Facts
The petitioners and respondent No. 6 were recruited as Modeler-4 (Anatomy) at Jorhat Medical College & Hospital via an advertisement dated 12-04-2010.
Source reference: p. 3While all parties were initially appointed in the same scale of pay (Rs. 3010-6075/-), a disparity arose during the implementation of the Assam Services (Revision of Pay) Rules, 2010.
Source reference: p. 4Respondent No. 6, possessing a Degree in Fine Arts, was granted a higher Grade Pay (eventually Rs. 3000/-) compared to the petitioners (Rs. 2400/-) who possessed only the minimum HSSLC and Diploma/experience qualifications.
Source reference: p. 4The petitioners sought pay parity, arguing they perform identical duties and responsibilities.
Source reference: p. 5Issues
1. Whether the respondent authorities are justified in maintaining two different pay scales/grade pays for the same post of Modeler-4 based on educational qualifications.
Source reference: p. 32. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the same grade pay as respondent No. 6 based on the principle of "equal pay for equal work".
Source reference: p. 5Law Applied
The court primarily applied Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India regarding equality and reasonable classification.
Source reference: p. 9Classification based on educational qualifications is sustainable if based on an intelligible differentia with a rational nexus to the object (State of Mysore v. P. Narasinga Rao (1967)).
Source reference: p. 9"Unequals cannot claim equality" even if duties are similar, provided the classification for pay is founded on qualifications (Mewa Ram Kanojia v. AIIMS (1989)).
Source reference: p. 10Pay scale prescriptions are the domain of expert Pay Commissions and generally do not warrant judicial interference unless proved unreasonable.
Source reference: p. 10-11Reasoning
The Court observed that the distinction in pay scales for Modeler-4 based on "Matriculate" versus "Diploma/Degree" holders has existed consistently since the RoP Rules of 1990.
Source reference: p. 6, 10Although the petitioners and respondent No. 6 may perform similar duties, the court found that the State is legally permitted to classify employees according to their educational background to achieve administrative efficiency.
Source reference: p. 7, 10The Court emphasized that the Pay Commission, as an expert body, consciously recommended these dual scales after analyzing the nature of the work.
Source reference: p. 11Since the petitioners failed to challenge the validity of the RoP Rules themselves or demonstrate that the classification lacked a reasonable nexus to the post's objectives, the court presumed the higher qualification held by respondent No. 6 justified the higher pay.
Source reference: p. 11Holding
The Court held that the grant of a higher grade pay to respondent No. 6 was valid as it was based on his superior educational qualification (Degree in Fine Arts), which distinguishes him from the petitioners.
The court answered in the negative regarding the petitioners' claim for parity, stating they cannot claim equality with a more qualified counterpart.
Source reference: p. 11The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.
Source reference: p. 11-12Original Court PDF
Jogen Loing And 2 Ors.vsThe State Of Assam And 5 Ors.
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in