Date of judgement:
28December 2021
Bench:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah
Hon’ble Mrs. Justice B.V. Nagarathna
Parties:
Petitioner – Stateof U.P. &Anr.
Respondent – Aishwarya Pandey
Subject
There cannot be 2 pay scales for the same post just because the method of appointment for both individuals is different.
Legal Provisions
- There are 5 types of writs: (i) Habeas Corpus (ii) Mandamus (iii) Certiorari (iv) Quo Warranto (v) Prohibition
- Habeas Corpus talks about the rights of an illegally detained person.
- Mandamus is when the Court orders a public official to fulfil his/her duty.
- Certiorariis issued when a superior court orders to inferior one to transfer a case or to quash an order of any case.
- Quo Warranto avoids misappropriation of a public office by any person.
- Prohibition is also issued by the superior court to order the inferior court to not exceed its jurisdiction.
- The writ petitions can only be filed in a High Court or a court superior to that.
Overview
- The respondent was appointed as an Officer on Special Duty by the State of U.P. on compassionate grounds.
- She filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court, stating that she was paid less than the other Officer on Special Duty appointed by the state in a normal procedure.
- The pay scale for a normally appointed Officer on Special Duty was between Rs.8,000-13,500, while the respondent was only paid between Rs. 6,500-10,500.
- The Allahabad High Court allowed the writ petition and ordered the state to pay the respondent according to the same pay scale as others.
- When this matter was appealed from the Supreme Court, the counsel representing the State said that the respondent was appointed on supernumerary post and she could not have been appointed as an Officer on Special Duty, since appointments for the said post is done on the basis of Public Service Commission.
Issues
- Whether or not the respondent was appointed for the said post?
Judgement Analysis
- The Supreme Court contended that there was no dispute as to whether the state, on compassionate grounds, appointed the respondent as an Officer on Special Duty or not.
- It was the State who had appointed the respondent and now, the State cannot say that it was not possible to appoint the respondent for the post of Officer on Special Duty on compassionate grounds, merely because appointments for that post was done through Public Service Commission.
- Once a person is appointed for any post, he/she is entitled to the pay scale and benefits of that post irrespective of the method of appointment.
- There cannot be 2 different pay scales for the same post, just because appointment for one is done on compassionate grounds while other is appointed in the normal prescribed manner.
- The Court went on to say that people on similar situated positions should get the same benefits.The Court thus held that there was no substance in the above petition and hence, it was dismissed.
- The Court further granted 2 weeks to the State to imply the judgement of the Apex Court.
Conclusion
When a State appoints an individual for any post, it is the duty of the State to ensure that the individual gets all the benefits of being in that post, irrespective of what the grounds of appointment for that post are. Multiple pay scales on the basis of difference in grounds of appointment cannot be permitted.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
