A K SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed by the petitioners for the reliefs, interalia, to issue appropriate direction declaring that the petitioners are entitled to payscale of Rs.380-560.00 with retrospective effect, i.e. from the date of their appointment and also to direct the Government to give to the petitioners the payscale of Rs.380-560.00 from their respective date of appointment and to pay arrears etc with 15% interest per month.

(2.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed on adhoc basis as proof readers on 18.1.1982 in the payscale of Rs.260-400.00 for census work. It is the contention of the petitioners that after their appointment as per the order passed in May, 1982 copy whereof is produced at annexure "C" to the petition, the scale accorded to the petitioners was Rs.350-560.00. However, subsequently, an order dated 13.7.82 was passed by the State Govt whereby it was stated that in the earlier order dated 31.5.82 the correct payscale should be Rs.260-400 and not Rs.350-560.00. The contention of the petitioners in the petition is that they are doing same type of work as being done by the proof readers working in Govt press and others and the proof readers of Govt press are being given payscale of Rs.350-560/- whereas the petitioners who are discharging the same job and they are not given equal pay. The case of the petitioners is that they are also posted in the Govt press on deputation basis and therefore they should get the same payscale being given by the State Govt to the proof readers in Govt. press. Petitioners have preferred this petition invoking the principle of equal pay for equal work.

(3.) On behalf of the State Govt an affidavit in reply and further affidavit in reply has been filed contending that the capacity of the petitioners as proof readers working in census department can not be equated with the proof readers of the Govt press and it is further submitted that so far as the proof readers of Govt press are concerned there are separate recruitment rules and for appointment of proof readers in Govt press one has to pass a test which is provided as per the recruitment rules which is not in the case so far as the appointment of the petitioners is concerned. It is also submitted that the petitioners are appointed on ad hoc basis. However, the fact remains that though the nomenclature of the petitioners is that of ad hoc they are in service as proof readers engaged for census work and the respondents have contended in the affidavit in reply that the petitioners are not entitled to backwages since the nature of their work is different.