GARG, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents on 31. 5. 2001 with a prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to pay the scale of the post of driver to the petitioner and difference amount with interest with effect from 17. 11. 94 on which date the petitioner had assumed the charge of the post of driver.
(2.) THE facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under:- i) That the petitioner was initially appointed as Sais in Dist. Animal Husbandry Department, Churu under the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry (subordinate Service) Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1977 vide order dtd. 5. 5. 93 (Annex. 1 ). ii) Further case of the petitioner is that since the post of driver was lying vacant with the respondent-Department and the petitioner being Higher Secondary qualified and had good experience of driving as well as was possessing driving licence, meaning thereby the was possessing requisite qualification for appointment on the post of Driver, he was given the charge as Driver in the respondent - Department vide order dtd. 17. 11. 94 (Annex. 2) passed by the Regional Dy. Director. iii) Further case of the petitioner is that vide order dtd. 9. 1. 95 (Annex. 3) passed by the Regional Dy. Director, the petitioner was ordered to drive the departmental vehicles till further orders. iv) Further case of the petitioner is that no doubt he was initially appointed on the post of Sais which is equivalent to Class IV employee, but there is material difference between the post of Class IV employee and the post of driver. v) Further case of the petitioner is that on 8. 1. 1999, a seniority list of Class IV employees was issued by the respondents in which the name of the petitioner was shown at serial No. 14, but the petitioner made a request before the respondents that he should be paid the salary of post of Driver. vi) Further case of the petitioner is that on 26. 3. 99 a letter (Annex. 5) was issued by the Director, Animal Husbandry Department (respondent No. 1) regarding filling up of post of Driver from amongst Class IV employees. vii) Further case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of letter dated 26. 3. 99 (Annex. 5), the petitioner submitted an application (Annex. 6) on 8. 4. 99 to the respondent No. 1 (Director ). However, since 1999, there was no progress in this matter. viii) Further case of the petitioner is that vide order dtd. 30. 10. 99 (Annex. 7) passed by the Assistant Director (Live Stock Development (respondent No. 4) the actual formal charge of the post of driver was given to the petitioner and in pursuance of this order dtd. 30. 10. 99 (Annex. 7), the petitioner had taken the charge and all the tools belonging to the vehicles vide handing over-taking over charge report dtd. 30. 10. 99 (Annex. 8 ). ix) It may be stated here that a perusal of the order dtd. 30. 10. 99 (Annex. 7) would reveal that on the eve of retirement of Shri Sumer Dan, Driver, the petitioner was given the charge of the post of Driver. x) Further case of the petitioner is that he has been discharging the duties of the driver since 17. 11. 94. xi) Further case of the petitioner is that through order dtd. 2. 12. 2000 (Annex. 9), the petitioner was directed to make appropriate maintenance from motor-garage. xii) Further case of the petitioner is that through order dtd. 4. 4. 2001, the petitioner was directed to perform the duties in the office of Dist. Collector (Pool), Bikaner and thus since 17. 11. 94, he is continuously working as Driver, but he is being paid the salary of the post of Class IV employee. Hence, thus writ petition with the above mentioned prayer. In this writ petition the main submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that non-payment of salary of the post of driver with effect from 17. 11. 94 is perse illegal and violative of provisions of Articles 14, 16 and 39 (d) of the Constitution of India and on the principle of "equal Pay for Equal work. " the petitioner is entitled to salary of post of Driver with effect from 17. 11. 94 and hence, this writ petition should be allowed. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and the respondents have admitted the all the annexures produced by the petitioner, but their case is that the petitioner has no right to claim the salary of the post of Driver as since the post of driver was lying vacant, therefore, the petitioner was directed to discharge the duties of Driver till regular selection was made and apart from this, no other Class IV employee has been promoted on the post of driver, therefore, there is no question of discrimination and hence the writ petition should be dismissed. Heard and perused the record. So far as factual position of the case if concerned, there is no dispute on the point that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Sais under the provisions of Rules of 1977 and that post is equivalent to the post of Class IV employee.
(3.) THERE is also no dispute on the point that Since 17. 11. 94 by written order (Annex. 2), the petitioner has been discharging the duties of the post of Driver and further more on the retirement of Sumer dan who was regular driver in the respondent-department, the charge of the post of Driver which was being held by Sumer Dan was handed over to the petitioner vide order dtd. 30. 10. 99 (Annex. 7 ). There is also no dispute on the point that though the petitioner is discharging the duties of the post of Driver since 17. 11. 94, yet he is being paid the salary of the post of Class IV employee and not the salary of the post of Driver till the writ petition was filed. Now the question which arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances just mentioned above, the petitioner is entitled to salary of the post of driver with effect from 17. 11. 94 on the principle of "equal Pay for Equal Work" or not. ;