- (1.) RAKESH Tiwari, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records.
(2.) THE five petitioners were working as peons in different colleges against sanctioned posts. Petitioner No. 1 Ganga Sagar Tiwari was appointed in Jubali, Sanskrit College, Balia on 15-11-1976, petitioner No. 2 Ram Badan Singh was appointed on 1-11-76 in Shri Sidheshwar Nath Adarsh Sanskrit Pathshala Kuti Kotwa Narainpur, District Ballia, petitioner No. 3 Swami Nath appointed on 12-7-74 in Shri Amar Sanskrit Vidyalaya Khajuri, District Ballia, petitioner No. 4 Sheo Narain was appointed with effect from 1-4-1989 in Chiteshwar Nath Sanskrit Pathshala Chit Baragaon, District Ballia and Petitioner No. 5 Ram Adhar Ram was appointed in Adarsh Sanskrit Vidyalaya Kishore Chetan on 1-12-1978. All institutions in which the petitioners are working as peons, are affiliated to Shri Sampurna Nand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya, Varanasi, are duly recognized and receive grants-in-aid for payment of salaries to teachers and other employees from the State Government. By means of this writ petition the petitioners are seeking relief of equal pay for equal work. It is alleged that the petitioners were being paid an amount of Rs. 516 per year each towards maintenance grant from the State Government under a G. O. dated 8-3-1983, which has been appended as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. This maintenance grant to the petitioner was stopped with effect from March, 1987.
(3.) COUNSEL for the respondents opposes the petition solely on the ground that the petitioners were not appointed against sanctioned posts as in IV category institution and the posts of peon was not sanctioned under the G. O. dated 10-2-1987, which is appended as Annexure-CA-1 to the counter- affidavit. Rebutting the arguments, Counsel for the petitioners states that they were being paid maintenance grant of Rs. 516 per year by the State Government, which in itself proves that the petitioners were appointed against the sanctioned post, otherwise they would not have been paid the maintenance from the State Exchequer. He further submits that the G. O. dated 10-2-87 does not authorize the respondents to stop the payment of the maintenance grant as the petitioners are still continuing in service and their services have not been terminated. He submits that all of a sudden the payment of maintenance grant was stopped without any reason w. e. f. March 1987, which is illegal. They also moved representations to the Government for redressal of their grievance.;