Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Vs Rajesh Kumar Jindal & Others (Supreme Court of India)
Appeal Number : Civil Appeal No. 195 of 2018
Date of Judgement/Order : 08/01/2019
Related Assessment Year : 2010-11
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Punjab State Power Corporation Limited Vs Rajesh Kumar Jindal & Others (Supreme Court of India)

Conclusion: Internal auditors could not claim parity of pay scale as that of the Head Clerk in the Punjab State Electricity Board (PSEB) merely because they were categorised in same Group XII of Head Clerks as the nature of duties and responsibilities of Internal Auditors were different from Head Clerks.

Held: The issue arose for consideration was  that posts of Internal Auditors being in Group XII, who were on par with Head Clerks should be given parity of pay scale as that of Head Clerks, irrespective of the promotional avenues available to the Internal Auditors. It was contended that there was a parity of pay scales of the posts of Internal Auditors and Head Clerks for about two decades and while so, the order dated 03.10.1990 issued by the appellant-Board revising the pay scale of Head Clerks from Rs.1640-2925 to Rs.2000-3500 had disturbed the long-standing parity of pay scales of the posts of Head Clerks and the Internal Auditors and violative of the Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. It was held  there was a difference in the nature of duties and responsibilities performed by the Head Clerks and Internal Auditors, Pay Anomaly Committee decided to allow the revised scale for Internal Auditor at Rs.1800-3200 with benefit of promotional increments and Rs.2000-3500 for Head Clerks. Merely because Internal Auditors were categorised in Group XII along with Head Clerks, the Internal Auditors could not claim parity as the nature of duties and responsibilities of Internal Auditors were different from Head Clerks. The High Court did not keep in view that the duties, nature of work and promotion channel of Head Clerks and Internal Auditors were entirely different and that option to seek promotion apparently as Internal Auditors was the “conscious exercise of option”, the impugned judgment could not be sustained and was liable to be set aside.

FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT

Leave granted.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031