SUBHAS LODH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the State Police Service on 28.9.1982. In this petition, he has sought for directiions from this Court calling upon the respondents to allow the petitioner the scale of pay and allowances as Constable driver with effect from 17.10.82 and also to allow him graded pay scale at two stages with effect from the date when he had completed 10 and 18 years of service.

(2.) Heard Mr. B. Das, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Das submitted that the petitioner was appointed by the Superintendent of Police, South Tripura vide order dated 8.2.85 as Driver Constable against the existing vacancy and was further allowed him to draw driving allowance with effect from 17.1982. The said benefit given by the then Superintendent of Police was subsequently withdrawn by the State Government with retrospective effect and the amount paid as driving allowaCnce was recovered from him. According to Mr. Das, the State Government having admitted in their affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner has been discharging the function of a Constable driver with effect from 17.10.82 cannot withdraw the benefit given to him by the then Superintendent of Police as it would amount to violation of the petitioner's right under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Mr. Das also to augment his above contention referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union Vs. Union of India and others 1991(1) SCC 619. In Para 6 of the above judgment the Supreme Court observed as follows:

(3.) It would appear from the aforesaid observation of the Supreme Court that the Principle of equal pay for equal work has been given the status of fundamental right in service jurisprudence having regard to the constitutional mandate of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court also reiterated its' earlier decision with regard to equal pay for equal work providing for security of service by regularising casual employment within a reasonable period. The Supreme Court further observed that the above decision has ceased to be a judge made law as it is the part of the Constitutional philosophy which ensures a welfare socialistic pattern of a State providing equal opportunity to all and equal pay for equal work for employees similarly situated.