SITA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 584 OF 1989 In this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, three reliefs are asked for by as many as 748 petitioners. The reliefs sought for are:

(2.) On the date of the filing of the writ petition (March 1989) the petitioners were working as "under matriculate instructors in the Adult Literacy Programme" devised by the Government of Haryana. They were being paid a lump sum amount of Rs. 200/- per months as salary. They had put in 5 to 6 years service and have been performing their duties to the satisfaction of all concerned. Their submission is that when matriculate instructors approached this Court for similar reliefs, they were granted certain reliefs though not all the reliefs asked for by them. The reference is to the judgment of this Court in Jaspal v. State of Haryana, (1988) 3 SCC 354, wherein this Court directed that the "matriculate instructor are entitled to the same pay scale as sanctioned to squad teachers." This Court had also directed that the salary of the said petitioners shall be fixed in the same scale as that of the squad teachers, having regard to the length of their service with effect from their date of initial appointment by ignoring the break in service on account of six months fresh appointments. It was further directed by this Court that the said petitioners will be entitled to the said pay scales in accordance with law notwithstanding the break in service that might have taken place. The said directions were made effective with effect from September 1, 1985 However, the claim for regulrisation of their services put forward by the said petitioners was rejected, since the very project was likely to last only till 1990. The present petitioners' case is that though they are non-matriculates they too have been performing the very same duties as were being performed by matriculate teachers (petitioners in Jaipal). The petitioners invoke the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. According to them, except the difference in the matter of educational qualifications there is no other distinction between the post held and the duties and functions performed by the petitioners in Jaipal and the petitioners herein. They have set out in the writ petition the several duties performed by them. Reliance is also placed upon certain other decisions of this Court viz., Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCR 298 ; Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U. P. (1986) 1 SCC 637 and Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief, C.P.W.D., (1986) 1 SCC 639 .

(3.) The doctrine of 'equal work for equal pay' is recognised by this Court as a facet of the equality clause contained in Article 14 of the Constitution. The first of the several decisions on the subject is Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 . The said doctrine has been dealt with by this Court in several later decisions including State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pramod Bhartiya, (1993) 1 SCC 539 , decided by a three-member Bench of which one of us (B. P. Jeevan Reddy, J.) was a members. This decision dealt mainly with the manner in which the claim of equal work has to be judged. It was held, after referring to the definition of "same work or work of a similar nature" in Section 2 (h) of Equal Remuneration Act 1976, that: