MOHAMMAD RAFIQ J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that respondents be directed to grant pay scale of Rs.1400-2600/- w.e.f. Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1989 made effective from 1.9.1988 and consequential pay scales as and when revised thereafter. Contention of Shri Tanveer Ahmed learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner is working on the post of Technician in Government Polytechnic College, Jaipur. The Government considered the demand of employees association in the year 1989 and an agreement was entered between them on 24.2.1989 according to which it was decided that State Government could grant parity of pay scales to its employees with those of Central Government and for that purpose a committee was constituted known as 'Samta Samiti'. Even after recommendation of Samta Samiti the pay scale of Technicians of Polytechnic College were also revised from Rs.895-1720/- to Rs.975-1720/- whereas the Technicians working in various colleges of Polytechnic Wing of Delhi Administration were receiving their salary as Rs.1400-2600/-. The Director, Technical Education also recommended grant of aforesaid pay scales to the Technicians of Technical Education Department, Government of Rajasthan. Reference is made to letter of Director, Technical Education, Rajasthan dated 7.2.1990. Action of respondents is discriminatory inasmuch as violative of Article 14, 16 and 39 of Constitution of India. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in State of Mizoram & Anr. Vs. Mizoram Engineering Service Association & Anr. : 2004 (5) SLR, 1. Per contra, Shri Satish Purohit, learned Additional Government Counsel submitted that duty and functions of Technicians working with State Government are quite different from those working with Central Government. It was argued that mere recommendations made would not confer any right upon the petitioner and on recommendation the Government may decide to grant a particular pay scales. The recommendation of Samta Samiti as well as agreement entered into between the Union and Government cannot be interfered by a writ of mandamus. Learned counsel submitted that mere recommendation also does not justify issuance of mandamus because Government has to consider various factors in granting pay scales in doing so it may not totally accept the recommendation. In any case, it is submitted that there is no stagnation because benefit of selection scale on completion of 9, 18 & 27 years of service granted to all the Government servants in subordinate service. Controversy that has been raised by present present in this writ petition is squarely covered by Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Vidhi Seva Sangh & Anr. : 2007 (3) WLC (Raj), 357 wherein despite favourable recommendation by Beri Commission the Government did not grant a particular pay scale to the employees. When the association approached this Court a writ of mandamus be issued in their favour. It was held that different pay scales to different categories of service in the Government are fixed in the exercise or rule making power of the government. Diverse factors are taken into consideration before the Rules are framed. Once the Rules are framed, they have statutory force. It is trite principle of law that it is not for the Court to direct the State to make particular law. The plea of discrimination and violation of Article 14 of Constitution of India has to be founded on the equals being treated differently and, therefore, comparison cannot be made of unequals. The Devision Bench relied on catena of Supreme Court judgments and reversed the judgment of Single Bench. This judgment was reiterated in subsequent judgment of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kaushal Singh Rathore & Ors. : 2008 (3) WLC (Raj.), 174 in which case also there was a favourable recommendation of Beri Commission, which was a pay commission. The Government had appointed a Committee of Secretaries to scrutinies its recommendation. Committee also recommended in favour of employees. The Single Bench of this Court issued mandamus to give effect to said recommendations. The Division Bench in that case held that no mandamus or a high prerogative writ in that nature can be issued by the High Court directing the State Government for compliance of recommendation of Pay Commission or the report of the COS. In view of above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner sought permission to make representation to Government. It is always open to petitioner to make such representation to the Government for agitating their grievance, which it goes without saying, would be open to Government to consider in accordance with law. This writ petition is dismissed with aforesaid observations.;