KAMALANAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, a Restorer in this Court, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the Central Government, the Delhi Administration and this Conn to grant to the petitioner the higher pay-scale of Rs. 400 600, the scale presently applicable to the Restorers, working in the High Courts of Punjab and Haryana and Himachal Pradesh, inter alia, by the enforcement of the principle of equal pay for equal work embodied in Article 39(d) of the Constitution as a Directive Principle of State Policy, in so far as it is enforcesble as part of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

(2.) The petition has been filed in the following circumstances. The petitioner joined the service of the then Punjab High Court in 1960 as Daftari. In 1964, he was romoted as a Restorer. The petitioner continued to serve in that capacity in the Punjab High Court until his services were transferred to this Court on its constitution. The petitioner also served as a Restorer in the Circuit Bench of this Court at Simla before the establishment of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. Until 1970, the post of a Restorer in this Court carried a scale of Rs. 80-110. In May 1970, the post of the Restorer was made equivalent to that of a Lower Division Clerk in this Court and the pest of Restorer was put at the scale of pay applicable to the Lower Division Clerk, which at that time was Rs. 110-180 The scale of pay has since been revised to Rs. 260-400 by the Third Pay Commission the recommendations of which were made applicable to the staff of this Court. For reasons, which are not clear, it. appears that the post of Restorer in the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. the duties of which are, by and large, identical, carries the scale of pay of Rs. .100-600. The petitioner seeks the higher scale of pay of Rs. 400-600 to get parity with the Restorers in the other two High Courts, in the matter of scales of pay, on the principle of equal pay for equal work' as also for the reason that his court is the successor of one, and the predecessor of the other, of the two High Courts. The petition was, however, filed without seeking Justice from Honble the Chief Justice of this Court in the matter of grant of higher scale of pay and the portion was accordingly adjourned for sometime to enable the petitioner to make a representation. The petitioner made the representation but the representation is said to have been fumed down.

(3.) The petitioner seeks to justify the higher scale of pay, applicable to the identical posts in the two other High Courts. not only on the basis that the said two High Courts were either the parent or the successor High Courts of this Court but also on the principle of equal pay for equal work, which is made a constitutional goal by Article 39fd) of the Constitution and has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Randhir Singh(l). to have been incorporated In the fundamental guarantees of equality before the law and the equal protection of the laws and of equality of opportunity in the matter of employment embodied in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.