- (1.) The petitioners in this application are the Calculators in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector in the districts outside Calcutta. Their grievance is that a different pay scale has been provided for them which is not the same as those of Calculators posted in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector, Calcutta. It is stated in the petition that there was no distinction between the Calculators in the Land Acquisition Office in the district and the Calculators in the Land Acquisition office at Calcutta. It is further stated that the petitioners along with the Calculators in the office of the Land Acquisition Collector at Calcutta were appointed on the basis of same educational qualification for the purpose of discharging the same duties and, in fact, the petitioners and the Calculators in the Land Acquisition office at Calcutta do the same nature of work in the same cadre under the self-same department. It is further stated that Calculators in the district office and those at the Calcutta office do the same work and only do preparation of calculation sheet 700 plots per month and draft Award Settlement 1400 sheets per month and there is no difference in the nature of work between the Calculators in the district office and the Calculators in the Calcutta office. In this context, reference has been made to Instruction No. 19/80 D/- 29-10-1980.
(2.) In this matter, as long back as on 22-11-1982, I directed that affidavit-in- opposition be filed within three weeks from that date and affidavit-in-reply within two weeks thereafter and also gave directions for expeditious hearing of this matter. But no such affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. This matter again came up before me on 18tb July 1983 when my attention was draw" to a notification subsequent to the Rule being issued and so leave was given to amend this application. It was then pointed out that no affidavit has been affirmed on behalf of the State. A further opportunity was given in view of the prayer for amendment being allowed. To that an affidavit has been filed which pur-ports to deal with the said petition. However, no material has been disclosed in the said affidavit and this affidavit is of no assistance at all. It is absolutely vague and very general in terms and there is no specific denial of the allegations made in the petition. On the other hand, the Instruction No. 19/80 is admitted. The said Instruction does not make any distinction between the Calculators in the district office and the Calculators in the Calcutta office. There is no difference at all. The relevant law regarding the same is well settled. In the case of Randhir Singh V/s. Union of India, 1982 AIR(SC) 879, it has been held as follows (At p. 809 of Lab IC). "Construing Arts. 14 and 16 in the light of the Preamble and Art. 39 (d), it is clear, that the principle "equal pay for equal -work" is deducible from those Articles and may be properly applied to cases of unequal scales of pay based on no classification or irrational classification though those drawing the different scales of pay do identical work under the same employer. It is true that equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the Executive Government and expert bodies like the Pay Commission and not for courts but where all things are equal, that is, where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differentially in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments. Of course, if officers of the same rank perform dissimilar functions and the powers duties and responsibilities of the posts held by them vary, such officers may not be heard to complain of dissimilar pay merely because the posts are of the same rank and the nomenclature is the same. It is well known that there can be and there are different grades in a service, with varying qualifications for entry into a particular grade, the higher grade often being a promotional avenue for officers of the lower grade. The higher qualifications for the higher grade, which may be either academic qualifications or experience based on length of service, reasonably sustain the classification of the officers into two grades with different scales of pay. The principle of equal pay for equal work would be an abstract doctrine not attracting Art. 14 if sought to be applied to them. 1962 AIR(SC) 1139 Distinguished. It is true that the principle of "equal pay for equal work" is not expressly declared by our Constitution to be a fundamental right. But. it certainly is a Constitutional goal."
(3.) As I have pointed out that it is not denied in this case that the qualifications are the same and that the nature of the work is also the same. Nowhere any material has been disclosed to show that their nature of the work is different.The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has pointed out that "where all things are equal, i. e., where all relevant considera tions are the same, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differentially in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments". In. the present case, it is not a question of different department but of persons holding the same posts in the same department . In my opinion, there is no justification for treating them differently the same and it is arbitrary and discriminatory.;