ASOPA, J. - (1.) BY this writ petition the petitioners working as Assistant Public Prosecutor/public Prosecutor are seeking appropriate writ order or direction for grant of parity in pay with retrospective effect to that of their counter parts in CBI, Delhi Police and Union Territories. The other prayers have also been made but this Court while admitting the writ petition on 3. 5. 1994, limited the case to the question for grant of equal pay for equal work from the date of writ petition.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated the relevant facts of the case are that the petitioners are working as Assistant Public Prosecutor/public Prosecutor in Railway Protection Force and are conducting the case under the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957 and Rules, 1987. The main grievance of the petitioners is that they are entitled to pay parity with their counter parts working in Delhi Administration, CBI working under the Ministry of Home Affairs and Union Territories on the basis of equal pay for equal work as envisaged under Articles 14 and 21 read with Article 39 (d) of the Constitution of India. The petitioners in their writ petition have further submitted that Railway Board is under the Union of India and their services under the Railway Protection Force consists of Executive Branch, Prosecution Branch and Fire Services Branch. Their main job is to conduct criminal cases under the Railway Protection Force and to give advice to the Railway Administration which is equivalent to that of Assistant Public Prosecutor/public Prosecutor working in the Delhi Administration, CBI working under the Ministry of Home Affairs and Union Territories for which pay scale is on higher side and their pay scale has not been revised equal to them neither by the 3rd Pay Commission nor by the 4th Pay Commission, although their qualification, designation, duties, responsibilities are same. As regards mode of recruitment, it has been submitted that they are recruited in the service by Railway Board whereas their counter parts working in Delhi Administration, CBI working under the Ministry of Home Affairs and Union Territories are being recruited by the Union Public Service Commission with difference of experience. The Railway Administration has filed reply to the writ petition and submitted that although the educational qualification is the same but there is difference in experience which required more in the Delhi Administration, CBI working under the Ministry of Home Affairs and Union Territories. As regards duties and responsibilities, the respondents have submitted that the petitioners have very limited duties and responsibilities as they are required to scrutinize the cases under the Railway Property (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1966 whereas their counter parts discharged more onerous duties on account of dealing the cases under the various Penal Acts. They have further submitted that there is qualitative as well as quantitative difference as regards duties and responsibilities and further Article 14 permits reasonable classification on the basis of different duties and responsibilities and field of work in the matter of grant of pay. It has also been submitted that pay Commission is an independent expert body and is the best Judge to evaluate duties and responsibilities. The petitioners have neither submitted any representation to the 3rd Pay Commission nor to the 4th Pay Commission despite invitation. The petitioners have also not submitted any representation to the Union Government. Thus, they have slept over their rights and did not exhaust appropriate remedy available to them. The submission of Shri A. K. Bhandari, Sr. counsel for the petitioners is that the appointment of the Assistant Public Prosecutors/public Prosecutors are notified in accordance with Sections 24 and 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and educational qualification is same. The duties and responsibilities cannot be limited on the ground of dealing with specified nature of cases. Shri Bhandari further submits that Union of India has failed to justify the difference in the pay of the Assistant Public Prosecutors/public Prosecutors of different departments. Therefore, on the basis of the principle of equal pay for equal work as envisaged under Article 39 (d) of the Constitution of India which has been raised to the pedestal of fundamental rights under Article 14, they are entitled for parity in pay to that of Assistant Public Prosecutors/public Prosecutors working in the Delhi Administration, CBI working under the Ministry of Home Affairs and Union Territories. In support of the aforesaid submissions, Shri Bhandari cited the judgments of the Supreme Court, Calcutta High Court and of this Court in (1) Randhir Singh vs. Union of India and others (1982 (1) SCC 618), para Nos. 7, 8 and 9 (2) Natwar Lal Thanvi vs. State of Raj. & Ors. 1988 (1) RLR 932 para No. 24 (3) Grih Kalyan Kendra Workers' Union vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1991 Sc 1173, para No. 7, (4) Employees of Tannery & Footwear Corporation of India Ltd. and another vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1991 SC 1367, para Nos. 15 and 16, (5) All India Judges' Association vs. Union of India & others, AIR 1992 SC 165, para No. 60 (iv), (6) Samir Bhattacharya & Ors. vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. , 1992 (4) SLR 119, para No. 14, (7) State of West Bengal and others vs. Harendra Nath Bhowmick and others, 1993 (1) SLR 353, para Nos. 14 and 16, (8) Paschimbanga Rajya Krishi Prajukti Sahayak Sasmity and others vs. State of West Bengal and others, 1993 (2) SLR 606, para No. 4 and (9) The State of Bihar and others vs. Bihar State Workshop Superintendents Federation and others, 1993 (4) SLR 383. Although none appeared on behalf of the respondents to oppose the writ petition, however, their written reply is on record. Therefore, the submissions made in the reply have been taken as contentions on behalf of the respondents. We may refer that the basic judgment of Randhir Singh vs. Union of India and others (supra), wherein it has been held that equal pay for equal work is not a mere demagogic slogan, it is constitutional goal capable of attainment through constitutional remedies, by the enforcement of constitutional rights and further the Directive. Principles e. g. Article 39 (d) of the Constitution, have to be and have been read into the Fundamental Rights for example Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Simultaneously it was held that equation of posts and equation of pay scales are matters primarily for executive Governments and expert bodies like Pay Commission and not for the Courts. The said principles have been explained in many subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court and some of them are (1) Federation of All India Customs and Central Excise Stenographers and others vs. Union of India and others (1988) 3 SCC 91, para Nos. 7, 8 and 11 (2) State of M. P. vs. Pramod Bhartiya, 1993 (1) SCC 539, para Nos. 2 and 3, wherein the same view of Pay Commission and the Government was relied by three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court, (3) Secy. Finance Deptt. vs. W. B. Registration Service Assn. , 1993 Supp (1) SCC 153, (4) State of Haryana and others vs. Jasmer Singh and others, (1996) 11 SCC 77, para No. 5, (5) State of Haryana and another vs. Haryana Civil Secretariat Personal Staff Association (2002) 6 SCC 72, para Nos. 8, 10 and 11 = (RLW 2003 (1) SC 3), (6) Union of India vs. Tarit Ranjan Das, (2003) 11 SCC 658, para Nos. 9, 10 and 11. It has been held in the aforesaid judgments that principles of `equal pay for equal work' is not always easy to apply. It is a complex matter to be under taken by expert body like the Pay Commission. There are inherent difficulties in comparing and evaluating work done by different persons in different organization, or even in the same organization. Even the Government servants holding same post and performing similar work on the basis of difference in the degree of responsibility, reliability and confidentiality would be a valid differentiation. In the aforesaid judgments it has also been held that the same designation is of no consequence and it is for the Pay Commission/government to evaluate the work for granting equal pay and not for the Court. Otherwise also, in the instant case, neither any representation has been given to the Pay Commission/union of India nor both of them suo moto considered the claim of parity in pay scale of the Assistant Public Prosecutors/public Prosecutors working in the Railway Protection Force with Assistant Public Prosecutors/public Prosecutors of CBI, Delhi Police and Union Territories. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief from this Court.
(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, gone through the record of the case and considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and further considered the submissions made in the reply taking the same as the contentions on behalf of the respondents. In view of the subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court wherein Randhir Singh vs. Union of India and others (supra), has been explained, we wound first like to consider the question whether in absence of any representation by the petitioners and finding of the Pay Commission or Union of India and its functionaries in Railway Department, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can make an enquiry with regard to the relevant factors for consideration for equation of the post and grant of parity in the pay scale as claimed by the petitioners. In the basic judgment of Randhir Singh's case (supra), cited by the counsel for the petitioners, the Supreme Court has considered the fact 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 the courts. The relevant paragraph No. 6 of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-      " 6. . . . . We concede that equation of posts and equation of pay are matters primarily for the Executive Government and experts bodies like the Pay Commission and not for the courts but we must hasten to say that 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 offices of the same rank perform dissimilar functions and the powers, duties and responsibilities of the posts held by them vary, such offices may not be heard to complain of dissimilar pay merely because the posts are of the same rank and the nomenclature is the same. " ;