SATRUGHNA PARIDA Vs. ORISSA MINING CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PATNAIK , learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. J. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Opp.Party.

(2.) BY Means of this writ petition, the petitioners are claiming party with the Revised Pay Scale granted to Mechanic Grade -I under the establishment of opposite party. The petitioners are working as Fitter Grade -I in Orissa Mining Corporation. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that earlier the Pay Scale to Fitter Grade -I was Rs.370/ - to Rs.630/ - and the same Pay scale was granted to the post of Grade -I Mechanic and the same was revised in the year 1985 from Rs.935/ - to Rs.1530/ -. But later on when another revision of Pay scale was made, the post of Fitter Grade -I was not given the pay scale equivalent to the revised pay scale of Mechanic Grade -I. Being aggrieved they have made representation, but in vain. Thereafter the instant writ petition has been filed. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the nature and duties of both the posts i.e. Fitter Grade -I and Mechanic Grade -I are different. They also do not form one cadre. Further the post of Mechanic Grade -I is a promotional post while the post of Fitter Grade -I is a promotional post filled up by direct recruitment as per Orissa Mining Corporation Recruitment and Promotion Rule 1976. He has further submitted that the qualifications of these posts are also different and as such the petitioners cannot claim parity with the pay scale granted to Mechanic Grade -I. He has also submitted that the pay scales have been revised on the basis of the recommendation of the Anomaly Committee that was an expert body in the field of revision of pay scale and the opp.party on principle had agreed to implement the recommendation of the Anomaly Committee.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the case of M.P. Rural Agriculture Extension Officers Association Vs. State of M.P. and Another reported in (2004) II LLJ III 4 SC in which the Apex Court has held that the applicability of doctrine of equal pay for equal work on the touch stone of Article 39(d) with Article 14 of the Constitution of India will have to be considered for the purpose of the present case on the premise that save and except disparity in educational qualification, the nature of work performed by Extension Officers is identical and they had undergone a similar training. It has been further laid down that when the recommendations are made by a Pay Commission, evaluation of job must be held to have been made but the same by itself may not be a ground to enforce the recommendations by issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus although the State did not accept the same in toto and made rules to the contrary by evolving a policy decision which cannot be said to arbitrary or discriminatory.