BISHANDEO CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of these writ applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have raised a grievance, that the respondents have practised discrimination in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, refusing to pay them salary in the scale of pay prescribed for similarly placed employees like Supervisors appointed under the Adult Education Scheme. They have also invoked the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work as enshrined under Article 39(d) the Constitution. The contempt application (MJC 702/89) was filed for appropriate action against the respondents of C.W.J.C. No. 8315 of 1988 on the allegation that they made an attempt to violate interim order dated 17.11.1988 passed in that case.

(2.) ALL these writ applications and the intervention applications, although on behalf of different petitioners but for the same relief, have been heard together and, therefore, are being disposed of by tiles common judgment.

(3.) PURSUANT to the aforesaid scheme some of the supervisors including the petitioners and intervenors were engaged with effect from 1985 86 to 1990 91 on a month. It appears about 700 supervisors were engaged in this scheme from the persons left over in the panel which was prepared for appointment of Adult Education Supervisors. Besides, the aforesaid, about 3000 supervisors were engaged without any advertisement etc. Under this scheme, Non formal supervisors were engaged for doing social work and to aid the national effort of eradicating illiteracy between the age group of 9 14. Such engagement was purely part time and they were required to work only for four hours a day. It would also be relevant to notice that the scheme was also purely temporary on year to year basis.