Read Time: 10 minutes

One-liner: Holding that the theory of 'equal pay for equal work' cannot be applied blindly in all the cases, the Madras High Court has set aside a single judge bench order directing the police department to fix the pay scale of additionally appointed scavengers on par with Scavengers in the Education Department and on regular pay scale.

---

Referring to Apex court's ruling in Padmasundara Rao (Dead) & others vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others (2002), the division bench of Justices S Vaidyanathan and R Vijayakumar stated,

"It is to be noted that while relying on a judgment, if it is found that the factual situation totally differs, then there is no compulsion for the subordinate courts to blindly rely on the same to arrive at the same conclusion."

The bench opined that as in the instant case, the recruitment process between the subject post and reference post was completely different, hence the writ petitioners were not entitled to claim pay parity on par with employees appointed to the regular posts and were not eligible to acquire regular pay scale for the category of Clause-D employees.

---

Crux of the matter:

The court was dealing with a writ appeal filed by officials of State's police department against a single-judge bench order whereby the single judge had allowed a batch of writ petitions filed by Department's additionally appointed sweepers demanding themselves to be treated on par with Scavengers in the Education Department.

The petitioner scavengers, who had been appointed by the department on the special time scale in 2012, had alleged that their appointment on the special time scale of pay was in violation of Articles 14 and 39 of the Constitution of India.

They had contended that they also fell within the category of Clause-D employees so there could not be any discrimination between the Scavengers in one department and the Scavengers in other departments. 

Importantly, these scavengers had based their pleas upon one division bench order of the court which had upheld another single judge's order wherein the single judge had agreed with scavengers of the Education Department and had struck down one offending clause in a government order that had also appointed those sweepers under a special time scale of Rs.1300-3000+ Grade Pay of Rs.300 in the department. 

By that order, the Single Judge had directed the Education department to place those additional Scavengers on par with other Scavengers already working in the Education Department by paying a regular time scale of pay of Rs.4800-10000/-+ Grade Pay of Rs.1300/-.

---

Crucial argument:

The petitioner scavengers of the police department had contended that the Sweepers and Scavengers fall within Clause-IV of Tamil Nadu Basic Service Rules and because of this fact also there cannot be any differential time scale of pay between the same Clause of employees.

They had also argued that the Scavengers working in the Education Department were similarly placed persons and their duties and responsibilities were similar in nature therefore there couldn't be any discrimination between the scavengers of the two departments.

---

Verdict:

The main issue which the present bench considered was - whether the current writ petitioners could be treated on par with Sweepers/Scavengers working in the regular vacancies in the same department and also on par with the scavengers working in the Education Department with regard to parity of pay scale.

The bench observed that in the matter of the Education department, the single judge had allowed the writ petition of the scavengers and quashed the offending portion of the GO only based upon the orders of a division bench passed in January 2019 with regard to the Education Department only.

Court also held, 

"The writ petitioners further contended that the Scavengers working in all the departments should be treated equally and equal pay should be granted to all these Scavengers cannot be countenanced in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 2019 SC Page 2521, especially on the ground that the mode of recruitment and the selection process of the subject post and the reference post are completely different."

Importantly, Court pointed out that the present writ petitioners were very well aware, even at the time of their appointments, that they were not appointed to the regular posts of Sweepers, but appointed only in a newly created additional posts of Sweepers under a special Government Order with special time scale of pay.

Court also noted that the facts pertaining to the appointment of the petitioners clearly indicated that the mode of recruitments and the selection process was completely different from that of the employees recruited and selected to the regular post of Sweepers.

Therefore, court allowed Police department's appeal setting aside the single judge bench order and dismissed the original writ petitions.

Case Title: The Secretary to Government Home Department and Ors. v. B.Amaravathi and Ors.