Government Of Goa & Anr vs J.M.R.Noronha
- SCC(2009) 15 SCC 123
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where a court relies on a comparison between the petitioner and an allegedly similarly situated person to hold discrimination, the court must verify, on material placed before it at the time of decision, that the comparison is apt and remains valid. If material circumstances affecting the putative comparator have changed between the time the alleged discrimination occurred and the time the court decides the matter—such as a withdrawal or modification of the benefit allegedly granted—the court is bound to consider whether the comparison still holds, as it may affect the very foundation of the discrimination claim. Where such intervening changes have become final and the comparator is no longer in the position originally relied upon, the matter must be remitted for reconsideration.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Government of Goa & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus J.M.R.Noronha ...Respondent
JUDGEMENT
R.M. Lodha, J.
Leave granted.
2. J.M.R.Noronha, respondent, filed a writ petition before the
High Court of Bombay at Goa praying therein for following
reliefs:
"(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass an appropriate Writ of Mandamus, order or direction, calling for the records proceedings before the Respondent no.
1/Committee which was constituted pursuant to the Judgment of this Honourable Court dated 25.3.1998 in Writ Petition No. 48/97 and after examining the legality, validity and the reasonability of the decision of the Committee be pleased to quash and set aside the same.
(b) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to grant an appropriate Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, ordering and directing the Respondents herein to forthwith grant to the petitioner, the benefit of revised A.I.C.T.E. pay scale of Rs. 3700-5700, instead of and in place of Rs. 2200-4000, with effect from the date, as granted to other similarly situated persons vide Order dated 7.5.1994."
3. The Division Bench allowed the writ petition in terms of
prayer clauses (a) and (b) on the ground of discrimination,
namely, that the Workshop Superintendent of the Agnel
Polytechnic, Verna was given the revised pay scale of Rs.
3700-5700 while the petitioner was denied the same pay scale.
This is what the Division Bench said:
" 9. We have not thought it necessary to consider the submission made by Shri Sonak on behalf of the petitioner, that Shri A.K. Bidkar should not have associated himself with the Committee or its deliberations, in view of the fact that we find that the grievance made out in the petition that the petitioner has been discriminated against is justified. Nothing is placed on record to show as to why the Workshop Superintendent of the Agnel Polytechnic, Verna, was found to be entitled to the revised pay scale, whereas the petitioner was not........."
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
revised pay scale of the Workshop Superintendent, Agnel
Polytechnic, Verna, was withdrawn way back in 1998 and pay
scale of Rs. 2200-4000 was restored to that Officer.
5. Vide communication dated July 14, 1998, the post of
Workshop Superintendent of the Agnel Polytechnic, Verna, was
2 downgraded from the scale of Rs. 3700-5700 to the scale of
Rs. 2200-4000/-. The said communication reads thus:
"No.17/18/94-EDN (COL)/4362 Government of Goa Directorate of Technical Education Porvorim -Goa.
Dated :- 14/7/98 To,
The Suervisor, Agnel Polytechnic Verna.
Sir,
I am directed to inform you that it has been decided to downgrade the post of Workshop Superintendent of the Agnel Polytechnic, Verna, from the scale of Rs. 3700-5700 to the scale of Rs. 2200- 4000/-.
In view of the above, you are requested to issue necessary order down grading the post of workshop Superintendent of your institute as indicated above at your earliest, with a copy thereof endorsed to this office for information.
Yours faithfully,
-Sd-
(A.K. Bidkar) Director of Technical Education Porvorim -Goa
Copy to:
1. The file of agnel Polytechnic, Verna."
6. We are informed that the Workshop Superintendent,
Agnel Polytechnic, Verna, did not challenge the aforesaid
communication and the same has attained finality.
3
7. The High Court appears to have overlooked the fact that
much before the matter was decided by it, the revised pay
scale of Superintendent, Agnel Polytechnic, Verna stood
withdrawn and he was put in the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000/-,
the same scale which the petitioner was getting. Had this fact
been taken into consideration by the High Court, ought we
know, what would have been its decision in the matter. On this
short ground, matter needs to be sent back to the High Court.
8. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed and the judgment
dated January 12, 2004 is set aside. Writ petition is restored
to the file of the High Court for fresh consideration and disposal
in accordance with law. As the matter is quite old, we request
the High Court to expedite its hearing.
........................J (Tarun Chatterjee)
........................J (R. M. Lodha) New Delhi July 22, 2009.
4 5
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free