LAXMAN MAHTO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the petitioners and the counsel appearing for the CAPART.

(2.) Petitioners were appointed as Handloom Trainers under the Consultancy- cum-Guidance Centre (C.G.C.), Bania-Vaishali, which is a unit of the Council for Advancement of People's Act and Rural Technology (CAPART). Petitioners were appointed on a consolidated salary of Rs.700/- per month. However, vide order dated 22.11.1989 a decision was taken that the rules and regulations applicable at CAPART Headquarters, New Delhi will also be applied at C.G.C., Bania, Vaishali. Since petitioners were being paid only a consolidated salary and some of the employees similarly appointed were given benefit of regular pay scale as well as revised pay scale, as such it was a case of discrimination.

(3.) Petitioners and several others similarly situated employees asked for the similar benefits as it was being allowed to the employees working at the Headquarters. They also claimed same pay scale and similar service condition, as applicable in case of employees working at Headquarter, CAPART, New Delhi but it was not being considered.