MURLI DHAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, the petitioner has sought issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to make him substantive on the post of Diesel Pump Operator and to give him salary in the regular scale with consequential benefits.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Diesel Pump Operator in the service of the Municipal Council, Kota w. e. f. 1. 4. 1982 on daily wages and since then he is serving the Municipal Council, Kota in that capacity. His name has been included in the provisional seniority list of daily rated employees which has been issued by the Municipal Council, Kota on 16. 8. 1988 (Annx. 1 ). THE petitioner has asserted that he is doing duties which are identical to the duties being performed by the other Pump Operators. He made a number of representations for being given regular pay scale and for regularisation of the service. Copy of one such representation has been placed on record as Annexure-2. THE Municipal Council, Kota, on its part wrote a letter dated, 14. 11. 1987/1. 12. 1987 to the Director, Local Bodies, Rajasthan, Jaipur for creation of the post of Diesel Pump Operator for the purpose of regularisation of the service of the petitioner. However, the Municipal Council did not receive any response from the Director, Local Bodies, Rajasthan, Jaipur, and, therefore, the petitioner continues to be on daily wages. He has claimed that action of the Municipal Council in not paying him salary in the regular pay scale of Pump Operator is arbitrary and discriminatory and has resulted in violation of his right of equality. THE petitioner has claimed that on the basis of principle of equal pay for equal work he has a right to get salary in the same pay scale which is being paid to other Pump Operators in the Municipalities in Rajasthan.

(3.) IN view of the above fact, situation and the provisions of Rule there is no manner of doubt that the respondent No. 2 has acted arbitrarily in denying payment of salary to the petitioner in the regular pay scale. The principle of equal pay for equal work embodied in Article 39 (d) of the Constitution of INdia has been held to be a part of the equality clause contained in Articles 14 and 16. Randhir Singh vs. Union of INdia (1), the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Randhir Singh's case has been followed in all the cases which have been decided subsequently during the last one decade. It can, therefore, be said that the persons doing similar duties are ordinarily entitled to be paid same wages. For making a departure from this rule the employer has to show that different wages are being paid to the persons doing similar duties on the basis of some rationale, principle or classification having a direct relation with the nature of the post and the nature of duties being performed by two employees or two sets of employees or two groups of employees.