LexUNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus RAJESH KUMAR GOND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 8 S.C.R. 132 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. V. RAJESH KUMAR GOND (Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 17419/2009) JULY 25, 2013 [H.L. GOKHALE AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] Service Law - Equal pay for equal work - Respondent, a Junior Hindi Translator under the Commerce Ministry - He C sought parity of pay with junior Translators in the Central Secretariat Official Language Service (CSOLS) - Plea of respondent not accepted - He filed application in the Administrative Tribunal on the basis of 'equal pay for equal work' - Application opposed by the petitioners who stated that o the Fifth Central Pay Commission had recommended that the pay-scales of Junior Hindi Translators for the Central Secretariat (CSOLS) may be applied to all subordinate offices subject to their functional requirement - However, no material placed before the Tribunal to show as to how the functional E requirement of the concerned job in the Commerce Ministry was different from that in the Central Secretariat - Tribunal held in favour of respondent stating that there was no reason to deny parity in pay - Order challenged - Held: Since no material was placed before the Tribunal about the functional F distinction, the order of the Tribunal cannot be faulted - Though principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not expressly declared by the Constitution to be a fundamental right, but it certainly is a constitutional right - Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims 'equal pay for equal work for both men and women''as a Directive Principe of State Policy - To the G vast majority of the people, equality clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get - To them the equality clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal H 132 UNION OF !NOIA v. RAJESH KUMAR GOND 133 pay - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 14, 16 and 39(d). A Randhir Singh vs. Union of India and Ors. (1982) 1 SCC 618: 1982 (3) SCR 298 - relied on. Case Law Reference: 1982 (3) SCR 298 relied on Para 6, 8 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : SLP (Civil) No. 17419 of 2009. B From the Judgment and Order dated 09.07.2008 of the C High Court at Calcutta in Writ Petition CT No. 632 of 2007. WITH C.A. No. 1119 of 2013 & SLP (C) No. 37255 of 2012. P.P. Malhotra, ASG, Ashok Kumar Panda, Yasir Rauf, Lingaraj Sarangi, Arvind Kumar Sharma. R. Balasubramanian, Gunwant Dara, Aditya Singla (for B.V. Balaram Das). Anil Katiyar, Subodh Kr. Pathak, Shashi Ranjat (for Dharmendra Kumar Sinha). Pragati Neekhra, Parth Tiwari for the appearing Parties. The following order of the Court was delivered by ORDER S.L.P.(C) No. 17419/2009 1. Delay condoned. D E F 2. Heard Mr. P.P. Malhotra, learned Additional Solicitor General in support of this special leave petition and Mr. Subodh G Kr. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. This special leave petition seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 9.7.2008 passed by the High Court H 134 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R. · A of Calcutta in Writ Petition No.632 of 2007 which confirmed the judgment dated 9.11.2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench in O.A. No.939 of 2004. 4. The respondent is a Junior Hindi Translator working in 8 the office of Director General of Commercial Intelligence & Statistics under the Commerce Ministry and he sought parity of pay with the Junior Translators who were working in the Central Secretariat Official Language Service (CSOLS). The Home Ministry had issued Office Memorandum dated 9.2.2003, C upgrading the pay-scales of Junior Hindi Translators from Rs.5000-1050-8000 to Rs.5500-175-9000, which were made applicable from 11.2.2003. The respondent sought the same pay-scale but it was denied to him. It is, therefore, that he filed an application in the Central Administrative Tribunal on the basis of 'equal pay for equal work'. The application filed by the D respondent was opposed by the petitioners by filing a counter, wherein amongst other things, in paragraph 9 they stated that the Fifth Central Pay Commission had recommended that the pay-scales of Junior Hindi Translators for the Central Secretariat (CSOLS) may be applied to all subordinate offices subject to E their functional requirement. However, no materi§il 'whatsoever was placed before the Tribunal to show as to how the functional requirement of the concerned job in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.