P&H HC: Eyewitness Account Not Credible if Eyewitness Directly Identifies Accused in Court  ||  Delhi HC: Conditions u/s 45 PMLA Have to Give Way to Article 21 When Accused Incarcerated for Long  ||  Delhi High Court: Delhi Police to Add Grounds of Arrest in Arrest Memo  ||  Kerala High Court: Giving Seniority on the Basis of Rules is a Policy Decision  ||  Del. HC: Where Arbitrator has Taken Plausible View, Court Cannot Interfere u/s 34 of A&C Act  ||  Ker. HC: No Question of Estoppel Against Party Where Error is Committed by Court Itself  ||  Supreme Court: Revenue Entries are Admissible as Evidence of Possession  ||  SC: Mere Breakup of Relationship Between Consenting Couple Can’t Result in Criminal Proceedings  ||  SC: Bar u/s 195 CrPC Not Attracted Where Proceedings Initiated Pursuant to Judicial Order  ||  NTF Gives Comprehensive Suggestions on Enhancing Better Working Conditions of Medical Professions    

Shri. Laxman A. Magdum And Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra and Ors. - (High Court of Bombay) (29 Jun 2022)

Equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the executive government and expert bodies like Pay Commission and not for the Courts

MANU/MH/2130/2022

Service

Present writ petition is directed against the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai dismissing Original Application. The two petitioners, who were the original applicants before the Tribunal, were appointed as Foreman (Leather Technology) on 28th August 1986 and 24th March 1994, respectively. Claiming equal pay for equal work, the Petitioners had approached the Tribunal previously by instituting Original Application. It was their claim that they were entitled to the pay received by incumbents on the post of Foreman (Polytechnic).

The Tribunal, while disposing of the original application, proceeded to hear the parties on merits and ultimately, concluded that the claim of the Petitioners was without any basis. Equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the executive Government and expert bodies like Pay Commission and not for the Courts. The Tribunal also recorded that it did not find any fault in the decision of the expert bodies or the Government.

In the absence of the diploma certificates that the Petitioners claim to have acquired, whether or not the same conform to the requirements for appointment cannot be discerned. In view thereof, there is no reason to interfere with the finding returned by the Tribunal that the Petitioners' claim as regards equal pay for equal work was not substantiated.

The Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to receive the original application for consideration on merits. The claim of the Petitioners having been spurned by the order dated 24th July 2003, the Petitioners ought to have instituted the original application within the time limit prescribed. Despite the original application being time-barred and without applying for condonation of delay, a statement was made that the original application is within time. The Tribunal ought to have looked into the issue of limitation, even in the absence of any objection having raised by the respondents in the light of Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The original application being time-barred, the same did not deserve any consideration on merits. Petition dismissed.

Tags : APPOINTMENT   EQUAL PAY   ENTITLEMENT  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved