The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' applies to temporary employees, and the State Government is obliged to extend the same pay scales to temporary employees on par with regular employees.

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

(A) ISSUE INVOLVED

1. Entitlement of regular pay scale to Watchmen/Security Guards appointed in aided Ashram Schools run by the private managements at par with those working in Government Ashram Schools, is the issue involved in the present petition.

(B) FACTUAL MATRIX

2. By the Government Resolution dated 23.01.2014, it was resolved to establish a Special Education Unit for better management of Government Ashram Schools and aided Ashram Schools under the Tribal Development Department of the State. It was further resolved to create 849 posts for establishment of such Special Education Unit. In addition to such 849 newly created posts, it was also resolved to create 556 posts of Watchmen/Security Guards for 556 aided private Ashram Schools. It was decided to fill up such posts of Watchmen/Security Guards on consolidated monthly honorarium of Rs. 3,200/-. By subsequent Government Resolution dated 18.06.2016, such honorarium was enhanced to Rs. 5,000/-.

3. The petitioner No. 1 is a Union of teaching and non-teaching staff working in Ashram Schools of the Tribal Development Department. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 59 are working as Watchmen/Security Guards in various aided Ashram Schools run by the private managements. They have filed present petition claiming the same pay scales, which are granted to the post of Watchmen/Security Guards in Government Ashram Schools. It is contended that by way of Government Resolution dated 14.09.2004, it has been directed that the educational qualifications applicable to the teaching and non-teaching staff in the Government Ashram Schools is made applicable to those engaged in aided private Ashram Schools. The petitioners also rely upon Government Resolution dated 20.08.2019, by which the revised staffing pattern has been implemented for Government Ashram Schools and aided Private Ashram Schools, under which one post of Watchman has been sanctioned for each Ashram School with a further direction that the eligibility criteria for filling up the posts of Watchmen would be the same as prescribed for the Government Ashram Schools. The petitioners also rely upon the Government Resolution dated 13.12.2019, by which the nomenclature of post of Watchman is changed to that of Multi Tasking Staff and a pay band of 15,000-47,600 has been prescribed for the same. The petitioners contend that despite issuance of Government Resolution dated 13.12.2019, the same is not implemented and the petitioners continue to be paid monthly consolidated honorarium of Rs. 5,000/-.

4. The petition is resisted by the State Government by filing affidavit-in-reply. Reliance is placed on the Government Resolution dated 11.05.2022 issued during the pendency of the present petition, by which the Government Resolutions dated 18.07.2019 and 20.08.2019 have been stayed. It is contended that the Government Resolution dated 20.08.2019 was conditional i.e. subject to approval to be given by the appropriate authority. It is further contended that the post being temporary and on honorarium, the same cannot be replaced in regular pay scale and that, therefore, monthly consolidated honorarium of Rs. 5,000/- is rightly being paid as per the Government Resolution dated 18.06.2016.

(C) SUBMISSIONS

5. Appearing for the petitioners Mr. Pawar, the learned counsel would invoke the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ for claiming the pay scales payable to the Watchmen/Security Guards engaged in the Government Ashram Schools. He would submit that the Petitioners perform same duties and responsibilities as that of the Watchmen/Security Guards engaged in the Government Ashram Schools. That the eligibility criteria for both posts is the same. He would submit that the Government Resolution dated 11.05.2022 has been issued to defeat the legitimate claim of the petitioners. He questioned the timing of issuance of the GR and submitted that the same is a retaliatory reaction to this Court proposing to saddle costs of Rs. 50,000/- by its o