Page No.# 1/12 GAHC040014142023 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) (ITANAGAR BENCH) Case No. : WP(C)/502/2023 P.K Deb and 15 Ors. C/o Director, Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Naharlagun, P.O Naharlagun, Pin 791110. Mob. 98627813387 2: Rimik Riram Age: Occupation : C/o Director Health and Family Welfare Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Naharlagun P.O Naharlagun Pin 791110. 3: Radhe Gambo Age: Occupation : C/o Director Health and Family Welfare Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Naharlagun P.O Naharlagun Pin 791110. 4: Ripak Ngulam Age: Occupation : C/o Director Health and Family Welfare Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Naharlagun P.O Naharlagun Pin 791110. 5: Takhe Laling Page No.# 2/12 Age: Occupation : C/o Director Health and Family Welfare Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Naharlagun P.O Naharlagun Pin 791110. 6: Maga Reniya Age: Occupation : D/o Late Shri Maga Techi C/o Director Health and Family Welfare Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Naharlagun P.O Naharlagun Pin 791110. 7: Ampi Bamin Age: Occupation : C/o Director Health and Family Welfare Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Naharlagun P.O Naharlagun Pin 791110. 8: Likha Yaje Age: Occupation : C/o Director Health and Family Welfare Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Naharlagun P.O Naharlagun Pin 791110. 9: Neelam Lel Age: Occupation : S/o Shri Neelam Talri permanent resident of Deed Village P.O Deed P.S Yachuli District Lower Subansiri Page No.# 3/12 Arunachal Pradesh. 10: Duyu Munyia Age: Occupation : C/o Director Health and Family Welfare Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Naharlagun P.O Naharlagun Pin 791110. 11: Tage Tamin Age: Occupation : C/o Director Health and Family Welfare Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Naharlagun P.O Naharlagun Pin 791110. 12: Talam Har Neelam Age: Occupation : C/o Director Health and Family Welfare Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Naharlagun P.O Naharlagun Pin 791110. 13: Passang Pema Age: Occupation : C/o Director Health and Family Welfare Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Naharlagun P.O Naharlagun Pin 791110. 14: Nyilang Tajo Age: Occupation : C/o Director Health and Family Welfare Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Page No.# 4/12 Naharlagun P.O Naharlagun Pin 791110. 15: Dajar Mara Age: Occupation : C/o Director Health and Family Welfare Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Naharlagun P.O Naharlagun Pin 791110. 16: Pinkula Chetterjee Age: Occupation : C/o Director Health and Family Welfare Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Naharlagun P.O Naharlagun Pin 791110 VERSUS The State of AP and 10 Others represented through the Chief Secretary), Civil Secretariat, Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar, P.O Itanagar 791111 2:The Chairman Age: 0 Occupation : High Power Committee on Pay Anomalies Govt. of Arunachal pradesh C/o Chief Secretary Civil Secretariat Itanagar P.O Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh. 3:The Members Age: 0 Occupation : High Power Committee C/o Chief Secretary Civil Secretariat Itanagar P.O Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh. Page No.# 5/12 4:The Member Age: 0 Occupation : The High Power Committee C/o Chief Secretary Civil Secretariat Itanagar P.O Itanagar Arunachal Pradesh. 5:The Commissioner/Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Health and Family Welfare Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat P.O Itanagar Pin 791111 6:The Secretary Finance cum Chairman Age: 0 Occupation : High power Committee Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh P.O Itanagar Pin 791111 7:The Secretary Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Personnel cum Monitoring and Operation Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat P.O Itanagar Pin 791111 8:The Secretary to the Govt. of India Age: 0 Occupation : Ministry of Finance/ Vitt Mantralaya Department Expenditure/ Viaya Vibhag (Implementation Cell) Room 214 The Ashok New Delhi. 9:The Director Age: 0 Page No.# 6/12 Occupation : Department of Health and Family Welfare Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Naharlagun P.O Naharlagun Pin 791110 10:The State Programme Officer/Nodal Officer Age: 0 Occupation : National Programme for Control of Blindness (NPCP) Department of Health and Family Welfare Govt. of Arunachal Pradesh Naharlagun P.O Naharlagun Pin 791110 11:The Secretary / Commissioner Age: 0 Occupation : Department of Administrative Reforms and Training Govt of Arunachal Pradesh Civil Secretariat Itanagar PO Itanagar 79111 Advocate for the Petitioner : Tayum Son, Lishi Taj,T Torum Advocate for the Respondent : GA (AP), DSGI,Marto Kato,SC(Health),Taba Tagum BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND ORDER 05.01.2026 1. Heard learned counsel Mr. T. Son for the petitioners; Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel for Health & Family Welfare and learned Government Advocate, Ms. P. Sangeeta on behalf of learned counsel, Mr. S. Tapin. 2. All the 16 petitioners of this petition have assailed the legality, validity and the constitutionality of disparity in the pay scales with similarly placed Page No.# 7/12 employees of the Department of Health & Family Welfare under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh. 3. It is submitted that the nature of work and responsibilities are same between the Ophthalmic Assistants (in short O.A’s) and the Staff Nurse, Auxiliary Nurse Midwives, Lady Health Visitor, General Nursing and Midwives and Public Health Nurse who were extended the financial benefits including revised pay scales, grade pay under Part-B and also classification of designation from Group-C to Group-B (non-gazetted and non-ministerial) under 5th, 6th and 7th Central Pay Commission recommendation. 4. It is submitted that the present petitioners work and duties are at par with their counter parts who are already enjoying the benefits of revised and enhanced pay scales. The petitioners have been totally denied their legitimate financial benefits, non-financial upgradations/enhancement of pay scales and classification of Group-C to Group-B. Initially, the pay scales of the petitioners, staff nurse, ANMs, LHVs, Public Health Nurse and Nursing sisters were maintained in parity in so far the prescribed qualification, scale of pay between the aforesaid employees and the present petitioners were concerned as they are originally from the same Health Department. 5. The present petitioners are highly aggrieved by the arbitrariness, malafide and the illegality committed by the respondent authorities which appears to be extremely discriminatory in nature as the nature and the policies adopted by the State authorities with regard to the scale of pay between Group-C employees of the Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Arunachal Pradesh, is in violation of the Doctrine of "Equal Pay for Equal Work" envisaged as a constitutional goal under Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India. 6. It is submitted that the Annexure-3 of the petition clearly reveals that the Page No.# 8/12 petitioners were serving the departments since 1991 but they have not received the enhanced pay from 1996 onwards, whereas, similarly placed counter-parts from the same department have been receiving the enhanced pay even after the 7th Pay Commission. It is submitted that the Government of Arunachal Pradesh passed an order for implementation of Part-B Pay Scale under the 6th Central Pay Commission for nurses serving under the Government of Arunachal Pradesh w.e.f., 01.01.2006 from the entry scale but this enhanced benefit was not entitled to the petitioners. The petitioners were also not granted the benefits of the enhanced pay scale vide order No. MEST-2010/207 dated 29.12.2015. 7. All the petitioners are serving in the capacity as Ophthalmic Assistants in their respective places of posting. It is further submitted that all the petitioners are qualified and they have cleared their Class-XII Board examinations in the Science stream along with 3 years Diploma course, whereas, the others who are enjoying the benefits according to the up-to-date revised pay scales and who are counter-parts of the petitioners are Class-8 pass employees. Thus, the petitioners are highly prejudiced and aggrieved by the discriminatory conduct of the respondent authorities. 8. Heard learned Government Advocate, Ms. P. Sangeeta on behalf of learned counsel Mr. S. Tapin and Mr. T. Tagum, learned Standing Counsel, Health and Family Welfare Department. 9. It is submitted that a High Level Standing Committee on Pay Anomalies have already been constituted. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-A of the petition which is the Revised Pay Rules of 2016 and implementation of the orders of the Government of India regarding revision of pay scales as per 7th Central Pay Commission Page No.# 9/12 Recommendation in the State of Arunachal Pradesh vide Memo No. FIN/E- ii/28/2016/625 dated 15.12.2016. Thereafter, it is submitted that the petitioners have not been granted revision as per 7th Pay Commission. 10. The petitioners have relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Randhir Singh Vs. The Union Of India & Ors reported in (1982) 1 SCC 618, wherein it has been held that:- “ The counter-affidavit does not explain how the case of the drivers in the Police Force is different from that of the drivers in other departments and what special factors weighed in fixing a lower scale of pay for them. Apparently in the view of the respondents, the circumstance that persons belong to different departments of the Government is itself a sufficient circumstance to justify different scales of pay irrespective of the identity of their powers, duties and responsibilities. We cannot accept this view. If this view is to be stretched to its logical conclusion, the scales of pay of officers of the same rank in the Government of India may vary from department to department notwithstanding that their powers, duties and responsibilities are identical. We concede that equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the Executive Government and expert bodies like the Pay Commission and not for courts but we must hasten to say that 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. Our attention was drawn to Binoy Kumar Mukerjee v. Union of India and Makhan Singh v. Union of India, where reference was made to the obser vations of this Court in Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India describing the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' as an abstract doctrine which had nothing to do with Article 14. We shall presently point out how the principle, "equal pay for equal work", is not an abstract doctrine but one of substance. Kishori Mohanlal Bakshi v. Union of India is not itself of any real assistance to us since what was decided there was that there could be different scales of pay for different grades of a service. It is well known that 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 for the higher grade, which may be either Page No.# 10/12 academic 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. It is true that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But it certainly is a constitutional goal. Article 39(d) of the Constitution proclaims "equal pay for equal work for both men and women" as a Directive Principle of State Policy. 'Equal pay for equal work for both men and women' means equal pay for equal work for everyone and as between the sexes. Directive Principles, as has been pointed out in some of the judgments of this Court have to be read into the fundamental rights as a matter of interpretation. Article 14 of the Constitution enjoins the State not to deny any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws and Article 16 declares that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. These equality clauses of the Constitution must mean something to everyone. To the vast majority of the people the equality clauses of the Constitution would mean nothing if they are unconcerned with the work they do and the pay they get. To them the equality clauses will have some substance if equal work means equal pay. Whether the special procedure prescribed by a statute for trying alleged robber-barons and smuggler kings or for dealing with tax evaders is discriminatory, whether a particular governmental policy in the matter of grant of licences or permits confers unfettered discretion on the Executive, whether the take-over of the empires of industrial tycoons is arbitrary and unconstitutional and other questions of like nature, leave the millions of people of this country untouched. Questions concerning wages and the like, mundane they may be, are yet matters of vital concern to them and it is there, if at all that the equality clauses of the Constitution have any significance to them. The Preamble to the Constitution declares the solemn resolution of the people of India to constitute India into a Sovereign Socialist Democratic Republic. Again the word 'Socialist' must mean some-thing. Even if it does not mean 'to each according to his need', It must at least mean 'equal pay for equal work'. "The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is expressly recognized by all socialist systems of law, e.g., Section 59 of the Hungarian Labour Code, para 2 of Section 111 of the Czechoslovak Code, Section 67 of the Bulgarian Code, Section 40 of the Code of the German Democratic Republic, para 2 of Section 33 of the Rumanian Code. Indeed this principle has been incorporated in several western Labour Codes too. Under provisions in Section 31 (g. No. 2d) of Book I of the French Code du Travail, and according to Argentinian law, this principle must be applied to female Page No.# 11/12 workers in all collective bargaining agreements. In accordance with Section 3 of the Grundgesetz of the German Federal Republic, and Clause 7, Section 123 of the Mexican Constitution, the principle is given universal significance" (vide International Labour Law by Istvan Szaszy, p. 265). The Preamble to the Constitution of the Inter-national Labour Organisation recognises the principle of 'equal remuneration for work of equal value' as constituting one of the means of achieving the improvement of conditions "involving such injustice, hardship and privation to large numbers of people as to produce unrest so great that the peace and harmony of the world are imperiled". Construing Articles 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Article 39(d), we are of the view that the principle 'equal pay for equal work' is deducible from those Articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classi-fication or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the drivers in the Delhi Police Force perform the same functions and duties as other drivers in service of the Delhi Administration and the Central Government. If any-thing, by reason of their investiture with the 'powers, functions and privileges of a police officer', their duties and responsibilities are more arduous. In answer to the allegation in the petition that the driver-constables of the Delhi Police Force perform no less arduous duties than drivers in other departments, it was admitted by the respondents in their counter that the duties of the driver-constables of the Delhi Police Force were onerous. What then is the reason for giving them a lower scale of pay than others? There is none. The only answer of the respondents is that the drivers of the Delhi Police Force and the other drivers belong to different departments and that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is not a principle which the courts may recognise and act upon. We have shown that the answer is unsound. The clarification is irrational. We, therefore, allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to fix the scale of pay of the petitioner and the driver-constables of the Delhi Police Force at least on a par with that of the drivers of the Railway Protection Force. The scale of pay shall be effective from January 1, 1973, the date from which the recommendations of the Pay Commission were given effect.” Reverting back to this case, it is held that indeed the submission on behalf of the petitioners that they deserve equal pay for equal work has substance. Disparity in pay for equal work can be held to be discriminatory and disparity. 11. After considering the submissions at the Bar with circumspection, it Page No.# 12/12 appears that the petitioners’ grievance may be taken into consideration by the High Powered Pay Anomalies Committee routed through proper channel and thereafter, the respondent authorities including respondent No. 2 may consider the grievance of the petitioners and pass necessary orders within 6 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 11. In terms of the above observation, this petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant