Share
DIMAPUR — The Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, has once again upheld the principle of 'equal pay for equal work,' while directing the state respondents to pay a work-charged labourer the minimum scale of pay "like that of other similarly situated worked-charged employees to whom the minimum scale of pay has been granted".
Hearing a writ petition on October 17, Justice Mridul Kumar Kalita cited four other writ petitions where the state respondents were directed to consider the grant of a minimum scale of pay to the petitioners who were similarly situated to the petitioner of this instant case.
The petitioner in this case was appointed as a worked-charged employee on a fixed pay of INR 300 per month, on September 2, 1990, under the establishment of the Executive Engineer, PWD (Housing), Tuensang Division, Nagaland. The pay of the petitioner was enhanced from time to time, and presently, the petitioner is receiving a monthly fixed pay of INR 5250.
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=1]The government of Nagaland is represented by the chief secretary, while other respondents include the commissioner and secretary (NPWD), the engineer-in-chief (NPWD), the chief engineer (PWD- Housing, Nagaland, Kohima), and the executive engineer (PWD-Housing Tuensang Division).
As per the court order, the petitioner, having rendered his services continuously for more than 32 years, had filed a representation to the engineer-in-chief (NPWD), seeking the grant of a scale of pay to him against the vacancy of a Jugali, who retired on February 29, 2020. It also noted that the representation was forwarded to the engineer-in-chief by an MLA in 2021. However, to date, the representation of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondent authorities.
The petitioner's counsel submitted that the petitioner has rendered services for more than 32 years and he would be retiring from service on completion of 35 years on September 30, 2025. The counsel also argued that the petitioner is entitled to get the minimum scale of pay on the principle of equal pay for equal work, like any other employees of the state government, citing similar petitions where the petitioners were granted a minimum scale of pay.
After hearing submissions from both the petitioner and respondents’ counsels, the court noted that apart from the plea that there is no policy of the government to grant a minimum scale of pay to the worked-charged employees, "no other justifiable ground has been shown by the learned senior government advocate for treating the present petitioner differently from those similarly situated worked-charged employees who have been granted a minimum scale of pay by the respondent authorities".
Such an approach, it said “is discriminatory and violative of the fundamental rights of the present petitioner”.
The order also noted that the petitioner has not approached this court (HC) for regularisation of his services but only for a grant of the minimum scale of pay which is provided to a similarly situated worked charged fixed pay employees of the Nagaland PWD department.
In the view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India regarding 'equal pay for equal work,' the court further stated that the present petitioner is entitled to receive the same pay as extended to similarly situated persons discharging identical nature of work, duties, and responsibilities. It, therefore, directed the state respondents to consider the representation of the present petitioner for the grant of a minimum scale of pay, within a period of three months.