- (1.) D. P. Mohapatra, C. J. I. The short question that arises for determination in this case is whether the principle 'equal pay for equal work' is applicable to the case of the appellants? Their claim having been rejected by the learned single Judge by judg ment dated 27-9-1991 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13343 of 1989, they filed this appeal challenging the said judgment.
(2.) THE relevant facts of the case, sans unnecessary details, may be stated thus: Both the appellants, Dr. Bajrang Bahadur Singh and Dr. Arun Kumar Misra, were appointed as Demonstrators in Lal Bahadur Shastri State Homeopathic Medi cal College, Allahabad, which is an educa tional institution owned, controlled and managed by the State Government since 1981. THE petitioner-appellants claimed salary as Lecturers on the sole ground that they have been teaching students since 11-12-1981 as the posts of lecturers in the in stitution were vacant. Several documents have been annexed to the writ petition to show that the appellants were teaching stu dents regularly and occasionally they were appointed as paper setters and external ex aminers also. In some of the corropondence of the principal, they have been described as Lecturers (Annexures 2-C and 2-E ). In the circumstances, according to the appellants, they are entitled to the salary of Lecturers since 11-12-1981. THE claim is based on the principle of equal pay for equal work'. The respondents, as is evident from the counter-affidavit; have not con troverted, the case of the appellants that they have been teaching students in the in stitution. Their stand is that the appellants were entrusted teaching work as Demonstrators and not as Lecturers. It is the further case of the respondents that the post of lecturer being a Gazetted post, ap pointment has to be made in consultation with the Public Service Commission. The appellants have not appeared before the Public Service Commission for recruitment to the post of Lecturer. Indeed, sub sequently during the pendency of the case in this Court, one of the petitioner-appellants, Dr. Arun Kumar Misra, has been appointed as Lecturer on the recommendation of the Public Service Commission. The respon dents contend that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' does not extent to the case of the appellants. On the case of the parties, as shortly discussed above, the ques tion formulated earlier, arises for con sideration. Equal pay for equal work is, no doubt, a constitutional goal enshrined in Articles 39 (d) of the Constitution as one of the directive principles or State Policy. The principle may also arise for consideration in a case in which discrimination or denial of equal opportunity in service under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is alleged. It is also to be borne in mind that while provid ing for equal protection of law and equal opportunity in State service, reasonable classification based on intelligible differen tia is not prohibited.
(3.) AT the commencement of his argu ment Sri S. P. Gupta, senior Advocate ap pearing for the appellants, made it clear that the appellants are neither claiming in this case appointment to the post of Lecturer, nor are they claiming the scale of pay of Lecturer, nor are they contending that the two posts (Demonstrator and lecturer) should be equated with each other. All that they claim, submitted Sri Gupta, is that since they have been doing teaching work since December 1981, which is the job of a Lecturer, they should be paid the differen tial amount in the salary of the two posts. It is relevant to note here that in the writ petition or in the affidavits filed in the case, the petitioner appellants have not made any attempt to show that the Demonstrators in the institution discharge similar duties and bear similar responsibilities as Lecturers. The applicability of the principle 'equal pay for equal work' has been con sidered by the apex Court in several decisions. We may notice here a few such decisions which, we feel, are relevant for the present case.;