ORISSA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL & TECHNOLOGY AND ANR. versus MANOJ K. MOHANTY

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 753 · Decided: 17-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
ORJSSA UNIVERSITY OF AG RI CULTURAL & TECHNOLOGY AND ANR. A 
v. 
MANOJ K. MOHANTY 
APRIL 17, 2003 
[SHIV ARAJ V. PATIL AND ARIJIT PASAYA T, JJ.] 
B 
Service Matter: 
Temporary appointment of the incumbent as Typist against the vacancy 
of Junior Assistant-Regularisation of service of juniors ignoring his claim- C 
Challenge to-High Court directed to grant him regular scale of pay as 
admissible to regularly appointed Junior Assistant!/ on the principle of equal 
pay for equal work-Correctness of-Held: Burden is on incumbent to 
establish his right of equal pay on par with Junior Assistants working on 
regular basis-In the absence of requisite averments in the petition, and D 
material justifying applicability, the incumbent is not entitled to get regular 
scale of pay-Constitution of India-Article 14. 
Words and Phrases: 
'equal pay for equal work '-Meaning and scope of in the context of E _
service jurisprudence. 
Respondent was appointed as a 'Typist' against the vacancy of'Junior 
Assistant' on a consolidated salary temporarily by the appellant-University. He 
had been working as Junior Assistant for more than five years but his services 
were not regularised though some of his juniors were absorbed by the appellant- F 
University. He filed a writ petition seeking regularisation of his services. High 
Court directed the appellant-University to pay the respondent regular scale of 
pay as admissible to Junior Assistants from back date. Aggrieved, appellant-
University filed a Review Petition which was dismissed by the High Court Hence 
the present appeals. 
It was contended for the appellant-University that since services of the 
respondent were not regularised from back date, he was not entitled for regular 
scale of pay; and that High Court erred in granting regular scale of pay to the 
resp'ondent without examining the facts and provision of law as stated by the 
753 
G 
H 
754 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003) 3 S.C.R. 
A apex Court as regards equal pay for equal work. 
B 
On behalf of the respondent, it was submitted that since he was 
discharging the duties of'Junior Assistant', he was entitled to regular scale 
of pay as admissible to 'Junior Assistants'. 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The High Court before directing to give regular pay-scale to 
the respondent w.e.f. September, 1997 on the principle ..J 'equal pay for equal 
work' did not examine the pleadings and facts of the case in order to appreciate 
C whether the respondent satisfied the relevant requirements such as the nature 
of work done by him as compared to tbe nature of work done by the regularly 
appointed 'Junior Assistants', the qualifications, responsibilities etc. 
1758-E, Fl 
1.2. The respondent was appointed on temporary basis on consolidated 
D pay and he had not even undergone the process of regular recruitment. Besides, 
nothing was stated in the Writ Petition as regards the nature of work, 
tesponsibilities attached to the respondent without comparing to the regularly 
recruited Junior Assistants. There was neither necessary averments in the 
writ petition nor any material was placed before the High Court so as to consider 
E the application of principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. In the absence of 
necessary averments and material placed on record, there was no scope to give 
direction as is done by the High Court in the impugned order. The burden was 
on the respondent to establish that he has a right to equal pay on the principle 
of 'equal pay for equal work' relying on Article 14 of the Constitution. That 
having not been done, the respondent was not entitled for the direction to get 
F regular pay-scale w.e.f. September, 1997. p58-F-H; 760-G, HI 
G 
Union of India and Ors. v. Pradip Kumar Dey, (20001 8 SCC 580; State 
of Haryana and Ors. v. Jasmer Singh and Ors., 119961 11 SCC 77 and State 
Bank of India and Anr. v. M.R. Ganesh Babu and Ors., 12002( 4 SCC ~56, 
relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No., 4210-4211 of 
2000. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 3.2.99/1 I .9.97 of the Orissa High 
H Court in C.R. No. 104of1998/0.J.C. No. 3267of1996. 
) 
' .. 
' 
'"' 
ORISSA UNIVERSITY OF AGRICUL. & TECHNOLOGY v. MANOJ K. MOHANTY [PATIL, J.] 755 
Janaranjan Das, Gourang Biswal and 
Swetaketu Mishra for the A 
Appellants. 
Shibashish Misra for Dabasis Misra for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
SHIV ARAJ V. PATIL J. The respondent was appointed as a Typist 
agains
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.