RAFIQ, J. - (1.) THE Rajasthan Ground Water Subordinate Service Association alongwith its three members (hereinafter referred to as the petitioners") has filed this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to upgrade the pay of Technical Assistant (Hydrogeology, Geophysics) in the pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 from the date Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1998 (in short "the Rules of 1998") came into force and quashing and setting aside Annexure 7 dated 14. 6. 2002 whereby their representation was rejected.
(2.) I have heard Mr. Vinay Jain, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. N. M. Lodha, learned Additional Advocate General for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Vinay Jain has submitted that the petitioners are working on the post of Technical Assistant (Hydrogeology, Geophysics) in the Ground Water Department of the State. There is a similar post in Central Ground Water Board with the nomenclature of Senior Technical Assistant. He has referred to a comparative statement enclosed to the writ petition as Schedule A to show similarity in these posts on the basis of educational qualification, nature of work and the fact that recruitment to both the posts is 100% by direct recruitment. Another comparative statement of pay scales cited by him has been enclosed with the petition as Schedule B with the help of which he has contended that two posts were always in the similar scale of pay in the Pay Scale Rules, 1969, 1976, 1983, 1987 and 1989. It was for the first time that under the Rules of 1998 the State Government granted the scale of Rs. 5500-9000 to the petitioners while Senior Technical Assistants working in the Central Ground Water Board at the same time were granted scale of Rs. 6500-10500. The Central Government appointed Fifth Central Pay Commission to give its report relating to structure of emoluments, allowances, conditions of service and retirements benefits of employees. In para 90. 25 of the said report, it has been said that pay scale of Senior Technical Assistants were not commensurate with the qualifications prescribed for appointment and the functional responsibilities and therefore Commission recommended that these posts may be placed in the replacement scale of pay corresponding to Rs. 2000-3599 in place of 1640- 2900. It was pursuant to acceptance of such recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commissioner by the Central Government that the Senior Technical Assistants were allowed the pay scale of Rs. 6500- 10500. The State of Rajasthan however while implementing the recommendation of the Fifth Pay Commission did not replace the post of Technical Assistant (Hydrogeology, Geophysics) in scale of Rs. 2000-3500 in place of Rs. 1640-2900 and accordingly granted to them scale of pay corresponding there to namely Rs. 5500-9000. It has been submitted that the petitioners were entitled to similar treatment as was given to the Senior Technical Assistants by the Central Government while granting them the new scale of pay which corresponds to the scale of Rs. 2000-3500. It has been submitted that these two posts have always been treated at par and paid in the same scale of pay. This anomaly has arisen only because the State Government has accepted the recommendations of the Fifth Pay Commission only in part. The petitioners therefore submitted a representation to the Government on 27. 2. 1998 which was forwarded to the Ground Water Department for examination. The then Chief Engineer of the Ground Water Department vide letter dated 18. 4. 1998 recommended for removal of this anomaly and grant of pay scale of Rs. 5500-10500 to the post of Technical Assistant. The Government thereupon called for further details from the Chief Engineer who submitted a comparative chart of both the posts indicating the procedure for recruitment, minimum educational qualification, earlier pay scale, revised pay scale. The Chief Engineer vide letter dated 29. 4. 1998 submitted a detailed chart indicating all details with regard to two posts including selection process, minimum educational qualification and revised pay scales of the two employers. The Government had been receiving similar request for removal of anomaly in respect of various posts for other departments. The Government initially constituted a single member Committee known as Sisodia Committee but thereafter when he could not submit his report, another committee headed by Shri Yatendra Singh, IAS (Retd.) was constituted who submitted his report to the Government. However, the Government has not taken any steps for implementation of the recommendation of the said Committee. In view of this, the petitioners served a notice for demand of justice on 24. 9. 2001 and thereafter the petitioners have filed S. B. C. Writ Petition No. 4620/04 which was disposed of by the Court vide its order dated 7. 1. 2002 with the direction to the respondents to consider the representations of the petitioner and pass final order in accordance with law. The Government finally rejected the representations/applications vide order dated 14. 6. 2002. In support of his argument, Shri Vinay Jain learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a catena of Supreme Court judgments. First of all, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Randhir Singh vs. Union of India & Ors. , reported in (1982) 1 SCC p. 618 which was a case where lower scale of pay was being given to the drivers in Delhi Police Force than those in Delhi Administration and Central Government. The Hon'ble Supreme Court on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' held that it constitutes unreasonable classification and therefore was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Museum Non-gazetted Employees Association vs. Union of India, reported in 1988 (supp.) SCC 673. It was a case in which the Gallery Attendants in the National Archives located at New Delhi claimed parity in pay with Record Attendants in National Archives also located at New Delhi. Both the establishments were under the control of the Central Government. The Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that their service conditions be equated. Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Y. K. Mehta vs. Union of India and Anr. reported in AIR 1988 S. C. P. 1970 which in fact was a case where the Staff Artists of Doordarshan initially appointed on contract basis were later treated like regular government servants and were performing similar nature of work as performed by their counterparts in Film Division. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Staff Artists of Doordarshan were government servants and entitled to same pay scale as provided to their counterparts in the Film Division under the same Ministry of information and Broadcasting. Shri Vinay Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners then relied upon the case of Jaipal and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors. , reported in (1988) 3 SCC p. 354 in which case also the instructors under Adult and Non-formal Education Scheme of Education Department of State of Haryana were claiming parity of pay with Squad Teachers under Social Education Scheme of Education Department of State of Haryana itself. The Hon'ble Supreme Court having held that two categories of employees were performing similar nature of work although there was difference in the nature of their appointment, directed that instructors be paid same pay as paid to Squad Teachers.
(3.) LEARNED counsel then relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagwan Das and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors. , reported in (1987) 4 SCC p. 534 wherein the petitioners had claimed parity of pay on the basis of 'equal pay for equal work' because both the set of employees were found to be discharging similar nature of duties and working under the Government of Haryana. LEARNED counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union vs. Union of India and Ors. , reported in AIR 1991 SC p. 1173 which was again a case for grant of parity of pay on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. Reliance was then placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association vs. Union of India and Ors. , reported in J. T. 1993 (2) SC 271 which was a case wherein the employees of the Supreme Court were claiming higher scale of pay than what was admissible to the staff working in the Delhi High Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noted that the corresponding posts of High Court of Delhi were already getting revised pay scales whereas issue with regard to refund of pay scale of the petitioners was still pending. It was therefore directed that pay scales of the petitioners may be revised at part with the pay scale of the Delhi High Court. LEARNED counsel further relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Mrs. Kirti Chhabra, reported in 1992 (2) W. L. C. (Raj.) p. 488 wherein the learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the petition again on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' on the premise that the duties, responsibilities, obligations and powers of the incharge of Libraries of the High Court both at Jodhpur and Jaipur are same and the quantum of work involved at both the places is also the same. The judgment of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench. Reliance is then placed on another Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Padam Kumar Jain, President, RJS Association, Jaipur vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in RLR 1987 (II) p. 807 wherein the members of the Rajasthan Judicial Services were claiming parity of pay scale with the members of RAS, RACS and RPS cadres who were being paid selection scale and super-time scale also. The Division Bench while allowing the writ petition directed the State Government to allow such scale to Judicial Officers at par with the Administrative Officers. Lastly, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Mizoram and Anr. vs. Mizoram Engineering Service Association and Anr. , reported in (2004) 6 SCC 218. In this case the State of Mizoram on recommendations of the Fourth Central Pay Commission decided to grant scale of Rs. 5900-5700 to the existing incumbents on the post of Chief Engineer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that discrimination between Individual Chief Engineer and his successors was impermissible and therefore directed that the same scale of pay would be paid to the successors as well. On the other hand, Mr. N. M. Lodha, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondent-State has argued that the respondents have already considered the grievance raised by the petitioners in their representation and rejected the same by speaking order passed on 14. 6. 2002. It has been submitted that although there may be similarity in the minimum educational qualification for appointment on the post of Technical Assistant (Hydergeology, Geophysics) and Senior Technical Assistant working in the Central Ground Water Board but their duties and responsibilities are not similar and therefore it is not possible for the State Government to grant a higher scale of pay to the petitioners. It has been submitted on the basis of equality of posts, the said employees cannot compare them with the employees of the Central Government because the State Government has its own limited resources and autonomy in prescribing pay scales for its employees. There are instances that for many similar posts, the pay scales of Central Government employees and the employees of the different states and State of Rajasthan are not same. Moreover, there is dis-similarity in the work and responsibilities between two posts. The State of Rajasthan has accepted the recommendations of Fifty Pay Commission keeping in view its financial resources. It has been submitted that the Technical Assistants working in the Ground Water Department get the additional benefit of selection scale on completion of 9, 18 and 27 years of service whereas there is no such benefit available to Senior Technical Assistants working in the Central Government. While the Technical Assistants working in the Ground Water Department get the scale of 6500-10500 and 8000-13500 on completion of 9, 18 and 27 service respectively, the Senior Technical Assistants working in the Central Government on completion of 12 years and 24 years get senior and selection scale respectively under the Assured Career Progression Scheme (ACP Scheme ). The Technical Assistant of the State Government gets the scale of Rs. 6000-13500 on completion of 18 service whereas no such benefit is available to Senior Technical Assistants working with the Central Government till he completes 24 years of service. ;