RAMESH CHAND Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Notice was issued by this court on 20th Sept., 1989 to the respondents to show cause as to why the writ petition should not be admitted and finally disposed of at the stage of admission. Notices were served on all respondents in the year 1989 itself and thereafter, time has been given to the respondents to file reply, on different occasions. On 14.11.1991 the court accepted the application filed on behalf of the petitioner and ordered that the case will be heard at the stage of orders on 5.12.1991. Although, a period of more than 2 years has passed since the date of issuance of notice by this court, reply to the writ petition has not been filed. Learned Deputy Government Advocate today again requested for time to file reply. In my opinion, there is no justification for grant of further time to file reply. This is so because the petitioner's claim lies in very narrow compass. He has only prayed for grant of benefit of the principle of equal pay for equal work.

(2.) Petitioner was appointed as Class IV employee in Government Middle School, Chapradi, Amer, district Jaipur by order dated 20.4.81. Petitioner was paid consolidated salary of Rs. 150.00 being a member of Antyoday Yojana and he was described as a person appointed on part time basis. The term of appointment of the petitioner was extended up to 7.1.81. After expiry of initial term of appointment, the District Education Officer, Jaipur passed another order dated 7.7.91 and directed that the term of appointment of the petitioner is extended till further orders. Petitioner's case is that for last over a decade by now he has been serving the Education Department as Class IV employee and has been discharging the duties as are being discharged by other Class IV employees who are getting salary in the regular pay scale. The petitioner is still being paid salary in the form of consolidated pay. Petitioner has referred to the decisions of this court, wherein directions have been given to the employees to make payment of salary in the regular time-scale meant for Class IV employees. Petitioner's case is that notwithstanding the fact that he is discharging the duties similar to those being discharged by other class IY employees who are getting salary in the. regular pay scale. This, according to the petitioner, amounts to an act of hostile discrimination against him and denial of equal protection of law and equality before law. Learned Deputy Government Advocate after seeking instructions from the Officer-in-charge Shri K.D. Goyal stated in the court that the petitioner is still serving the Education Department and is being paid consolidated salary. He is not being paid wages in regular time-scale because of non- (availability of vacant post.

(3.) In the absence of specific counter, filed by the respondents, the statement of the petitioner that he is discharging the duties which are identical in nature and quantum to the duties being discharged by any other Class IV employee serving the Education Department will have to be treated as correct and it must be held that the petitioner's work is same as that of other Class IV employees forking in the Education Department. Almost a decade ago the Supreme Court in Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India (AIR 1982 S.C. 879) declared that the principle of equal pay for equal work enshrined in Art. 39(d) of the Constitution should be read as part of the concept of equality contained in Art. 14 and 16. Hundreds of decisions have been rendered by various High Courts and dozens by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, wherein the law declared in Randheer Singh's case has been reiterated and re-affirmed. The last in the series is the decision of the Supreme Court in Dhar War District P.W.D. Literate Daily Wage Employees Association Vs. State of Karnataka (1990) 2 SCC 396 ..