Trademark Dispute Over ‘Pe’ Settled Between Phone Pe and Bharat Pe  ||  Centre Starts Granting Citizenship Under CAA in West Bengal, Haryana and Uttarakhand  ||  Circular Regarding Prioritizing Cases of Litigants/Advocates with Disability, Issued by Delhi HC  ||  Del. HC: Free Wi-fi Facility Launched by Delhi High Court for Lawyers, General Public  ||  Ker. HC: Construction of Illegal Religious Structures Cannot be Permitted on Government Land  ||  Kar. HC: De-Nomination of Chairman of Minorities Commission by Govt. Before Term is Not Arbitrary  ||  Delhi High Court: Question of Property Title Can’t be Decided by Forums Under Senior Citizens Act  ||  Jh. HC: Can’t Cancel Bail Unless There is Violation of Bail Conditions or Accused Impedes Fair Trial  ||  Guidelines Issued by Delhi High Court for Trial Court Judges to Decide Transfer Applications  ||  P&H HC: Presence of Magistrate Mandatory to Prove Compliance With Section 52A of the NDPS Act    

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



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.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved