J. Anjani Dayanand, J. - (1.) The applicant in this O.A. is a Photo Printer in the Office of the Collector of Patents and Designs, Government of India since May, 1957. The learned Counsel for the applicant Shri Samir Kumar Ghosh argued on behalf of the applicant that after the enactment of the Patents Act, 1972 Branch Offices at Bombay, Delhi and Madras were opened since April, 1972. In these aces, posts similar to the one held by the applicant were created with a different designation as Photographic Assistant with higher scale of pay of Rs. 425 -700. It is the contention of the applicant that the recruitment rules per both the posts provided for the same and similar educational qualifications and technical knowledge. The applicant made a representation on 28 -2 -1981 to the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks stating that in view of the recruitment rules and the duties attached to the post being one and the same, he should also be granted the pay scale of Rs. 425 -700 granted to his counterparts from the same date from which it was granted in other offices of his Department. On his representation, be was informed by the Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Calcutta vide his Memo, dated 9th September, 1986 that his case was referred to the Integrated Finance Wing of the Ministry of Industry, which had turned down his request.
(2.) In the reply the facts have not been disputed except for the fact that no assurance was given to the applicant to change the designation of his post and/or revise the pay scale of his post at par with his counterparts in the Branch Offices. However, the reply does concede that the respondents have recommended for revision of pay scale of the applicant but the Integrated Finance Wing of the Ministry are of the view that if the claim of the applicant is acceded to, it amounts to creation or upgradation of post. As there is a ban on creation of new posts as such, his request can only be considered after the ban is lifted.
(3.) The case was argued on the short point that equal pay for equal work is a concept on which there is established case law. When the respondents have conceded that the applicant is doing the same and similar type of work as those of his counterparts though with a different designation in other Branch Offices of the same Department, it is patently unfair to deny him the benefit of the same pay scale which is enjoyed by his counterparts in other offices of the same Department. The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents, Shri D. N. Das appearing on behalf of the respondents conceded that the work performed by the applicant was same/similar to that performed by his counterparts. He also stated that a recommendation had been made by the respondents, but in view of it being turned down by the Integrated Finance, the applicant could not be given the same scale.;