ISHWARDEO PANDEY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for an order commanding upon the respondents to follow the principle of equal pay for equal work and pay him salary at par with other similarly situated employees of the same department.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, he has been working since 19.7.1983 as a Clerk -cum -Typist on a vacant and sanctioned post, but he is getting only Rs. 1,149/ - per month although other persons doing the same nature of job are getting higher pay.

(3.) A counter affidavit, in the instant case has been filed in which it has inter alia stated that the petitioner should have filed the appeal to the Department of Forest or should have appeared before the Head of the Department and he would have been told the fate of his case "within minutes". They have further stated that the assertion to the effect that other persons are getting more is wrong and misleading because legally speaking, he is getting the minimum wage fixed for adhoc employees of his category under the orders passed by the Labour, Employment and Training Department from time to time. According to the respondents, the petitioner is getting the wage of Rs. 1149 -50 per month which has been fixed as per notification dated 19.7.1993. Moreover, these respondents have further stated that the allegations of other similarly situated persons are vague because their details etc, have not been given. They have also stated that if by making such allegations, the petitioner is referring to those persons appointed as clerks or those daily wage earners whose services have been regularized, then, the petitioner cannot be allowed to state that he stands on the same footing because he was not appointed as a clerk in the manner that the others were appointed. They have also vehemently denied the allegation to the effect that he has been deprived of the pay of Class III employees because, according to them, he is not entitled to that wage structure at all. They have further stated that in fact in the year 1995, the petitioner was given a chance to appear before the Regional Selection Board, Hazaribagh which was considering the selection of incumbents appointed on daily wages for their absorption into regular Class III cadre such as clerks but, the petitioner could not succeed. The respondents have also stated that unless the petitioner is absorbed in accordance with law, he cannot get a regular pay scale although he may be doing the works which are similar to other clerks appointed on regular basis. Their further case is that the petitioner who has been on daily wages right from 1983 has raised the point after a lapse of 14 years that he was being exploited. At paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit, the respondents have admitted that the case of the petitioner was recommended by the Divisional Forest Officer. State Trading on two occasions but, the petitioner has not been selected till date. At paragraph 9, these respondents have stated that the case of the petitioner for regular absorption is under active consideration of the Government.