P MUNISAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by one Thiru P. Munisamy, who is working as an Amin in the District Court, Madurai and who is also the P. Munisamy vs. State of Tamilnadu (27. 10. 1983 -MADHC) Page 2 of 9 President of the Tamil Nadu Amins' Association. He seeks the issue of a ceriiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the Tamil Nadu Revised Scales of Pay Rules, 1978 and to quash the same so far as it relates to the time-scale of pay relating to Amins, as entered in item No. 39 at page 136 under the Caption 'judicial Department' other than High Court and to direct the respondents to refix the petitioner's salary in the time-scale of pay applicable to Senior Bailiffs, as shown in item No. 38 at page 136 under the Caption 'judicial Department' other than High Court with effect from 1st April, 1978.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner, as set out in his affidavit filed in support of his writ petition, is as follows : The category of employees known as Amins in the Courts situated at Taluk and District Levels are doing the work which is not only equal but also identical and similar in every respect with that of the work discharged by the category of persons known as Senior Bailiffs in the Civil Courts at Madras City. Even though these two categories are executing identical work, yet the time-scale of pay applicable to these two categories had been fixed differently. The category of persons known as Amins as on date are paid lesser salary for the same work for which the persons known as Senior Bailiffs are given higher salary. This difference, according to the petitioner, is totally arbitrary and not based on any reasonable classification. The petitioner complains that there is a constitutional guarantee embodied in Art. 39 (3) that there will be equal pay for equal work. Yet the Amins are paid lesser salary than what is paid to the Senior Bailiffs in the Civil Courts at Madras City, even though the work done by both is identical. The petitioner has also pointed out that the work done by the Senior Bailiffs in the city attached to the City Civil Court, Madras and the work done by the Amins in the mofussil are either similar or identical has been accepted by the Government in G. O. Ms. No. 2269, Home Department, dated 8th September, 1979, while fixing the educational qualification for the category of Amins. Taking into consideration the work done by the Amins in the Mofussil and the Senior Bailiffs in the City who are doing the same and identical work, the Government revised the educational qualifications for Amins and the minimum educational qualification was fixed as the basic qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Amin. Therefore, the Government having taken up the stand that the work done by the Senior Bailiffs in the City of Madras and the work done by the Amins in Mofussil are the same in the said Government Order, it is not open to the Government to dispute that fact. Thus the petitioner seeks to enforce the rule of equal pay for equal work in this case.

(3.) IN Randhir Singh v. Union of India [1982-I L. L. J. 344], it has been held that it is no abstract doctrine but one of substance and applicable to every one. The said decision of the Supreme Court applies on all fours in this case. Therefore, the Amins should be held entitled to get the same pay as the Senior Bailiffs in the City Civil Court are getting. Further, the petitioner has pointed out in his affidavit that the post of Amins happens to be the promotion post for Copyists as well as Readers and also Examiners, Record Clerks and Process Servers. Most of the persons working as Amins in various courts now were originally appointed as Copyists or Readers, who were promoted as Amins, while the category of Copyists, and Readers are fewer and lower categories for the post of Amins. The scale of pay of Copyists has been made equal to that of the Senior Bailiffs by the Second Pay Commission, while the scale of pay of Amins has not been revised at all by the Pay Commission. Though this anomaly of lower category getting a higher scale of pay and the promotion category getting a lower scale of pay was brought to the notice of the Government with a request to remove the said anomaly and a representation was also made to the Third Pay Commission to that effect no change was effected. Subsequently the matter was brought to the notice of one more pay commission. But, till to date no steps have been taken to remove the anomaly and inequality. Since the petitioner is not able to get justice from the Government, he has approached this Court for the relief to which he is justly entitled.