SUDIP GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave to amend the petition by producing impugned order dated 30.09.2019 rejecting the representation of the petitioner. Petitioner to carry out the amendment in the prayer clause as well as annex it.

(2.) The petitioner is the employee of Government of Tripura. He had entered his service under the Health and Family Welfare Department as Senior Technician. Over the period of time the petitioner was granted promotions. By an order dated 11.05.2017 the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Superintendent of Central Workshop (GroupB Gezetted). The said post carries the pay scale in the Pay Band3 of Rs.10,230 34,800 with Grade Pay of Rs.4,800. The case of the petitioner is that similar post of Maintenance Superintendent under the Department of Home (Fire Service) carries the pay scale in the Pay Band4 of Rs.15,60039,100 with Grade Pay of Rs.6,600. The petitioner therefore contends that the post of Superintendent of Central Workshop should also be granted the said higher pay scale which is prescribed for the post of Maintenance Superintendent under the Department of Home (Fire Service). According to the petitioner, both the posts are to be filled by way of promotion from the respective feeder cadres which carry identical pay scales. The educational qualifications required for both posts are similar. The duties and responsibilities of the both posts are also identical. On these grounds the petitioner requests pay parity.

(3.) Previously on the same grounds the petitioner had approached the Court by filing writ petition No.220 of 2018. This petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by a judgment dated 09082018. In the said decision in a detailed consideration the learned Judge compared the recruitment Rules for the respective posts as also the grounds of discrimination raised by the petitioner. The learned Judge was of the opinion that the principle of equal pay for equal work flowing from Article 14 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India is not attracted in the present case. It was observed that the posts are different with different conditions of service and responsibilities. The posts are also part of the different departments of the Government. The following observations of the said decision can be noted.