SATISH KHAJURIA Vs. MUNICIPALITY, JAMMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner a Khalafwarzi Inspector claims the benefit of " equal wages for equal work1. He has submited that he was holding the post of Khalafwarzi Inspector in the grade of 600 -925. He was an B,A. and L.G.S. by qualification. Respondents 4 to 8 have been promoted to the grade of 630 -980 without considering the case of the petitioner. The action of the respondents in not granting the grade of 630 -980 to the petitioner has been alleged to be arbitrary, capricious, unwarranted, unjustified and discriminatory. The petitioner has further alleged the violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. He claims to be performing the functions and discharging the duties of Khalafwarzi Inspector as the respondents 4 to 8 are doing and their nature of the duties, functions and responsibilities are idencriteria or formullatical. It is alleged that the respondents 1 to 3 have not laid any or made any provision for the purposes of granting the benefit of higher grade of 630 -980 to an incumbent of the same, identical and equal post of Khalafwarzi Inspector.

(2.) THE petition has been resisted by the respondents on the grounds that the present petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal and revision. It is stated by the aforesaid respondents that there are three grade of Khalafwarzi Inspectors: i. 600 -925 ii. 630 -980 and iii. 680 -1240.

(3.) THE grade of (80 -1240 is held by S/Shri Veshva Nath and Bhagwan Dass in personal capacity in order to save them from stagnation. The scale of 600 -925 is given to the newly appointed promoted persons and 630 -980 is given to senior persons on the basis of merit and ability. The provisions of different scales provided for Khalafwarzi Inspectors is intended to provide the avenues of promotion to the staff and to remove stagnation which has to be treated as an incentive of the aforesaid persons. The respondents 1 to 3 that the question of granting of equal pay services is not relevant under the circumstances of the case submit it. It has been denied that the case of the petitioner was not considered while considering the cases of respondents 4 and 5. According to them his case was also considered and respondent 4 and 5 were given the grade being senior to him, merit and ability being the same. The benefit of being L.G.S. had already been given to the petitioner when two advance increments were given to him. As no fundamental right of the petitioner was violated, the petition was not maintainable. The order impugned is not arbitrary, capricious, unwarranted, unjustified or discriminators as alleged by the petitioner After consideration of the cases of the petitioner and other respondents the benefit of the higher grade was given to the respondents 4 and 5.