- (1.) THE petitioners are the members of Rajasthan Sanskrit Education Subordinate Service created under the Rajasthan Sanskrit Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1978') being substantive holders of the post of Teacher Gr.I/Senior Teacher. They are having an avenue for promotion to the post of Lecturer in Sanskrit Education as per the provisions of Rules of 1978. According to the petitioners no promotion to the post of Lecturer are made by the respondents since 2003-04, though, appointments by way of direct recruitments were made in the year 2005. The respondents instead of making regular promotions posted the petitioners as Lecturers in the pay-scale they were already having being Teacher Gr.I/Senior Teacher. As a consequent to such postings though the petitioners are discharging the duties of Lecturer, but they are yet getting pay in the pay-scale prescribed for their substantive post. By this petition for writ, the claim made by the petitioners is to have a directions for the respondents to make regular promotion to the post of Lecturer as per the Rules of 1978 and also to make fixation of their pay in the pay-scale pertaining to the post of Lecturer from the date of their posting on the post aforesaid.
(2.) AS per Shri M.R. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Mohit Singhvi appearing for the petitioners, the Rules of 1978 provides that 50% of the total posts of Lecturers should be filled in by way of promotion and for the purpose the appointing authority is supposed to determine every year the vacancies existing and anticipated during following 12 months as per Rule 10(1). After determination of such vacancies promotions are required to be made as per the procedure given in Rule 24 of the Rules of 1978, by adopting the criteria of seniority-cum-merit. The respondents from last several years are not acting upon the Rules for making promotions despite availability of huge number of vacancies. The other submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners is founded on the principle of equal pay for equal work with assertion that the respondents are utilizing services of the petitioners as Lecturer from last several years but are continuing them in the pay-scale applicable to the post of Teacher Gr.I/Senior Teacher. It is asserted that the petitioners being discharging duties of Lecturer are entitled to pay-scale applicable to the post aforesaid. A reply to the petition has been filed on behalf of respondents, however, at the threshold it is submitted by learned Government Advocate Dr. G.R. Kalla that necessary process for promotion has already been initiated and promotions shall be accorded in accordance with the Rules expeditiously. In view of the statement so given, I am not adjudicating the issue relating to promotions. So far as the issue pertaining to grant of pay-scale applicable to the post of Lecturer is concerned, suffice it to mention here that all the petitioners are eligible to be considered for promotion as Lecturer and they were posted as Lecturer in the year 2002 and 2003, as such they are discharging duties of Lecturer from last about a decade. The respondents posted them as Lecturer without using the term "promotion" but it is not in dispute that factually they are discharging duties of a promotional post. It is submitted that posting of the petitioners as Lecturer was made as an administrative arrangement on temporary basis in their "pantey vetan". The term "pantey vetan" as explained by learned Government Advocate is the pay-scale in which the petitioners were already running at the time of their posting as Lecturer. The fact mentioned in the reply that the petitioners are working as Lecturer is sufficient to establish that adequate number of vacancies pertaining to the post of Lecturer were available and the respondents utilised services of the petitioners thereon without making promotions in accordance with the Rules. When the respondents are utilizing services of the petitioners on the post of Lecturer that too from last about a decade, then there is no just reason available to deny pay-scale pertaining to the post concern. The posting of the petitioners on higher post, as a matter of fact, is nothing but a promotion looking to the administrative exigency, though that is termed as "administration arrangement in pantey vetan". Once the services of the petitioners are utilized on higher post, they became entitled for fixation of their pay in the pay-scale attached with that post. They are discharging the same duties as discharged by other lecturers employed by way of direct recruitment or by way of promotion, as such the respondents are required to maintain a parity in granting pay to the persons discharging similar duties. The case of the petitioners is not of intermittent officiation on higher post while discharging their normal duties but of discharging duties of higher post for all purposes excluding the duties relating to the substantive post held by them. The non grant of the pay-scale applicable to the post of Lecturer to the petitioners despite utilizing their services on that post is not permissible in view of the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" enshrined under Article 39(d) read with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly , this petition for writ is allowed. The respondents are directed to make fixation of the petitioners' pay in the pay-scale pertaining to the post of Lecturer from the date they were posted on the post aforesaid under the orders (Annex.1) collectively. The necessary fixation in pursuant to the directions aforesaid is required to be made within a period of three months from today. The petitioners shall also be entitled for arrears of wages. No order to cost.;