ROSHAN LAL Vs. HIGH COURT OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this common judgment) and order we propose to dispose of two writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and registered as C. W. P. No 248 of 1989 and a W. P. No. 54 of 1993 as the facts are similar and points of law involved are the same.

(2.) The facts of C. W. P. No, 248 of 1989 are as follows. The present petition has been filed by four persons who are senior clerks of the High Court against the High Court, State of Himachal Pradesh and some other persons who are working as Translators in this court. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the posts of clerks, Proof Readers and Junior Translators are in the same scale of pay but the posts of Junior Translators were re -designated as Translators and they were given a higher scale of pay and not to the present petitioners. According to the present petitioners the work of the present petitioners is arduous in S whereas the work of a translator is only which is entrusted by the High Court to the Junior Translator and he is not in a position to do and cope with the work of a clerk as a. clerk has to perform multifarious duties in he High Court. It has also been alleged that while preparing the seniority list of officers and subordinates on the establishment of the High Court, the category of senior clerks/clerks/junior translators and proof readers was kept under one head and in the final seniority list the sanctioned strength of these category is shown as 47 and a joint seniority list was prepared. The senior scale was also given to the entire category namely clerks, junior translators and proof readers etc. In the month of November 1988, the Junior Translators had been designated as Translators and while doing so the post of Junior Translator has been made Translator with a higher basic pay scale.

(3.) The main grievance of the petitioners is that though initially all of them were clubbed together and given one pay scale, now by upgrading the post of junior translator to the post of translator they have been given a high pay scale. Therefore, the petitioners have alleged that equal pay for equal work has not been accepted while doing so and therefore the equation of posts of junior translator with the translator with higher pay scale is arbitrary in nature It has been stated that the work performed by the present petitioners, responsibility shared by them and the functions performed by them are thus comparable with those of the translators it would be seen that there is no lawful justification for not allowing this pay scale to the present petitioners which is now being enjoyed by the junior translators on being redesignated as translators. In other words, it has been pleaded, that there was violation of equal pay for equal work as envisaged in the Constitution.