SALAM INDIRA DEVI Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus for a direction to the respondents to regularise the service of the petitioner in the post of Asstt. Public Prosecutor cum-Asstt. Govt. Advocate with retrospective effect from the date of her initial appointment in the said post on 2-3-1987 and also for a direction to pay her pay and allowances at par with the regular Asstt. Public Prosecutor on the principle of equal pay for equal work.

(2.) I have heard Mr. N. Surjamani Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Y. Imo Singh, learned Advocate General, Manipur.

(3.) By an order dated 2nd March, 1987 the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor cum-Assistant Government Advocate, Manipur on payment of Rs 40/- for work occupying full 4 (four) hours or more in a day and Rs. 20/- for work occupying less than 4 (four) hours or for adjournment in any date before any Court in Manipur until further orders w.e.f the date of joining in the public interest By another order dated 31st December, 1987 (Annexure-A/2) the services of the petitioner was ordered to be attached to the Office of the Public Prosecutor (High Court) to assist all the Public Prosecutors on payment of Rs. 40/- per day. Petitioner has been working tin today at the rate of Rs. 40/- per day. The grievance of the petitioner is that one incumbent, namely, Miss R.K. Pratima Devi who has been appointed by an order dated 17-6-1989 (Annexurc-A/3) has been given regular appointment with the regular scale of pay whereas the petitioner has been allowed to work on payment of Rs 40/- per day since 31-12-1987 till today. It is also the case of the petitioner that the nature of work performed by Miss R.K. Pratima Devi and the nature of work performed by the petitioner is the same and as such on the principle of equal pay for equal work, the petitioner is also entitled to get regular pay scale as in the case of Miss R.K. Pratima Devi. Having refused to pay the petitioner a regular scale of pay, is therefore, discriminatory inasmuch as the case of the petitioner and Miss R.K. Pratima Devi is equally circumstanced. It is submitted by Mr. N. Surjamani Singh that unequal treatment has been meted out to the petitioner by the respondents in equal circumstances.