Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Supreme Court Employee sent on deputation to a foreign service is to be paid higher pay scale then what the employees were getting in parent department MANU/SC/0142/2019 - (05 Feb 2019) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Bihar State Beverages Corporation Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Naresh Kumar Mishra and Ors.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The Appellant Corporation has preferred the present Appeals against judgment passed by the High Court by which the Division Bench has allowed the said Letters Patent Appeals and has set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the said writ petitions and, consequently, allowing the petitions by holding that the respective original Writ Petitioners - Respondents herein, the employees of the Appellant - Bihar State Beverages Corporation Limited are entitled to the 6th Pay Revision, the Appellant Corporation has preferred the present Appeals. 
By impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court has directed the Appellant Corporation to grant the benefit of pay scale to the Respondents herein - original Writ Petitioners as per the 6th PRC, as per the decision of the Corporation itself in 2010. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has also quashed and set aside the resolution of the Corporation dated 27th March, 2012, by which it was resolved to pay the salary to the employees of the Corporation as is being paid to the employees working in the parent organizations. 
With regard to quashing and setting aside the resolution dated 27th March, 2012 by which the Corporation resolved to pay salary to the employees of the Corporation as is being paid in the parent Board/parent organization is concerned, it is required to be noted that, it is not in dispute that the respective original Writ Petitioners are on deputation from different Boards/Organizations. Therefore, if the resolution dated 27th March, 2012 is permitted to be implemented, in that case, there shall be disparity in the pay scale/salary of the employees of the Corporation doing the same/similar work. There may be different pay scales/salaries in the respective parent organizations. However, when they are working with the Corporation and doing the similar work, they have to be paid the salary which is paid to other employees doing the same/similar work. It is not in dispute that, the employees working on different posts in the Corporation are doing the same/similar work. Therefore, the High Court has rightly applied the 'Principle of Equal Pay for Equal Work' and has rightly quashed the resolution dated 27th March, 2012. 
Further, on fair reading of Rule 283(c) and Rule 283(e) of Bihar Travelling Allowance Rules, it can be seen that it is permissible for the foreign service to pay something more than what the employees were getting in the parent department. Therefore, the interpretation on behalf of the Corporation on reading Rule 283 that, the employee sent on deputation to a foreign service has to be paid the same salary/pay scale which he was getting in the parent department, cannot be accepted. 
The Division Bench of the High Court has rightly directed the Appellant Corporation to grant the pay scale to the Respondents - original Writ Petitioners as per the 6th PRC. The original Writ Petitioners shall be entitled to the pay scale as recommended by the 6th PRC so long as they work in the Appellant Corporation and as and when and in case they are repatriated to their parent Board/Organization they shall be governed by the pay scales paid to the employees of the concerned parent Board/Organization. Appeal dismissed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Resolution, Payscale, Parity</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>