S.H.A.Raza and R.P.Nigam, JJ. - (1.) Delay in filing the special appeal is condoned.
(2.) We have heard the argument of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
(3.) One would have thought that after the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Dhirendra Chamoli and Anr. v. State of U.P., (1986) 1 UPLBEC 254, the State would adhere to the principle of equal pay for equal work, but it is a sad commentary on the part of the State of U.P. that it has not been following the mandate of the Constitution and the pronouncement of the Apex Court. In Dhirendra Chamoli (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court observed : "It must be remembered that in this country where there is so much employment, the choice for the majority of people is to starve or to take employment on whatever exploitative terms are offered by the employer. The fact that these employees accepted employment with full knowledge that they will be paid only daily wages and they will not get the same salary and conditions of service as other Class IV employees, cannot provide an escape to the Central Government to avoid the mandate of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution. This article declares that there shall be equality before law and equal protection of the law and implicit in it is the further principle that there must be equal pay for work of equal value. These employees who are in the service of the different Nehru Yuvak Kendras in the country and who are admittedly performing the same duties as Class IV employees, must therefore get the same salary and conditions of service as Class IV employees. It makes no difference whether they are appointed in sanctioned posts or not. So long as they are performing the same duties, they must receive the same salary and condition of service as Class IV employees.";