D.K.Seth, J. - (1.) Mr. Sheo Nath Singh. learned counsel for the petitioners has raised an interesting but simple point in this writ petition on the principle of equal pay for equal work as enshrined in the directive principles of State Policy in the Constitution of India in terms of Article 39 (d) between Supervisor Kanoongo on one hand and the Survey Kangoongo on the other. According to him, the nature of duly performed by Survey Kanoongo and the Supervisor Kanoongo are the same, though the source and mode of recruitment might be different. Therefore, there should be equality in respect of pay of both the posts. He had drawn my attention to various provisions of law and facts as pleaded in the writ petition, counter-affidavit, rejoinder-affidavit and other materials on record in order to substantiate his contention.
(2.) Mr. P. M. N. Singh. learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. K. R. Singh, learned standing counsel on the other hand appearing for the respondents had resisted the contention of Mr. Sheo Nath Singh and attempted to make out a case that the two posts are altogether dissimilar and there is no similarity of the nature of work which itself denotes the difference between the work. According to them, Survey Kanoongo is responsible for the survey, whereas the Supervisor Kanoongo is responsible for supervision. The very qualification of supervision makes the difference in the nature of the work in respect of both the posts. They have also drawn my attention to the different provisions of law as well as the facts and the materials on record, including the pleadings and the documents placed before this Court to substantiate their respective contentions.
(3.) All the counsel had referred to several decisions to which reference will be made at appropriate stage.;