Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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