High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
OM PARKASH v. CHAUDHARY CHA RAN SIN GH H.A.U.HISAR AND - RSA-519-2002  RD-P&H 10 (11 May 2005)
Om Parkash v. Chaudhary Charan Singh H.A.U.Hisar and others Present:- Mr.Jitendra Sharma, Advocate,
for the appellant.
for the respondents.
Ashutosh Mohunta, J.
The appellant has filed this appeal to challenge the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below whereby his suit as well as the appeal for a declaration that the order dated 6.7.1995 passed by defendant- respondent No.2 is wrong and illegal and that he be granted the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600/- as is given to the Draftsman (Civil), were dismissed.
As per the case of the plaintiff he was appointed as Artist DPL in February 1988. His services were terminated. He challenged his termination before the Labour Court. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Labour Court he was taken back in service with continuity of service but without back-wages. Vide order dated 6.7.1995 the services of the plaintiff-appellant were regularised as Artist Attendant in the pay scale of Rs.750 940 + Rs.30 as Special Pay. As the plaintiff-appellant, he was performing the duties similar to the duties performed by the Draftsmen in other Sections/Departments of the University. He also R.S.A.No.519 of 2002
contended that one Suresh Kumar Draftsman, who was having the same qualification as that of the appellant, was getting the pay-scale of Rs.1400-
2600. On the doctrine of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' the plaintiff-appellant claimed the same pay scale for himself. The suit filed by him was contested by the defendant-respondents. After hearing the counsel for the parties and on examining the evidence adduced on record, the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Hisar, dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 11.6.1999. The appeal filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Hisar, vide judgment and decree dated 26.9.2001.
Now the plaintiff has filed this second appeal to challenge the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below.
It has been contended by Mr.Jitendra Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, that the appellant is entitled to be granted the same pay scale as is being paid to the other Draftsmen/Artists. It has further been contended that Suresh Kumar Draftsman was having the same qualification as that of the appellant, but he has been granted the pay scale of Rs.1400- 2600, whereas the appellant has been given the pay scale of 750-940. He pleaded that the doctrine of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' is to be applied in the case of the appellant as he is performing the same duties as are being performed by Suresh Kumar Draftsman. In support of his contention he has R.S.A.No.519 of 2002
placed reliance on Bhagwati Prasad v. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 371. It has further been contended by him that even if the appellant did not possess the requisite qualification for the post of Draftsman/Artist, but on consideration of his experience on the post, he is entitled for the pay-scale of Rs.1400-2600. To buttress his contention, the counsel relied on Ram Sarup v. State of Haryana and others, 1978(2) SLR 836.
The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant have been controverted by Mr.R.K.Malik, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-University. He contends that the appellant was never appointed an Artist/Draftsman, whereas Suresh Kumar joined the University as a Draftsman. It has also been contended that the appellant did not possess the requisite qualifications either for the post of Artist or for the post of a Draftsman. Thus, the counsel contends that the appellant is not eligible to be granted the pay-scale meant for an Artist or a Draftsman.
The following question of law arises for determination in the present appeal:-
Whether or not the doctrine of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' is applicable in the case of the plaintiff-appellant? It is the case of the appellant that he was appointed as DPL Artist in February 1988. Thereafter, his services were terminated. He was R.S.A.No.519 of 2002
again appointed as such on 5.8.1992. He was re-designated as Attendant- Artist vide Exhibit P4 dated 6.7.1995. On the other hand, the case of the defendant-respondents is that the plaintiff-appellant was appointed as DPL (Daily Paid Labourer) and not DPL Artist. In support of their contention, the defendants placed reliance on Exhibits D1 to D3, wherein qualification for the post of DPL Artist has been duly mentioned and the plaintiff does not fall within the ambit of the qualifications laid down in Exhibits D1 to D3. It has further been contended that vide Exhibit P4 the appellant was never re- designated as Attendant Artist. Rather he was appointed as such on regularisation of his appointment. The plaintiff-appellant has not adduced on record any document in support of his contention that in February 1988 he was appointed as DPL Artist and that he was re-appointed as such on 5.8.1992 after his termination. There is no mention in Exhibit P4 dated 6.7.1995 that the post of DPL-Artist is re-designated as Attendant-Artist. In the absence of any documentary evidence, it cannot be said that the plaintiff was ever appointed as DPL-Artist or his post of re-designated as Attendant- Artist. As such, there does not arise any question with regard to equal pay for equal work.
So far as the question of acquisition of equal qualification as has been acquired by Suresh Kumar Draftsman, it may be said that acquisition or R.S.A.No.519 of 2002
possession of qualification by a person does not entitle him for a post. So far as the case of Suresh Kumar is concerned, it has been contended on behalf of the defendant-respondents that he had joined the University as a Draftsman, whereas the appellant working as Daily Paid Labourer. In view of this, there cannot be any equation between appellant and Suresh Kumar Draftsman so far as the grant of pay-scale is concerned. The ratio of the case-law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts appearing in the present case. There is no infirmity in the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below and I concur with the same.
Moreover, both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of fact, which cannot be interfered in the second appeal in view of the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure as no substantial question of law arises for determination in the present appeal.
Consequently, there is no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
July 11, 2005. ( Ashutosh Mohunta )
R.S.A.No.519 of 2002
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.