Work-charged Time Keepers are entitled to pay scale parity with Amins based on the principle of equal pay for equal work.

The petitioners were appointed as Time Keepers in the Water Resources Department of Madhya Pradesh (specifically in 1971 for the lead petitioner).

Upon retirement, they observed they were placed in lower pay scales (Rs. 445-625 from 1982; Rs. 925-1220 from 1986; and Rs. 2750-4400 from 1996).

The petitioners contended they were entitled to higher scales (Rs. 515-800; Rs. 950-1530; and Rs. 3050-4590) equivalent to the post of "Amin" based on the principle of "equal pay for equal work".

After an initial round of litigation (WP No. 5590/2017), the respondents rejected the claim via an order dated 22.05.2018, asserting that the petitioners belonged to the Work Charged Establishment and could not claim parity with the post of Amin, which belongs to the Regular Establishment.

1. Whether the petitioners, working as Time Keepers, are entitled to parity in pay scales with the post of Amin based on the principle of "equal pay for equal work" and existing judicial precedents.

2. Whether the impugned order dated 22.05.2018, which rejected the petitioners' representation for pay revision, is legally sustainable in light of prior Division Bench and Supreme Court rulings on the same subject.

The court primarily applied the constitutional principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

It relied heavily on the precedent set in A.L. Thakur v. State of M.P. (W.P. No. 16054/2003), which established that Time Keepers are entitled to the pay scale of 3050-4590.

The court also considered the doctrine of parity among similarly situated employees to prevent the creation of "two sets of employees in one cadre getting a different pay scale".

Additionally, the court noted that the rulings in R.K. Lakhera and Eshwar Singh Rajpoot had already attained finality following the dismissal of Special Leave Petitions by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The court examined the conflict between the respondents' reliance on State of M.P. v. Kiran Rangnekar (WP No. 940/2001) and Babulal Pachori v. State of M.P. against the petitioners' reliance on the A.L. Thakur and R.K. Lakhera line of cases.

The court observed that the controversy regarding the entitlement of Time Keepers to the pay scale of Amin had been repeatedly adjudicated in favor of the employees and upheld by the Division Bench in W.A. No. 1130/2023.

The court reasoned that since the Hon’ble Supreme Court had already dismissed the State's challenges against these benefits, there was no justification to depart from the established view.

It held that maintaining consistency is essential to satisfy Article 14, ensuring that employees within the same cadre are not subjected to disparate pay structures.

It held that the petitioners are entitled to the revised pay scale of Rs. 3050-4590 from the due date, consistent with the benefits granted in the A.L. Thakur case.

The respondents were directed to provide the pay scale and all consequential benefits, including arrears and pension revision, within a period of two months from the receipt of the certified copy of the order.