SATISH KHAJURIA Vs. MUNICIPALITY, JAMMU
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Click here to view full 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
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.
The respondents 4 to 8 have submitted that the have been promoted to the higher grade in recognition of their seniority and merit.
Respondent No.4 has claimed that he was a Law graduate and other
respondents similar as the petitioner. The doctrine of equal pay for
equal work was not attracted in the instant case. It is further alleged
that according to the sanctioned posts as on 31 -3 -1985 contained in
1985 -86 Budjet, three classes of Khalafwarzi Inspectors are provided in different pay scales. Khalafwarsi Inspectors are promoted from the lower
grade to the higher grade on the basis of their merit, ability and
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.