- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners who were Tracers, are claiming equal pay for equal work in comparison with those of Lekhpals.
(2.) MR. Yogesh Agrawal assisted by MR. S. K. Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contents that initially the scale of pay of Tracers as well as that of Lekhpals was equal until 1989 being scale of Rs. 75- 115. But in a letter dated 22-9-1989, the scale of Lekhpals was fixed in a scale higher than those of Tracers. The matter was represented through several repre sentations which are Annexures 3 and 4 to the writ petition. Mi. Agrawal contends that though the petitioners have been per forming almost equal job with those of Lekhpals, but they are being given a lesser scale of pay. At the same time, there is no promotion avenues open to the Tracers while Lekhpals had widely open for promotions. On the basis that they should be treated at part with Lekhpals, entire argument was advanced by MR. Agrawal though however, he had referred to grant of scale of Rs. 950-1500 to the Tracers working in Agricultural Department while those In the Consolidation depart ments were being given the scale of Rs. 825-1200. On this basis, the claims that the writ petition should be allowed and the petitioners should be placed in the same scale of pay with those of Lekhpals. Mr. K. R. Singh, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand contends that qualifications for the post of Tracers and those of Lekhpals are different. The job undertaken by the Tracers and Lekhpals are also different. The rules governing recruitment in the post of Tracers is dif ferent and distinguished from those of Lekhpals, therefore, by no stretch of im agination, it can be said that the principle of equal pay for equal work could be at tracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. So far as the tracers in other departments are concerned. Mr. K. R. Singh contends that this cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. Whether scale in dif ferent department should be the same or not, that is to be decided at administrative level which is normally done by appoint ment of Pay Commission where all these questions and situations are gone into. He further contends that in between there having been reports of Pay Commission where questions were open to be agitated and subsequent decision of the Pay Com mission having not been challenged in this writ petition, the writ petition has become infructuous so far as that point is con cerned. I have heard both Mr. Agrawal and Mr. R. K. Singh, learned Counsel for respective parties at length.
(3.) THE concept or principle of equal pay for equal work as enshrined in Article 39 (d) does not only apply in cases between men and women i. e. differentiation on ground of sex, but also between men and men as also between women and women on the principle of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Principle of equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right under the Constitu tion, since being enunciated in Part IV, but being a directive principle of State Policy, it is a constitutional goal which must colour the interpretation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, so as to be elevated to the rank of fundamental rights, the denial of which must result into an irrational classification. Reference may be made to the decision in the case of Randhir Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1982 SC 879 and P. K. Ramchandra Iyer v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 341 paragraph 17. THE matter is however, primary concern for a Pay Commission and the Court would not interfere while such a Commission has un dertaken the work, as has been laid down in the case of Delhi Veterinary Association v. Union of India, AIR 1984 SC 1221 (Para graph 7a-b ). In order to attract the above prin ciple the work should be identical or similar and under the same employer without being based on unreasonable or irrational classification. Such considera tion are not in existence in the present case since the cadre is different and the nature of the respective work are also dissimilar.;