Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) ALL the petitioners are appointed and working as Secretaries Grade-III, class II in various marketing committees of U. P.Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Paishad and have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents to give parity in employment in the matter of pay to the petitioners like other Secretaries of U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Paishad (hereinafter referred as "Parishad"), Regulation 4 of U. P. Agricultural Products Market Committee (Centralized) Services Regulations, 1984 (in short 'Regulation, 1984') has been sought to be declared ultra vires and further a mandamus has been sought to enforce equal pay for equal work as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in the matter of petitioners.
(2.) IN brief the petitioners' case is that all of them are working as Secretaries Grade III class II in various Mandi Samitis in the pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900. They further claim that all the Secretaries in various Mandi Samitis are discharging similar and identical duties and there is no difference in work, performance, duty, liability, qualification or otherwise of the various secretaries yet arbitrarily the administration by placing the secretaries of Mandi Samitis in different pay scale and grades has acted illegally. It is also submitted that the posts are interchangeable irrespective of business of Mandi Samitis' quantum of work etc. Any secretary can work in the Mandi Samiti of any grade or class as well as they can also work in any of the Mandi Samitis at different places. The secretaries in different grades have no co-relation with the work, they are required to perform and the classification is illusory, irrational and infringes the principle of equal pay for equal work as guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of INdia. It is further submitted that a similar dispute arose before this Court in Writ Petition No. 30319 of 2001, Shahjade v. Chairman, Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad and others 2002 (2) AWC 1698 and a Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 23.4.2002 held the aforesaid classification of the secretaries of different cadre being irrational, arbitrary and discriminatory and accordingly allowed the writ petition directing for higher pay scale to the petitioner in the aforesaid case w.e.f. 1.1.86. It is stated that the respondents filed Review petition No. 104056 of 2002 which was also dismissed by this Court vide order dated 23.5.2003, against which a special leave petition was filed in the Apex Court which is still pending. A counteraffidavit has been filed by the respondents wherein the provisions pertaining to statute have not been disputed. It is however stated with reference to various provisions of Regulations, 1984 that since the mode of recruitment, selection, qualification, experience etc. of secretaries of various grades is different, it cannot be said that all the secretaries can be placed in higher pay scale i.e. Rs. 3000-4500 which is payable to Secretaries Class I. However, it is not disputed that although the power and duties of the Secretaries have been defined in Section 24 which are general, but in practice the working of different Mandi Samiti is also different. Duties and responsibilities in bigger Mandis are more strenuous than that of smaller Mandis due to quantum of arrival of agricultural produce. It is said that number of staff in big Mandi is much higher considering the magnitude of transaction of bigger Mandi. The staff of bigger Mandi needs to be more experienced. It is also sated that the Board has determined the sanctioned strength of all the classes of the Secretaries. The sanctioned strength of the secretaries in different grades is as follows : Secretaries Class I 6 Secretaries Class II 24 Secretaries Class III Grade I 54 Grade II 80 Grade III 98 The respondents in para 14 of the counteraffidavit have also stated that the Board in its meeting has decided that to improve the working of the Mandi Samitis, where receipt of market fee is more than two crores, Secretaries class I should be appointed. Such places are at Muzaffarnagar, Agra, Bareilly, Shahjahanpur, Kanpur and Varanasi. It is also stated in para 17 of the counter-affidavit that the Secretaries Grade III class II and class III working in pay scales of Rs. 1400-2600 and 1350-2200, respectively have been merged in a common pay scale of Rs. 1650-2900 with effect from 1.10.1995. The respondents submit that the petitioners are working as Secretary Grade III class II in pay scale of Rs. 1640-2900. The appointment of class I secretary was 50% by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment, secretary class III grade II are appointed 100% by promotion and the appointment of Grade III secretaries is 75% by promotion from secretary Grade IV and 25% by promotion of Mandi Supervisors. It is stated that merely because the duties are similar, the petitioner cannot claim higher scale of salary since principle of equal pay for equal work is inapplicable in view of the aforesaid facts.
(3.) REJOINDER affidavit has been filed by the petitioners stating therein that there is no classification of various marketing committees either under the Act, Rules and Regulations or otherwise and in the absence thereof, the classification of Secretaries for the purpose of pay scale is arbitrary and discriminatory. It is pointed out and also admitted by the respondents and mentioned by the Director, Mandi Samitis, in its order dated 22.5.2001 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) that categorization of Mandi Samitis Class A, B, C, D as mentioned in Regulation 3 (1) of 1984 Regulations has been abolished by 1991 amendment of Regulations. In the aforesaid Regulation, as claimed by the petitioner the same class and status have been given to all Mandis. The classification of the Secretaries thus only remains in respect to pay scale which is arbitrary and discriminatory. We have heard Sri Shashindra Tripathi for the petitioners, standing counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri B. D.Mandhyan, senior advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and have perused the record.;