SATYABRATA DAS Vs. CALCUTTA METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners were engaged by the State as Master Roll Workers in Public Health Engineering Department in 1970s. They were discharging the duty of night-guard and/or khalasi under the Work Charge Establishment of the State. On and from May 1, 1975 the petitioners were transferred to Calcutta Metropolitan Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "CMDA"). In 1980 they were absorbed in a regular basis by CMDA by an order passed on July 25, 1980. Another group of Master Roll Workers who were working as pump operators on daily wage basis were regularized by CMDA as pump-cum-valve operators by an order dated July 25, 1980 with retrospective effect from August 1, 1979. The petitioners were also regularized in the post of night-guard/khalasi in CMDA. They were, however, discharging additional duty of purnp operating. They made a grievance for higher scale of pay. The Grievance Committee went into the controversy and resolved the issue by extending additional pay to the petitioners for discharging additional function of pump operating. Such additional pay of Rs. 20.00 per month was extended to the petitioners by order dated May 24, 1984 with retrospective effect from May 1, 1975 the date when they were transferred to CMDA. The petitioner accepted such position for a considerable time and thereafter demanded equal pay with the regular pump operators on the plea that they were discharging function similar to the pump operators and moreover those pump operators who were also Master Roll Workers were extended higher scale although they were junior to the petitioners in the matter of their initial entry. Such representation was not adhered to by the CMDA. Hence, the writ petition.

(2.) According to CMDA as per ROPA, 1981 the Pay Commission fixed scale of pay for three different categories being khalasi, guard and pump-cum-valve operators. The Pay Commission being an expert body considered the respective works of the employees working in such category and fixed different pay scales for them.

(3.) The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition after finding that the work done by the petitioners was not identical to the other group of workers being pump operators and as such they were not entitled to identical pay scale. The learned Judge also held that there had been an inordinate delay in approaching this Court. The learned Judge also held that those two groups belonging to two different cadre were not entitled to identical pay scale. It was observed by the learned Single Judge that in 1984 the representation of the petitioners was considered by the appropriate committee whereby special pay was extended to the writ petitioners. Their petition in 1993 after 9 years was grossly belated.