Unexplained pay gap is discrimination: HC pulls up nuclear research institute

Kolkata: Observing that failure to explain a pay gap amounts to discrimination, the Calcutta High Court has upheld a 2022 order directing the Saha Institute of Nuclear Physics (SINP) to place a retired senior security officer in the same notional pay scale as his predecessor, after the institute failed to explain why the two drew different salaries for the same post.

A Division Bench of Justices Tapabrata Chakraborty and Partha Sarathi Chatterjee dismissed an appeal by SINP and its officials against the Single Judge’s decision in favour of Supriya Gangopadhyay, who was promoted to senior security officer in May 2012.

The court recorded that in 2018, Gangopadhyay learned his predecessor, Joydev Maity, had received a higher grade pay of Rs 6,600 in the Rs 10,000 to Rs 15,200 scale, compared to his Rs 5,400 grade pay. Repeated representations to the institute were rejected in 2022, with SINP citing 2019 promotion norms.

The Bench noted that the promotion pre-dated the 2019 rules, which did not apply to the posts of security officer or senior security officer, and that SINP could not produce any bye-law or document showing that only officers with ten years in the feeder post could receive the higher pay scale. It also observed that the institute had not produced any proof that Maity had completed such service before his promotion.

Referring to the Single Judge’s findings, the court said the authorities had not disputed that Gangopadhyay discharged the same duties as Maity. Observing that “all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly” and that fairness and reasonableness are “paramount” for a model employer, the Bench found no reason to interfere with the earlier decision. However, as Gangopadhyay approached the court about a decade after his promotion and retired in December 2023, the relief was confined to notional benefits from May 17, 2012, without payment of arrears. The Bench also corrected a clerical error in the earlier order to record the post as senior security officer.

Both the appeal and the cross-objection were disposed of, with no order as to costs.