Would it be right?

Discussion in 'Grievance' started by adil85, Sep 26, 2013.

  1. adil85

    adil85 Active Member

    Article 14 in The Constitution Of India 1949 says that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth ...... then why the State Government employees of Government of West Bengal are being deprived by the State from the DA which their counterparts in the other States or in Central government are getting regularly? Is it not violation of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India? Moreover, Article 39 (d) of the Constitution proclaims "equal pay for equal work for both men and women" read with equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws are yet matters of vital concern to the employees of our State and that the equality clauses of the Constitution appears to be having no significance to the instrumentalities and machineries of the State Govt. The preamble to the Constitution declares the solemn resolution of the people of India to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Democratic Republic. The employees of the state government are not being paid the same amount for doing the identical work which the Central government employees get. The concept of right to life as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India is not merely a life of drudgery or animal like living. Right to life does mean right to an honourable life. If it is so, then the employees of the state government must be treated at par with the employees of the Central government in the matter of payment of the wages and DA. I personally believe that employees of government of West Bengal are being deprived of their legitimate DA. This is in violation to the article 14 of the Constitution as well as Article 39 (d). Constitution of India has been amended many times. Is it not a time to challenge that when a counterpart of the same country is getting are different treatment in the matter of pay and DA by Central Government than its denial by the State Government to its employees is nothing but violative of Article 14 and Article 39 (d)? This can be challenged before Supreme Court of India. First, I would suggest that the employees who are enrolled on this panel should start a healthy debate discussing the pros and cons. What is the harm if the issue of non-payment of DA is challenged before the court of law..... As after all if it is not paid the state government employees are going to lose nothing. Please think and start the debate.
     
  2. Shyamalkc

    Shyamalkc Member

    Yes,if it falls within the preview of Article14
    You must be thanked for bringing this hot topic
    for open discussion.
     
  3. MDIRSHADALAM

    MDIRSHADALAM Member

    What is happening no one has any answer.
    But we employees are suffering.
     
  4. And

    And Novice

    None of the above articles can be helpful to establish the matter. Read them more carefully; it can be easily defended by the State. Find some more.
     
  5. Ray

    Ray Member

    Leave the rest, this very base logic is merely impossible to establish. 'Work', read 'Duty', as a whole includes a lot of things which differs from post to post, place to place and Service to Service.

    Moreover, to argue, say two employees are appointed in same post in a cadre in two consecutive vacancies on a gap of 2 years, they do the same job but the employee appointed earlier enjoys a higher pay from that of the latter due to incremental benefits.

    As regards the amount of 'Allowance', it depends on the decision of the Govt. to provide the same to its employees until and unless there is anything specific in written.
     
  6. adil85

    adil85 Active Member

    With respect I would defer the opinion of my other colleagues. Mere negative thinking is not going to take the State Government employees anywhere. My concept is based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court of India vide Randhir Singh vs Union of India and others. Should we not go out in darkness when there is always a chance of falling in pits? I would have been more happy to argue had there been any lawyer on this panel. However, I am uploading the above referred judgment for the knowledge of those friends who are afraid of the outcome of the case before consulting the constitutional experts.
     
  7. donyi_polo

    donyi_polo Active Member

    I personally think that the increasing gap in DA should be reduced.

    However, it's difficult to apply the term "identical work" which employees of both the Govts. are subjected to. It's pertinent to take note of the following from the Apex Court's consideration in the said judgment:
    "2:1. No doubt, equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the Executive Government and
    expert bodies and not for the courts, but where all things are equal that is, where all relevant considerations
    are the same, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differentially in the matter of their pay merely
    because they belong to different departments.
    Of course, if officers of the same rank perform dissimilar
    functions and the powers, duties and responsibilities of the posts held by them vary
    , such officers may not be
    heard to complain of dissimilar pay merely because the posts are of the same rank and the nomenclature is the
    same.
    [303 G-H, 304 A] 3:1. The principle "equal pay for equal work" is not an abstract doctrine but one of
    substance. There can be and there are different grades in a service, with varying qualifications for entry into a
    particular grade,
    the higher grade often being a promotional avenue for officers of the lower grade. The higher
    qualifications or experience based on length of service, reasonably sustain the classification of the officers
    into two grades with different scales of pay. The principle of equal pay for equal work would be an abstract
    doctrine not attracting Article 14 if sought to be applied to them."


    The term "Allowance"may not be confused with the term "Pay". Allowance like DA may vary depending upon Govt. policy. For example, Transfort Allowance is available to Central Govt. employees as a part of salary. It is not provided to the State Govt. employees of WB. Rate of HRA is also different. HRA rate for Central Govt. employees is lower in most of the parts of WB than that prescribed for the State Govt. employees.
     
  8. nemo

    nemo Staff Member

    The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs G. C. Mandawar on 13 May, 1954 is relevant with this discussion.

    Whether discriminatory grant of dearness allowance by State Govt is a violation of fundamental right under Art. 14 of the Constitution of India?

    The outcome was
     
  9. adil85

    adil85 Active Member

    But the said issue as in the judgment has been revisited by the Apex Court after 1954. The question is whether the judgment of 1954 still prevails when there are latest judgments over the issue by the Apex Court. Forget Article 14...come to Article 21....has the non grant of D.A vis-à-vis the Dearness of now-a-days not affecting the life of the State Government employees? Are the State Govt. employees not entitled to live an honourable and reasonable decent life as per the Constitution? The issue is not to heckle the Government but to ensure that the Government does not lag behind in protecting the interest of its employees and their right to life. Let us continue the debate. You have quoted a judgment which is very appreciable. The loop hole and leaking joints have to be repaired while preferring a Writ....if required at all. Thanks to Mr.Nemo for his active and positive comments with legal materials. Let us discuss it more .
     
  10. nemo

    nemo Staff Member

    I could not understanding the following quote from the said judgement of 1954:-
    What are the points that is not be protected?
     
  11. adil85

    adil85 Active Member

    You have really asked an intriguing question. This judgment is perhaps out come of a British mind set when the country had attained freedom barely 7 years ago in 1947. The English people used to then ask the Indian employees the same question. Then govt. employees used to be treated as the employees of a slave country. However, those days in judiciary as well as in administration have gone. In 1954, the Constitution of India was only 4 years old. Since then the Constitution of India has undergone many changes. Many watchdogs and NGOs have surfaced on the Indian socio political screen to protect the Constitution. The Supreme Court judges who were once upon invincible forces have been impeached. Now the judges have to declare their assets which was an imaginable in the 50s. In the same spirit, we should see that the deprivation of the state government employees by the employers. None of the political leaders has ever paid from his pocket to any of the government employees in distress. Now the time has completely changed. The heavyweight leaders like Laloo Prasad Yadav are languishing in jail. I believe that in a changed situation and for protection of right to life of the state government employees, when state has failed, the employees should come forward to protect their own rights. I'm happy that my post on this site has been given importance. I want extensive debate over the matter and after careful study of the subject intend to catch the bull by its horns. Let's see what emerges out of this healthy debate. I again repeat that this debate is not to heckle the government but to let it feel that the state government employees have a right to life as the employees of the other governments.
     
  12. Sumanta Nag

    Sumanta Nag Novice

    I agree adil.
     
  13. adil85

    adil85 Active Member

    In any case either you loose or win. What is harm if there is a collective effort to solve by approaching the Courts? After all Govt. is perhaps not going to oblige. However, if you are a blind musician or handicapped shilpi etc... etc.... then you can expect land in Raharhat and hefty amount on account of cultural issues.
     

Share This Page