B M RAINA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in the matter of Rajasthan Agriculture Service Rules, 1960 read with Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, was field by the petitioner who retired from Government service on 31st July, 1988 from the post of Additional Director, Agriculture (Extension) in the pay scale of Joint Director in terms of order dated 13th July, 1981 read with order dated 5.1.1987 Annex -1 and 2 respectively. The facts, as briefly stated, are that the petitioner discharged his duties as Additional Director, Agriculture (Extension) right from 13.7.81 till the date of his retirement i.e. 31.7.88 and it is stated that he was discriminated by the Department in the matter of fixation of pay -scale since the post of Additional Director, Agriculture (Extension) is a post higher to that of Joint Director, Agriculture and the grievance of the petitioner is that notwithstanding the fact that he discharged his duties , on the post of Additional Director continuously for a long stretch of time from .13.7.81 to 31.7.88 as stated above, the petitioner was paid the salary of lower post i.e. of Joint Director by the respondents which has resulted in violation of the principles of 'equal pay for equal work' enshrined under Article 39 of the Constitution of India in as much as the petitioner has been discriminated by the respondents in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) SHRI R.C. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, during the course of hearing has stated at the bar that there was no justification for the respondents in not paying the petitioner the salary for the post of Additional Director (Extension) for the aforesaid period, since he had discharged the duties of Additional Director (Extension) all through but he has been paid the salary of a lower post of Joint Director.

(3.) It has been further contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had discharged duties of Additional Director which was a duly sanctioned post in the World Bank Scheme as the head of extension discipline for executing the scheme in the State and the entire responsibility was entrusted to the petitioner while handing over the charge of this post as would appear from the documents Annex -3 and 4 dated 5.2.82 and 13/14.10.82 respectively issued by the Dy. Secretary to the Government, Agriculture to the Director, Agriculture. 5. Since the petitioner was unable to get the relief he had submitted various representations for proper fixation of his pay -scale as admissible for the post of Additional Director (Extension) and had also personally met the concerned functionaries of the Department. The petitioner has placed on the record the various representations from Annex -8 to 13. It is apparent from the perusal of the representation dated 20th February, 1988, which was submitted by the petitioner before the Director, Agriculture, who in turn, marked this representation to the petitioner himself with the note 'needful is being done' which in fact is a solemn assurance conveyed to the petitioner by the Director that something positive would emerge in favour of the petitioner in this regard. It has been further contended by Shri Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner that despite above, no relief whatsoever has been given to the petitioner till date as a consequence of which the petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition in this Court on 11.12.89.