Court rules classification justified due to financial constraints and historical reasons, dismissing claims of discrimination.
In a significant ruling, the Uttarakhand High Court has upheld the pay disparity among Health Workers in the state, distinguishing between those appointed before and after May 2, 2013. The court dismissed the writ petitions filed by Mrs. Sudha Pandey and others, who challenged the lower Grade Pay for Health Workers appointed post-2013, asserting that it amounted to discrimination and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The petitioners, represented by senior advocate Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, argued that despite possessing the same qualifications and responsibilities as their counterparts hired before the 2013 cutoff, they were being unjustly paid a lower Grade Pay of Rs. 2000 compared to Rs. 2800 for the earlier batch.
Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari, presiding over the case, reasoned that the pay disparity was not arbitrary but stemmed from historical judicial precedents and financial constraints faced by the state. The court noted that the decision to grant a higher Grade Pay as personal pay to Health Workers appointed before 2013 was based on a previous judgment by the Allahabad High Court that mandated pay revisions for those employees.
The court emphasized that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" was not violated as the classification was grounded in rational and historical contexts, pointing out that financial constraints justified the differentiation. The ruling referenced several Supreme Court decisions underscoring that pay scale fixation is an executive function and courts should refrain from interfering unless the decision is unreasonable or arbitrary.
Furthermore, the court highlighted that the petitioners were aware of the pay scale at the time of their appointment and had accepted the terms, indicating no alteration in service conditions post-appointment. The court concluded that the petitioners' claim for equal Grade Pay lacked merit, as the recruitment rules and advertisements clearly stipulated the pay scale applicable to their positions.
This judgment reiterates the court's stance on the executive's discretion in determining pay scales, marking a notable precedent in service law and reinforcing the judiciary's role in maintaining a balance between legal principles and practical governance challenges.
Bottom line:-
Pay disparity among Health Workers based on date of appointment upheld as non-discriminatory due to historical reasons and judicial precedents.
Statutory provision(s): Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, Government Order dated 02.05.2013, Appendix-B of the Recruitment Rules, 2016
Sudha Pandey v. State of Uttarakhand, (Uttarakhand) : Law Finder Doc id # 2925756
