Dismissed

Chandra Shekhar Azad Agricultural and Technological University and 2 Others v. Rajendra Prasad Pandey and 20 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2018SPLA/435/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In special appeals, the court dismissed petitions by a university challenging a single bench order. The appeal concerned consolidated salary daily-rated employees claiming parity with regular staff. The court held minimum pay reflects labor value under equal pay principles and upheld the direction to grant the regular minimum scale.

What did the court decide?

Appeals dismissed; no order as to costs.

Chandra Shekhar Azad Agricultural and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

(1) Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 435 of 2018

¶4

Appellant :- Chandra Shekhar Azad Agricultural And Technological University And 2 Others Respondent :- Rajendra Prasad Pandey And 20 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Prakash Padia Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh

¶5

(2) Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 446 of 2018

¶6

Appellant :- Vice Chancellor, Chandra Shekhar Azad Agriculture And Technological University And 2 Ors Respondent :- Foolkumari And 13 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Prakash Padia Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh

¶7

(3) Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 447 of 2018

¶8

Appellant :- Vice Chancellor, Chandra Shekhar Azad Agriculture And Technological University And 2 Ors Respondent :- Siya Dulari And 3 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Prakash Padia Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh

¶9

(4) Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 448 of 2018

¶10

Appellant :- Vice Chancellor, Chandra Shekhar Azad Agriculture And Technological University And 2 Ors Respondent :- Balwan Singh And 3ors Counsel for Appellant :- Prakash Padia Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh

¶11

(5) Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 449 of 2018

¶12

Appellant :- Vice Chancellor, Chandra Shekhar Azad Agriculture And Technological University And 2 Ors Respondent :- Sudama Devi And 5 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Prakash Padia Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh

¶13

(6) Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 450 of 2018

¶14

Appellant :- Vice-Chancellor Chandra Shekhar Azad

¶15

¶16

Agriculture And Technological University And 2ors Respondent :- Mahesh And 2ors Counsel for Appellant :- Prakash Padia Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Bhanu Pratap Singh

¶17

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶18

These appeals are before us to examine the correctness of the judgment passed by learned Single Bench in the batch of writ petitions led by Writ-A No. 44333 of 2017 (Rajendra Prasad Pandey and 19 others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 others).

¶19

The writ petition was filed by the persons working with appellantUniversity for a period of about 20 years with consolidated salary of Rs. 7,000/- per month. The petitioners contended before learned Single Bench that persons similarly placed are getting salary in regular pay-scales with all admissible allowances including Dearness Allowance. Claiming parity with the persons similarly situated, the petitioners prayed for fixation of their pay in the pay-scales applicable to the post they were holding. Learned Single Bench after examining all relevant aspects of the matter disposed of the writ petitions with a direction as under:-

¶20

“This petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the respondent University to pay minimum of current pay scale, without any allowances, to the petitioners, in terms of the direction issued by the Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh (supra) to the petitioners. It is, however, reiterated that since Seventh Pay Commission report has been implemented in the University, the minimum of pay scale would be as per it, and not as per minimum of pay scale admissible under Sixth Pay Commission report. The petitioners, however, shall not be entitled to any other allowance including dearness allowance. Such benefit would be extended to the petitioners from the next month.”

¶21

While questioning correctness of the judgment, it is submitted by Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the appellants that respondentpetitioners were working on daily rate basis, therefore, the parity sought to be made with regular employees is absolutely misconceived. It is asserted that the nature of the appointment is

¶22

¶23

quite material and no direction as given by learned Single Bench could have been given by placing the petitioners at par with regularly selected incumbents. It is further submitted that the recommendations made by 7^th Pay Commission prescribes the pay structure for regularly recruited employees and not the persons working on consolidated salary or on daily rate basis, as such, grant of minimum pay-scale as per recommendations of 7^th Pay Commission is bad.

¶24

We do not find any merit in the arguments advanced.

¶25

At the threshold, it would be appropriate to state that it is not the case of the appellant-University that the petitioners are not discharging the duties similar to the regularly recruited Class-IV employees. On the other hand, the respondent-petitioners claimed regular pay-scales by claiming parity with regularly selected incumbents with specific assertion that they are discharging the duties exactly similar to other regular employees.

¶26

True it is, a regularly selected incumbent bears higher responsibility vis-a-vis a casual daily rate employee or all the persons working on consolidated wages but on that count minimum pay of the regular pay-scale cannot be denied. Such employees are certainly not entitled for other service benefits such as grant of allowances, other perquisites, promotional avenues, post retiral benefits, etc. The grant of pay at the minimum of regular pay-scale, however, stands at different pedestal. The minimum pay, as a matter of fact, is nothing but quantification of labour sold by an employee to the employer. This is also in consonance with the principle of equal pay for equal work enshrined under Article 39(d) read with Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶27

So far as application of the recommendations made by 7^th Pay Commission is concerned, suffice to mention that learned Single Bench nowhere stated for application of such recommendations qua

¶28

¶29

the present respondent-petitioners. The only direction is given for grant of minimum of the pay-scale allowed to the regular employees who are entitled for the pay-scales given under the recommendations of 7^th Pay Commission.

¶30

In view of whatever stated above, we do not find any error with the judgment impugned that may warrant interference in Appellate Jurisdiction.

¶31

The appeals, hence, are dismissed.

¶32

No order so as to costs.

¶33

Order Date :– 12.7.2018 Shubham

¶34

(Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) (Govind Mathur,J.)

Chandra Shekhar Azad Agricultural and Technological University and 2 Others v. Rajendra Prasad Pandey and 20 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandra Shekhar Azad Agricultural and Technological University and 2 Others v. Rajendra Prasad Pandey and 20 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhawani Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited, Nanauta Saharanpur Vs Moti Ram and 7 Others

M/S Saya Buildcon Consortium (P) Ltd. Vs Ghaziabad Development Authority and 2 Others

Vice Chancellor , Chandra Shekhar Azad Agriculture and Technological University and 2 Ors. Vs Siya Dulari and 3 Ors.

Vice Chancellor Chandra Shekhar Azad Agriculture and Technological University and 2 Ors. Vs Balwan Singh and 3ORS

Vice Chancellor Chandra Shekhar Azad Agriculture and Technological University and 2 Ors. Vs Sudama Devi and 5 Ors.