Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee, J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been moved by Shankar Prasad Panda challenging an order passed by Shri S.K. Phaujdar, learned District Judge, 'Midnapore, dated July 1, 1988, which is Annex. E to the writ petition, whereby the said authority refused to grant any financial benefit to the writ Petitioner, on the basis of the Government Order No. 1575 -F dated February 20, 1988, relating to enhancement of the pay scale of the writ Petitioner in terms of judgment in Civil Rule No. 5139 (W) of 1981, as, according to the said authority, the writ Petitioner, being 'an additional clerk' attached to the Judicial Magistrate's Court, Jhargram, was not a party to the writ petition and so he was not entitled to get the benefit under the said Government Order.
(2.) Earlier, by judgment dated September 24, 1986, Sudhir Ranjan Roy J. of this Court allowed the writ petition, being C.R. No. 5139(W) of 1981, filed on behalf of the West Bengal Process Servers Central Association and others, in presence of the Respondents and came to the following finding, which is, inter alia, set out herein below: (a) The Petitioners, being West Bengal Process Servers Central Association and its members, claimed that they are 'process servers' appointed to execute processes and execute different writs including writs of attachment, delivery of possession and sale proclamation. (b) In the City Civil and Sessions Court at Calcutta and Presidency Small Causes Court at Calcutta there are 'summons bailiffs' and, according to the Petitioners, 'summons bailiffs' have been given in 1981 Revision of Pay and Allowances Rules the same pay scale as 'process servers'. (c) According to the Petitioners, disparity of pay scale of 'process servers' and 'seal bailiffs' was highly arbitrary since they perform the same nature of duties and, as such, they should be treated at par with the "seal bailiffs' in the matter of fixation of pay. (d) According to the learned Judge, so far as the 'process servers' are concerned, although they are doing the same combined work of summons and seal bailiffs since besides serving ordinary processes, they also perform special duties including service of Writs and sale proclamation and the work of process server is much heavier than the work performed by the seal bailiffs. (e) Applying the doctrine of 'equal pay for equal work', the second pay commission appointed by the Government of West Bengal accepted on principle the same, but unfortunately had not considered the representation of the process servers and treated them at par with 'bailiff, but equated them with daftaries, pumpmen, malis, etc. and fixed their salaries accordingly. (f) Incidentally the learned Judge pointed out that the Petitioner would be entitled to protection of 'equal pay for equal work' and the Respondents have discriminated the 'process* servers' with the 'seal bailiffs', which was arbitrary and without any basis and issued a writ in the nature of mandamus to treat the 'process servers' at par with 'seal bailiffs' serving in the City Civil and Sessions Court at Calcutta and Presidency Small Causes Court, Calcutta, and to give them the same pay scale within a period of 120 days from the said date of the judgment.
(3.) The State Government did not prefer any appeal against the said judgment and decided to implement the contents of the said order by issue of Government order.;