This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, directing the second respondent and calling for the records in R.C.No.25577/S & L.2/2003 dated 8.12.2003 and quash the same and to grant the petitioner in the pay scale of the Electrical Supervisor (Supervisory 'C' Grade Rs.5000-150-8000).
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- Petitioner is a Diploma holder in Electrical and Electronics Engineering with "C" Certificate, (i.e.) Electrical Supervisor. He joined the services of the third respondent as Instrument Supervisor on 21.2.1996. Based on his ability and capability, by proceeding dated 22.4.1996, he was asked to do Electrical Engineer work based on "C" Certificate in case of emergency. Thereafter, on 25.3.1999 in proceedings RC.No.PF/98-99/E the third respondent passed the following order:-
"PROCEEDINGS Sub: Establishment Thiru S.Karuthapandi, Instrument Supervisor Posting to hold full additional charge in the vacant place orders issued Regarding.
Ref: Note Orders dated 25.03.99.
-----
Thiru S.Karuthapandi, Instrument Supervisor is directed to attend the work of Electrical Supervisor in the vacant place in addition to his normal works, till further orders.
This order takes effect from 06.01.99."
It is not in dispute that till the closure of the third respondent mill the petitioner continued to perform the work of Electrical Supervisor (i.e.) upto 16.12.2001. Thereafter, on the closure of the third respondent mill, the petitioner was deputed to the fourth respondent mill and he continued to work in the fourth respondent mill as Electrical Supervisor till March, 2003. Hence, the petitioner sought for regularization in the post of Electrical Supervisor. He approached this Court in W.P.No.24025 of 2003 and this Court directed the Authority to consider the representation of the petitioner and the fourth respondent after considering the representation, in his order dated 8.12.2003 rejected the plea of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Electrical Supervisor stating that the appointment to the post of Electrical Supervisor can be done only through direct recruitment as per Circular dated 26.8.1999. Challenging the said order, present writ petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on instruction from the petitioner, who was present in Court, stated that at present he is not inclined to seek larger relief sought for to setting aside the impugned order, but prayed for payment of salary for the work done as the Electrical Supervisor during the relevant period done.
4. Heard Mr.Swaminathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 3 and 4, who referred to the counter-affidavit and stated that insofar as the work done as Electrical Supervisor is concerned, petitioner was given 10% of the pay as additional pay. Therefore, he is entitled to the salary as is payable to on regular Electrical Supervisor less the 10% additional pay if the Court is so inclined.
5. The short question that arises in the present case in view of the relief now sought for by the petitioner is whether the petitioner will be entitled to pay for the work done as an Electrical Supervisor on par with the similarly placed persons working in the third respondent mill.
6. It is not disputed that from 25.3.1999, the petitioner was directed to attend the work of an Electrical Supervisor in addition to the normal work. The period for which the petitioner has worked from 6.1.1999 to 16.11.2001 in the third respondent mill and from 17.11.2001 till March, 2003 under the fourth respondent as Electrical Supervisor is not disputed.
7. In view of the Apex Court's decisions in Union of India and others - vs. - Ram Gopal Agarwal & others reported in 1998(1) LLJ 1233 and Jaswant Singh vs. - Punjab Poultry Field Staff Association and others reported in (2002)1 Supreme Court Cases 261, equal pay has to be paid for equal work. The Apex Court in Para 11 of the decision in Jaswant Singh's case held as follows:-
"11. The High Court's decision in Gobind Singh case did not direct the promotion of Gobind Singh. What was directed was the payment of salary and allowances of the post of Chick Sexer since Gobind Singh had been discharging the duties of that post. Therefore, while the appellant's promotion to the post of Chick Sexer cannot be upheld, given the fact that the appellant had discharged the duties of a Chick Sexer, he was at least entitled to the pay and other allowances attributable to that post during the period he carried out such duties."
Further in Selvaraj vs. - Lt. Governor of Island, Port Blair reported in (1998)4 SCC 291, the Apex Court held that the pay of the higher post is payable to an employee looking after the duties of that post, the employee is entitled to get higher post pay for the work done in that post even though the said post is not to be treated as promotion. In Jaswant Singh's case (cited supra) the Apex Court held that if a person discharged the duties of a higher post, he is entitled to get the pay and allowances admissible to the promotion post.
8. In the present case, there is no dispute that the petitioner was performed a work of Electrical Supervisor. Hence, the petitioner is entitled to pay as Electrical Supervisor. The writ petitioner is, therefore, entitled to benefit of higher pay as applicable as Electrical Supervisor for the period from 6.1.1999 to 16.11.2001 from the third respondent and from 17.11.2001 till March, 2003 from the fourth respondent subject to deduction of 10% excess basic pay said to have already been paid. The respondents shall reconcile the account and give the details of the payment to the petitioner. The Writ Petition is ordered as above. No order as to costs.