised. Aggrieved, the respondents moved the High Court by 
filing a writ petition seeking absorption on a regular basis relying on an 
earlier absorption of similarly situated Company Paid Staff as regularly paid c 
staff. The said petition was allowed directing the appellants to absorb Company 
Paid Staff as regular lower division clerks in the office of the Official 
Liquidator with effect from their respective dates of appointments as Estate 
Clerks. Hence the present appeal. The Company Paid Staff in the office of 
the Official Liquidator of High Court of Bombay was also allowed to intervene/ 
implead in the present appeal. 
D 
-
In Writ Petition (C) No. 473/88, the Company Paid Staff in the office 
of the Official Liquidator of High Court of Delhi, claimed regularisation/ 
absorption on the basis of their proper selection and possession of requisite 
qualification and the long experience in the Department. 
E 
On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that the Company Paid 
Staff cannot be absorbed/regularised as they were not employed by the 
Government in accordance with the rules; that they knew their appointments 
were only temporary and that their pay was not from the consolidated fund. 
On behalf of the writ petitioners, it was contended that the petitioners F 
were better qualified than the regularly appointed staff; that their duty hours 
were more and they were assigned more onerous and tedious work under the 
threat of termination of their employment at 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.