MANZOOR AHMED LALOO Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(J&K)-1986-7-22
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on July 25,1986

Manzoor Ahmed Laloo Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) PETITIONERS were appointed as Storekeeper cum account clerks in the Carpet Weaving Training Centres run by the All India Handicrafts Board in the pay scale of 260 -400 in the year 1978 were made quasi permanent with effect from 10 -3 -1981 In each of the Carpet Weaving Training Centre their is post Carpet Training Officer carrying the pay scale of 550 -800. Petitioners claim to be eligible and entitles for the appointment to the said post. There are job issued by respondent No. 2 and in the said job charts which a annexure -I and II functions of Carpet Training Officers in respect of training centres are given and functions of sterekeeper - cum - acconnt clerk are also given and they are assigned job which is to be performed by them right from their, tenure of posting at a particular center. The job chart is given in pursuance of the circutar issued by the respondents, in respec, of the petitioners, it is sa,d that they will dish functions of Carpet Training Officers in the centres bee use het llTs are not provided with the said officers. It is stated that pe it one s are storekeeper - cum -accounts clerks, but, by virtue of job chart thyae infact discharging the functions of Carpet Training Officers because It heir centres no Carpet Training officer was posted. The directions contamed in anr -exures which are job charts tnerefore require the pert oners" to work as Carpet Training Officers, but despite this they are pa d LTe !m the pay scale ot 260 -400 though they are entitled to get pay s 2 m the grade of 550 -800. The petitioners claim that despite their representations for higher pay,the respondents have not paid any heed to their demand and on the basis of equal pay for equal work they claim pay scale of Carpet Training Officers for they d.scharge the job ot Carpet Training Officers at various centres.
(2.) REPLY was filed by one Sona Ullah, SPecial officer office of the Development Commissioner (Handicarfts) Ministry of Commerce Government of India, Filed Administrative cell. Baghat, Barzalla Sgr. The petitioners claim to get pay in the grade of 550 -803 is denied. It is stated that by being at different carpet training centres they would not be entitled to be called as Carpet Training Officers nor would they be entitled to get the pay as Carpet Training Officers merely because the job chart entitles them to discharge the functions of the Carpet Training Officers temporarily. Minimum qualification for a Carpet Training Officer is said to be the degree of graduation from a recognized university and knowledge of carpet industry experience of Handicarfts and small scab industries, whereas for storekeeper - cum -accounts clerk one is to be only a matriculate with knowledge of typing at the speed of 30 words P. M. Petitioners are said to have been appointed as storekeepers cum - accounts clerks in a particular pay scale, therefore by they cannot claim to be Carpet Training Officers for which they are not eligible. However tne job chart appended to the petition is to avoid adrrinistrative inconvenience and overlapping of responsibilities of various officers and was issued in the nature of administrative instructions. It gives only mode of functioning of various officers in accordance with the policy laid down and this would not confer any right on the petitioners to get pay scale of Carpet Training Officers. The petitioners are said to be not eligible for holding the posts of Carpet Trainng Officers but for administrative convenience they may have been put in charge of centres as Carpet Training Officer.
(3.) CIRCULAR dated 20 -11 -1982 is relied for the purpose of grant of equal pay for equal work by the petitioners and their contention is that the respondents, by giving them a particular job which they are asked to do. This argument is based on the concept of equal pay for equal work and Randhir Singhs case is relied upon by the petitioners. Condition No. 22 in annexuxe II reads as under"In respect of the training centres which are not provided with Carpet Training Officers the storekeeper - cum - accounts clerks shall have to carry out all the function which are given in the job chart of the carpet training officers. This clause is relied upon by the petitioners to indicate that where there are no Carpet Training Officers the petitioners who are storekeeper - cum - account clerks have to perform the same duty which is assigned to the Carpet Training Officer wherever they are placed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.