D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) The excise clerks in the subordinate offices claim that they are being paid less and are allowed lesser scale than that is allowed to the excise clerks in the head-quarter, though are performing same job. In writ petition No. 276 of 1991 between Bindeshwari Prasad Srivastava v. State of U.P., a certified copy of which is an-nexure IV to the supplementary affidavit, it was held that the reference cum head clerk in the subordinate offices of the head- quarter haying been performing same duties and responsibilities cannot be discriminated simply because their employment in head- quarter with those of the subordinate offices in the matter of scale and grade. The said order had been implemented by the respondents in respect of the petitioners involved in the said case whereas in the present case it is excise clerks which consist of junior clerks and senior clerks, are indeed claiming similar right. In the supplementary counter affidavit in para 4 it has been admitted that under the U.P.Excise Department Ministerial Services Rules, 1980 the selection to the post of Excise clerk in both the offices are one and the same and that before framing of the said 1980 Rules there was difference in the pay scale of the two groups of clerks in the headquarter and the subordinate offices, although the recruitment procedure was same. In para XI it has also been admitted that the order, referred to above, has already been implemented only in respect of the petitioner in the said case and not to the similar persons. In para IX the said paragraph 8 (iii) it has been admitted that rational committee treated both cadres as one i.e. cadre of clerks working at excise head quarter and the cadre of clerks working in subordinate offices in U.P. In Sub-para XI it has further been admitted that the inter-se seniority of excise clerks of both the cadres have merged into one after the recommendation and the pay rational committee posed some difference for which some directions were sought for as pointed in sub-para XIII. Pursuance to the said direction the inter-se seniority was fixed on the basis of the salary drawn. After the seniority list was published and objections were invited further difference having arisen the committee was appointed for deciding criterion for preparing seniority list. According to the recommendation of the said: committee the seniority list was prepared on the basis of the date of confirmation in service.
(2.) Mr. Vinod Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that since admittedly the cadre has merged into one and combined seniority list is being prepared there cannot be any question of denying equal pay for equal work and placing the excise clerks in subordinate office in a scale where their counterparts are in the headquarter.
(3.) Mr. Saxena, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand very fairly submits that in view of the amended rules as taken in the counter affidavit the question with regard to equal pay for equal work cannot be ignored in the present case.;