S.P.Srivastava, K.N.Ojha - (1.) -Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition giving rise to this appeal in part, which had been filed by the Class IV Employees Association High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and another and issuing a direction to the respondents, which included the present appellants, requiring them to pay salary in the pay scale of Rs. 975-1,660 to all those class IV employees employed in the establishment of the High Court who had been put in the pay scale of Rs. 750-940 and the salary in the time scale of pay Rs. 1,000-1,750 to all such class IV employees who had been put in the pay scale of Rs. 725-1,025 without affecting in any manner the allowances which they were presently getting and further directing that the revised pay scale shall be made available to the class IV employees of this Court w.e.f. 1.7.1994 and so far as the arrears part was concerned it was directed that the same be paid only after issuance of the Government Order in the light of the direction contained in the judgment, the State of U. P. has now come up in appeal seeking redress praying for setting aside of the impugned judgment and order.
(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the respondents in quite detail and have carefully perused the record. The writ petition giving rise to this appeal had been filed claiming the following relief : "(1) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to grant pay scales of Rs. 975-1,660 to class IV employees appointed and recruited under Rule 4A of 'The Allahabad High Court Officers and Staff (Conditions of Services and Conduct) Rules, 1976, with effect from 1.1.1986 with all consequential benefits and the scale of Rs. 1,000-1,750 to class IV employees appointed by promotion under Rule 4B (c), (d), (e) of the Allahabad High Court Staff and Officers (Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1976, with effect from 1.1.1986 with all consequential benefits. The petitioners had claimed that they were being discriminated and were being paid lesser pay scale which was available to comparable posts available in the Central Government as they were discharging the same and identical duties. It was also asserted that the denial of the benefit claimed by the petitioners by the State Government was arbitrary and discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. It was further asserted that the petitioners were being denied the benefit of the principle "equal pay for equal work" in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) THE learned single Judge was of the view that the Government should have been well advised to accord approval to the suggestion of the Chief Justice reflected in the letter of the Registrar dated 16th September, 1994. He was further of the view that in principle the State Government had taken a decision that the employees of the High Court will be equated with a corresponding post in the Secretariat of the State concerned. Later on the State Government had also adopted a resolution on 14.10.1988 to grant parity in the pay scales to the State Employees with the Central Government Employees and this decision of the State Government was to take effect retrospectively from 1.1.1986. According to the learned single Judge the claim of the petitioners for parity in the pay with their counterpart in Delhi High Court could not be said to be unreasonable or unfounded.;