MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Seniority Must Reflect in Pay, Not Just in Position: Calcutta High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment that underscores the importance of equitable pay in government services, the High Court at Calcutta has set a precedent by addressing a long-standing pay anomaly issue. The Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, while delivering the judgment in the case of Uday Sankar Das Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors., emphasized, “Seniority must reflect in pay, not just in position,” offering a new ray of hope to government employees facing similar disparities.

The petitioner, Uday Sankar Das, a retired 'Process Server', challenged the disparity in pay compared to his junior, citing Rule 55(4) of the West Bengal Service Rules, Part-I. The rule stipulates that the pay of a senior government employee should be re-fixed at the same stage as a junior colleague if the latter draws a higher rate due to pay scale revision or under normal rules.

The court meticulously reviewed similar precedents, Including the case of Union of India & Ors. –Vs- Shri C.R. Madhava Murthy & Anr., reported in 2022 (4) Supreme 435, which resonates with the principle that seniors should not draw less pay than their juniors. Drawing parallels, Justice Chatterjee observed, “If it is found that any junior employee draws higher scale of pay than his senior of the same cadre, to remove the pay anomaly, the pay of such senior employee is required to be stepped up.”

However, the petitioner’s claim lacked direct documentary evidence comparing his service records with those of the junior colleague. Consequently, the court did not grant an immediate ruling in favor of the petitioner. Instead, Justice Chatterjee disposed of the petition with an innovative approach, granting the petitioner the liberty to submit a comprehensive representation to the learned District Judge, South 24 Parganas.

The learned District Judge Is directed to reassess the petitioner’s claim within eight weeks upon receiving the representation. This measure ensures a thorough review while providing an equitable opportunity for the petitioner to substantiate his claims.

 Date of Decision: 20.11.2023

 

Uday Sankar Das  VS The State of West bengal & Ors.

Latest Legal News