The principle of equality is no longer integrated, and the view of the State is to be found in Articles 38, 39, 39A, 43 and 46 of Part III of the Constitution. This theory is an essential input in the formulation of every policy of the state. These articles of the Constitution of India require that, through the reduction, amongst other things, of monetary inequalities, and the right to adequate livelihood and to provide for appropriate wages, the State has a constitutional obligation to ensure social, economic and political justice and to ensure the right to adequate living conditions and to promote the economic interest of weaker sections, Justice Deepak Roshan of the Jharkhand High Court referred to in the matter of Niranjan Kumar versus State of Jharkhand [ W.P.(S) No. 6404 of 2014 ]
The facts are that, on 13 February 2002, on the appointment of personnel assistants (PAs), in Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (in short, JHALSA) the secretary, the Department of Staff, Administrative Reforms & Rajbhasha, the Jharkhand government, Ranchi, wrote to the General Registrar and Jharkhand High Court that there are a lack of PAs in the Joint Sector.All these petitioners took part in the selection process and have been declared successful in accordance with that announcement. Furthermore, on 31 May 2002 the Jharkhand High Court of Registrar Establishment sent a letter to the Secretariat member JHALSA sending a list of 3 selected candidates as a Personal Assistant and requested that all the candidates and petitioners selected be given appointment letters within 3 days of receipt of the letter. The Member Secretary issued a letter of appointment, in payment scale of Rs. 5,500-175- 9,000/, in accordance with the above mentioned provisions, as Personal Assistant under JHALSA for petitioners.
The learned counsel relied on Pratap Narain Chaddha & Ors vs State of UP where the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that although there were differences in education qualifications, but once a diploma holder had served Rs. 1600-2660, in five years, they should be treated on a level with the Polytechnic’s graduate teachers with the same pay. He also relied on the judgement in the case of Gupta & Ors, Vs. Lt. Governor, Delhi Administration & Ors., which concluded with the same advertising from the High Court appointed petitioners.the High Court could not have allowed a different pay-scale because the petitioners were originally posted at JHALSA.
The learned counsel of the defendant-high Court submitted that, in accordance with Schedule- I of the 2001 Rules of the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority, the Member Secretary-JHALSA requested an amendment to the High Court in order to match the pay scale of personal assistants to PAs and Jharkhand High Court assistants. The High Court of Jharkhand subsequently sent the request from JHALSA to the State Government with the consent of Hon’ble Chief Justice. He further submits that the claim of the petitioners is based upon a presumption that the employees of JHALSA are at par with the employees of the State Government and Hon’ble High Court which is misconceived.
In the light of the above, the court ruled that all of these applications by letter were allowed and held that, in view of Memo No. 2954 of 30 October 2010 from the Finance, the Government of Jh, all of these petitioners were entitled to the pay-scale of Rs. 6,500-200- 10,500/- (notional) and the Monetary benefits of w.e.f. 01.03.2007 and to the grade pay of Rs. 4,600/-.
