B. P. Jeevan Reddy, J. - (1.) WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 584 OF 1989 In this writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, three reliefs are asked for by as many as 748 petitioners. The reliefs sought for are:"(a) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any appropriate writ, order or direction that the petitioners be treated to be in the service of the respondents from the date of their initial appointment irrespective of there being artificial break in their services during the period. (b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to put the petitioners on regular pay scales to that of primary school teachers in the Education Department of Haryana plus other consequential benefits from the date of their initial appointment and further direct the respondents to pay the petitioners the difference in arrears of salary accrued to them from the date of their initial appointment. (c) Issue by appropriate writ, order or direction that the department of Adult Education and Non-formal Education is a permanent department of the State and the petitioners are regular teachers in the department appointed against sanctioned posts of Instructors."
(2.) On the date of the filing of the writ petition (March 1989) the petitioners were working as "under matriculate instructors in the Adult Literacy Programme" devised by the Government of Haryana. They were being paid a lump sum amount of Rs. 200/- per months as salary. They had put in 5 to 6 years service and have been performing their duties to the satisfaction of all concerned. Their submission is that when matriculate instructors approached this Court for similar reliefs, they were granted certain reliefs though not all the reliefs asked for by them. The reference is to the judgment of this Court in Jaspal v. State of Haryana, (1988) 3 SCC 354, wherein this Court directed that the "matriculate instructor are entitled to the same pay scale as sanctioned to squad teachers." This Court had also directed that the salary of the said petitioners shall be fixed in the same scale as that of the squad teachers, having regard to the length of their service with effect from their date of initial appointment by ignoring the break in service on account of six months fresh appointments. It was further directed by this Court that the said petitioners will be entitled to the said pay scales in accordance with law notwithstanding the break in service that might have taken place. The said directions were made effective with effect from September 1, 1985 However, the claim for regulrisation of their services put forward by the said petitioners was rejected, since the very project was likely to last only till 1990. The present petitioners' case is that though they are non-matriculates they too have been performing the very same duties as were being performed by matriculate teachers (petitioners in Jaipal). The petitioners invoke the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. According to them, except the difference in the matter of educational qualifications there is no other distinction between the post held and the duties and functions performed by the petitioners in Jaipal and the petitioners herein. They have set out in the writ petition the several duties performed by them. Reliance is also placed upon certain other decisions of this Court viz., Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 3 SCR 298 ; Dhirendra Chamoli v. State of U. P. (1986) 1 SCC 637 and Surinder Singh v. Engineer-in-Chief, C.P.W.D., (1986) 1 SCC 639 .
(3.) The doctrine of 'equal work for equal pay' is recognised by this Court as a facet of the equality clause contained in Article 14 of the Constitution. The first of the several decisions on the subject is Randhir Singh v. Union of India, (1982) 1 SCC 618 . The said doctrine has been dealt with by this Court in several later decisions including State of Madhya Pradesh v. Pramod Bhartiya, (1993) 1 SCC 539 , decided by a three-member Bench of which one of us (B. P. Jeevan Reddy, J.) was a members. This decision dealt mainly with the manner in which the claim of equal work has to be judged. It was held, after referring to the definition of "same work or work of a similar nature" in Section 2 (h) of Equal Remuneration Act 1976, that: "the stress is upon the similarity of skill, effort and responsibility when performed under similar conditions. Further, as pointed out by Mukherji, J. (as he then was) in Federation of All India Customs and Excise Stenographers (1988) 3 SCC 91 the quality of work may vary from post to post. It may vary from institution to institution. We cannot ignore or overlook this reality. It is not a matter of assumption but one of proof...... It must be remembered that since the plea of equal pay for equal work has to be examined with reference to Article 14, the burden is upon the petitioners to establish their right to equal pay, or the plea of discrimination, as the case may be." ;