The principle of equal pay for equal work is not an abstract one. It is open to the State to prescribe different scales of pay for different cadres having regard to the nature of duty, responsibilities, education and qualifications.

N.Pandey, J.

1. By means of these writ applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have raised a grievance, that the respondents have practised discrimination in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, refusing to pay them salary in the scale of pay prescribed for similarly placed employees like Supervisors appointed under the Adult Education Scheme. They have also invoked the doctrine of equal pay for equal work as enshrined under Article 39 (d) the Constitution. The contempt application (MJC 702/89) was filed for appropriate action against the respondents of C.W.J.C. No. 8315 of 1988 on the allegation that they made an attempt to violate interim order dated 17.11.1988 passed in that case.

2. All these writ applications and the intervention applications, although on behalf of different petitioners but for the same relief, have been heard together and, therefore, are being disposed of by tiles common judgment.

3. To have a brief survey of the factual background of the case with relative brevity, it will be appropriate to notice few facts: In the year 1978/79, the Central Government sponsored a scheme. "Adult Education Programme" to open centres in various States including the State of Bihar to eradicate illiteracy amongst the persons between the age group of 15-35. Under the said scheme, in the year 1983, the State Government, through its Labour and Employment Department, issued an advertisement for appointment of Supervisors in Adult Education Projects in the pay and scale of Rs. 785-1210 with other admissible allowances including dearness and medical allowances etc. Pursuant to such an advertisement, larger number of persons, who were duly qualified, made applications. Thereafter, the candidates were called upon to appear before the Selection Committee duly constituted for such selection. Along with such candidates, some of the petitioners had also filed applications. Accordingly, a panel was prepared and about 300 candidates were appointed as Adult Education Supervisors in the pay and scale of Rs. 7851210. In the meantime, another scheme known as "Non-Formal Education" was introduced by the Ministry of Human Resources Development. Government of India, New Delhi. Financial assistance to implement such scheme was provided to the State in the ratio of 50: 50. To implement such scheme, the State Government was required to engage supervisors on a condition that they should be local persons, residing in the close proximity of the centres. The supervisors were to be engaged on part time basis to give half of their time to this work. The implementation of the scheme was to be made by involving voluntary agencies and Panchayti Raj institutions.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid scheme some of the supervisors including the petitioners and intervenors were engaged with effect from 1985-86 to 1990-91 on a month. It appears about 700 supervisors were engaged in this scheme from the persons left over in the panel which was prepared for appointment of Adult Education Supervisors. Besides, the aforesaid, about 3000 supervisors were engaged without any advertisement etc. Under this scheme, Non-formal supervisors were engaged for doing social work and to aid the national effort of eradicating illiteracy between the age-group of 9-14. Such engagement was purely part time and they were required to work only for four hours a day. It would also be relevant to notice that the scheme was also purely temporary on year to year basis.

5. These cases originally came up for hearing before a learned Single Judge of this Court, who having disagreed with the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in C.W J.C. No. 7003 of 1988, whereby a similar application seeking identical relief by similarly situated persons was rejected, directed that the records of these cases be placed before the Hon ble Chief Justice to consider the desirability of referring before a Full Bench. This is how these