Page No.# 1/11 GAHC020003682022 2025:GAU-NL:26 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) KOHIMA BENCH Linked Case : WP(C)/184/2022 SHRI. TAKOWAPANG LIBRARY ATTENDANT MOKOKCHUNG COLLEGE OF TEACHER EDUCATION YIMYU WARD KHENSA MOKOKCHUNG NAGALAND VERSUS THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND 4 ORS THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF NAGALAND P AND AR DEPARTMENT NAGALAND KOHIMA 3:THE FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER GOVT. OF NAGALAND NAGALAND KOHIMA 4:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY HIGHER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION NAGALAND KOHIMA 5:THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF HIGHER EDUCATION NAGALAND KOHIMA ------------ Advocate for : SUPONGWATI WALLING Advocate for : GOVT ADV NL appearing for THE STATE OF NAGALAND Page No.# 2/11 AND 4 ORS BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAKHETO SEMA JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Date : 06-02-2025 Heard Mr. Supongwati Walling, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. B. Kithan, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents. 2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking for a direction to the State respondents to grant the minimum scale of pay to the petitioner in the light of the judgment dated 26/10/2016 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab & Others -versus- Jagjit Singh & Others, reported in 2017 (1) GLT (SC) 47. 3. That by the order dated 25/06/2015, issued by the Director, Higher Education, Nagaland, Kohima, the petitioner was appointed to the post of Library Attendant at Mokokchung College of Teacher Education, Yimyu, on contingency fixed pay of Rs. 3450/- p.m. The petitioner is continuously serving the department in the said post for about 7(seven) years and is presently paid the revised fixed pay of Rs. 5000/- p.m. 4. That the petitioner submitted the application dated 27/06/2022 to the Director, Directorate of Higher Education, Nagaland, Kohima, for granting the scale of pay. However, as the application submitted by the petitioner did not evoke any positive response, the petitioner has filed the present petition. 5. Mr. Supongwati Walling, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner is performing the same/identical nature of works, duties and responsibilities as discharged by the other Library Attendant(s) who have been appointed on regular basis as well as by those who have been favoured with the scale of pay, but the petitioner has been discriminated by the respondents by only paying a meagre fixed pay of Rs. 5000/- p.m. despite the petitioner continuously serving the department for about 7 years. 6. Mr. Supongwati Walling has also taken this Court to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner and has referred to the information dated 26/03/2024 furnished by the Page No.# 3/11 department under the RTI Act, 2005, to support his case that the other Library Attendant serving in different Government Colleges under the department has been granted the scale of pay and also that the Library Attendant serving in different Government Colleges in the district’s of the State performed the same nature of works and duties as that of the petitioner. The learned counsel has accordingly submitted that the State respondents cannot adopt a pick and choose policy for granting the scale of pay to the similarly situated Library Attendant’s who are serving in different Government Colleges under the department when all of them discharges the same nature of works, duties and responsibilities. 7. Ms. B. Kithan, the learned Government Advocate, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to receive the minimum scale of pay since the Government has not adopted any policy for granting the scale of pay to the contingency employees. It is also submitted that the department has already submitted the proposal to the Government on 15/12/2021 for pay up-gradation of all the Grade-III & IV staff in the department who have been serving for 5 years and above from fixed to ROP 1993 and in this regard, the Government in the department of Higher & Technical Education has by the letter dated 28/06/2022, directed the respondent No.5 to resubmit the proposal with details as to whether any of the Grade- III & IV staff(s) is occupying sanctioned post. The department has accordingly resubmitted the proposal to the Government informing that none of the staff mentioned in the said proposal is occupying sanctioned post. The learned Government Advocate has also referred to the incumbency list of the non-teaching staff for the year 2020 in respect of the Mokokchung College of Teacher Education, Mokokchung to show that there is no sanctioned post for Library Attendant and due to which the department has engaged the petitioner on contingency basis to meet the exigencies of service. It is also submitted that the institute does not have any other employee who discharges the same work as that of the petitioner and paid the higher wages. It is further submitted that the petitioner and all other contingent employees are being paid the revised wages as fixed by the State Government by the Notification No. AR-3/GEN- 201/2009, dated 13/11/2019. Making the above submissions, the learned Government Advocate has submitted that no legally enforceable right of the petitioner has been Page No.# 4/11 violated and therefore, the petitioner has no right to claim the minimum scale of pay. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 9. The petitioner is continuously serving the department for about 7 years on contingency basis and is presently paid the revised fixed pay of Rs. 5000/- p.m. 10. This Court has perused the application dated 04/03/2024 filed by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking information under the RTI Act, 2005 and the information dated 26/03/2024 furnished thereto. Both the application dated 04/03/2024 and the information dated 26/03/2024 are reproduced herein below; “The Public Information Officer, Directorate of Higher Education, Nagaland, Kohima Sub:- Seeking information under RTI Act, 2005 Dear Sir/Madam, Kindly furnished me the authenticated copies of the following; 1. List of all the employees who have been granted scale of pay under the post of Library Attendant along with the relevant office order(s). 2. Nature and duties performed by Library Attendant both regular and non-regular employees. Enclosed herewith the application fee of Rs. 10/- (Rupees Ten) and the cost will be paid on intimation as per assessment. Kindly send me the reply information to the undersigned. a) Name : R. Atsula Kips b) Contact No. : 9612885203 c) Address of information to be send : Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, Kohima, Nagaland. Kindly acknowledge receipt. Thanking you. Dated:04-03-2014 Your’s faithfully, R. Atsula Kips Advocate Mb No. 9612885203” Reply to RTI by R. Atsula Kips Date 04.03.2024. List of all the employees who have been granted Scale of pay under the post of Library Attendant (District) Sl. No. Name Designation Date of appointment Grant of scale pay Establishment Nature of work 1 Shri Asezo Keditsu -do- 06.08.2013 14.03.2018 State College of Teacher 1. Cleaning and arranging the Page No.# 5/11 Education, Kohima books 2. Assist in maintaining Library Records and documents 3. Attend to the need of the users(staff and students) 4. Duties assigned by Librarian and Library Assistant 2 Shri Kaikho Zholia -do- 07.10.2013 12.12.2017 Pfustero Government College -do- 3 Smti. Vizotolu -do- 14.03.2013 19.03.2018 Phek Government College -do- 4 Smti. Eyilobeni Kikon -do- 05.02.2016 05.02.2016 Mount Tiyi College, Wokha -do- 5 Smti. Lanukala Library Attendant 15.07.1994 15.07.1994 Dimapur Government College -do- 11. From the information furnished by the department, it is seen that the Library Attendant in some of the Government Colleges have been granted the scale of pay and the nature of work performed by the Library Attendant in the Government Colleges are same and identical. The State respondents have not filed any rejoinder affidavit clarifying that though the petitioner is also serving as Library Attendant, the nature of work performed by the petitioner is different to that of the Library Attendant serving in the other Government Colleges. On the other hand, the State respondents have only taken the plea that as the petitioner is a contingency employee and not appointed in a sanctioned post, no right accrues to the petitioner to claim the minimum scale of pay. The plea taken by the State respondents is misconceived. The pertinent issue relevant for the case is not whether the petitioner is appointed on contingency basis or in a Page No.# 6/11 sanction post but whether the petitioner is discharging the same nature of works, duties and responsibilities as those discharged by the Library Attendant serving in the other Government Colleges and extended the scale of pay. As earlier observed, the State respondents have failed to substantiate that the petitioner does not render the same work as discharged by those serving in the different Government Colleges. That being so, this Court can safely infer that the petitioner discharges the same/identical nature of works duties and responsibilities as discharged by those in the same/corresponding post and is entitled to pay parity on the principle of equal pay for equal work. It is encouraging to note that the department has submitted the proposal to the Government for pay up-gradation of all Grade-III & IV staff in the department from fixed to ROP 1993 and the Government is now seized of the matter. Hopefully, the Government will soon come out with a beneficial policy for the employees like the petitioner who are struggling in their day to day life with their meagre income. However, the steps taken by the department/government for up-grading the pay and allowances of Grade-III & IV employees in the department, by itself cannot be a ground to deprive the payment of the minimum scale of pay to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances narrated above. 12. The principle of equal pay for equal work has been repeatedly emphasized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and accordingly, the sole factor which requires the determination of this Hon’ble Court for deciding the present case is as to whether the petitioner is rendering similar and identical duties and responsibilities as discharged by the employees in the department holding the same/corresponding post. The question has been answered in the affirmative in the preceding paragraph of this order. 13. In the case of Dhirendra Chamoli & Another -versus- State of U.P, reported in (1986) 1 SCC 637, the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined a claim for pay parity raised by temporary employees for wages equal to those being disbursed to regular employees. The prayer was accepted by holding that the action of not paying the same wage despite the work being the same was considered as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and it was further held that such action amounted to exploitation in a welfare State committed to a socialist pattern of society. The relevant portion of paragraph-2 of the said judgment is extracted as under; Page No.# 7/11 “2. …………………..The argument envisaged in the counter affidavit is that since there are no sanctioned posts to which regular appointments can be made, the casual employees employed by different Nehru Yuvak Kendras cannot claim to receive the same salary and perquisites as Class IV employees appointed regularly to sanctioned posts. But while raising this argument, it is conceded in the counter affidavit that "the persons engaged by the Nehru Yuvak Kendras perform the same duties as is performed by Class IV employees appointed on regular basis against sanctioned posts”. If that be so, it is difficult to understand how the Central Government can deny to these employees the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV employees regularly appointed against sanctioned posts. It is peculiar on the part of the Central Government to urge that these persons took up employment with the Nehru Yuvak Kendras knowing fully well that they will be paid only daily wages and therefore they cannot claim more. This argument lies ill in the mouth of the Central Government for it is an all too familiar argument with the exploiting class and a Welfare State committed to a socialist pattern of society cannot be permitted to advance such an argument. It must be remembered that in this country where there is so much unemployment, the choice for the majority of people is to starve or to take employment on whatever exploitative terms are offered by the employer. The fact that these employees accepted employment with full knowledge that they will be paid only daily wages and they will not get the same salary and conditions of service as other Class IV employees, cannot provide an escape to the Central Government to avoid the mandate of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. This Article declares that there shall be equality before law and equal protection of the law and implicit in it is the further principle that there must be equal pay for work of equal value. These employees who are in the service of the different Nehru Yuvak Kendras in the country and who are admittedly performing the same duties as Class IV employees, must therefore get the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV employees. It makes no difference whether they are appointed in sanctioned posts or not. So long as they are performing the same duties, they must receive the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV employees.” 14. In the recent case decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Punjab & Others -versus- Jagjit Singh & Others, reported in (2017) 1 SCC 148, the Supreme Court held as under; Page No.# 8/11 “44.6. In State of Karnataka case43, a Constitution Bench of this Court set aside the judgment of the High Court, and directed that daily wagers be paid salary equal to the lowest grade of salary and allowances being paid to regular employees. Importantly, in this case, this Court made a very important distinction between pay parity and regularization. It was held that the concept of equality would not be applicable to issues of absorption/regularization. But, the concept was held as applicable, and was indeed applied, to the issue of pay parity – if the work component was the same. The judgment rendered by the High Court, was modified by this Court, and the concerned daily wage employees were directed to be paid wages, equal to the salary at the lowest grade of the cadre concerned. 49.1. We are of the considered view, that in para 44 extracted above, the Constitution Bench clearly distinguished the issues of pay parity and regularization in service. It was held, that on the issue of pay parity, the concept of ‘equality’ would be applicable (as had indeed been applied by the Court, in various decisions), but the principle of ‘equality’ could not be invoked for absorbing temporary employees in Government service, or for making temporary employees regular/permanent. All the observations made in the above extracted paragraphs, relate to the subject of regularization/permanence, and not, to the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’. As we have already noticed above, the Constitution Bench unambiguously held, that on the issue of pay parity, the High Court ought to have directed, that the daily wage workers be paid wages equal to the salary, at the lowest grade of their cadre. This deficiency was made good by making such a direction. 57. There is no room for any doubt that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has emerged from an interpretation of different provisions of the Constitution. The principle has been expounded through a large number of judgments rendered by this Court, and constitutes law declared by this Court. The same is binding on all the courts in India under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. The parameters of the principle have been summarized by us in para 42 hereinabove. The principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ has also been extended to temporary employees (differently described as work-charge, daily wage, casual, ad-hoc, contractual, and the like). The legal position, relating to temporary employees, has been summarized by us, in para 44 hereinabove. The above legal position which has been repeatedly declared, is being reiterated by us, yet again. 58. In our considered view, it is fallacious to determine artificial parameters to deny fruits of labour. An employee engaged for the same Page No.# 9/11 work cannot be paid less than another who performs the same duties and responsibilities. Certainly not, in a welfare State. Such an action besides being demeaning, strikes at the very foundation of human dignity. Any one, who is compelled to work at a lesser wage does not do so voluntarily. He does so to provide food and shelter to his family, at the cost of his self respect and dignity, at the cost of his self worth, and at the cost of his integrity. For he knows that his dependents would suffer immensely, if he does not accept the lesser wage. Any act of paying less wages as compared to others similarly situate constitutes an act of exploitative enslavement, emerging out of a domineering position. Undoubtedly, the action is oppressive, suppressive and coercive, as it compels involuntary subjugation. 59. We would also like to extract herein Article 7 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966. The same is reproduced below: “7. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work which ensure, in particular: (a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with: (i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work; (ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in accordance with the provisions of the present Covenant; (b) Safe and healthy working conditions; (c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his employment to an appropriate higher level, subject to no considerations other than those of seniority and competence; (d) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays.” India is a signatory to the above Covenant, having ratified the same on 10-4-1979. There is no escape from the above obligation, in view of different provisions of the Constitution referred to above, and in view of the law declared by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the principle of “equal pay for equal work” constitutes a clear and unambiguous right and is vested in every employee– whether engaged on regular or temporary basis. Page No.# 10/11 60. Having traversed the legal parameters with reference to the application of the principle of “equal pay for equal work”, in relation to temporary employees (daily-wage employees, ad-hoc appointees, employees appointed on casual basis, contractual employees and the like), the sole factor that requires our determination is, whether the employees concerned (before this Court), were rendering similar duties and responsibilities as were being discharged by regular employees holding the same/corresponding posts. This exercise would require the application of the parameters of the principle of “equal pay for equal work” summarized by us in para 42 above. However, insofar as the instant aspect of the matter is concerned, it is not difficult for us to record the factual position. We say so, because it was fairly acknowledged by the learned counsel representing the State of Punjab, that all the temporary employees in the present bunch of appeals were appointed against posts which were also available in the regular cadre/establishment. It was also accepted that during the course of their employment, the concerned temporary employees were being randomly deputed to discharge duties and responsibilities which at some point in time, were assigned to regular employees. Likewise, regular employees holding substantive posts were also posted to discharge the same work which was assigned to temporary employees from time to time. There is, therefore, no room for any doubt, that the duties and responsibilities discharged by the temporary employees in the present set of appeals were the same as were being discharged by regular employees. It is not the case of the appellants, that the respondent employees did not possess the qualifications prescribed for appointment on regular basis. Furthermore, it is not the case of the State that any of the temporary employees would not be entitled to pay parity on any of the principles summarized by us in para 42 hereinabove. There can be no doubt, that the principle of “equal pay for equal work” would be applicable to all the temporary employees concerned, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages on a par with the minimum of the pay-scale of regularly engaged Government employees holding the same post. 61. In view of the position expressed by us in the foregoing paragraph, we have no hesitation in holding that all the temporary employees concerned, in the present bunch of cases, would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay scale (at the lowest grade, in the regular pay scale), extended to regular employees holding the same post.” 15. In view of the discussions made above and in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioner Page No.# 11/11 who discharges the same nature of works, duties and responsibilities is entitled to pay parity as that of the Library Attendant serving in different Government Colleges on the principle of equal pay for equal work. 16. This Court accordingly directs the State respondents to pay to the petitioner the minimum scale of pay which is paid to the regular Library Attendant in Government Colleges along with the arrears from the date of filing of the present writ petition. All exercise for carrying out the directions of this Court shall be completed within a period of 90(ninety) days from the date of passing of the order. 17. Writ petition allowed. No cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant