The court cannot direct grant of any scale of pay or allowance in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the same has been fixed under statutory rules.

S.B. Sinha, J.

The writ petitioners-respondents in these appeals have been working as "Head Rakshak Driver Grade - I, Head Rakshak Driver Grade II and Head Rakshak Driver Grade - III."

2. Their conditions of service are governed under the provisions of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1953 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Act') and the Rules framed thereunder.

3. Section 3 of the said Act provides that an Armed Force known as Railway Protection Force shall be constituted and maintained by the Central Government for the better protection and security of the Railway property which was required to be constituted in such manner and consisting of such members of superior officers, subordinate officers, under officers and other enrolled members of the Force as may be prescribed.

4. Section 5 of the said Act, inter alia, specifies Rakshaks as one of the classes of other ranks. Section 21(2)(a) of the said Act confers power upon the Central Government to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act including regulating the class, grades, pay and remuneration of the members of the Force and their conditions of service therein.

5. The post of Driver was specified as Head Rakshak Driver under the heading "Ancillary Staff'. The scale of pay of Head Rakshak (Driver) was prescribed under the heading Miscellaneous Branch at Rs.260-400 in terms of Rule 28 of the R.P.F. Rules, 1959. The said 1959 Rule was repealed and re-enacted by the Railway Protection Force Rules, which came into force with effect from 3.12.1987. Rule 78 of the 1987 Rules prescribed pay and allowances of the members of the Force whereby the scale of pay of the Drivers has been fixed as follows:-

“Driver Grade I Rs. 1320 - 2040

Driver Grade II Rs. 1200 - 1800

Driver Grade III Rs. 950 - 1500.”

6. For the revision of pay of the Railway employees a Committee was constituted.

7. According to the writ petitioners, they, in terms of the recommendation of the said Committee, were entitled to a higher scale of pay and/or all the allowances payable to a Railway employee as is otherwise payable to the Ancillary Staff. At this juncture, it is relevant to note the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition which is in the following terms:-

"a) A writ of and/or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent authorities to grant the scale of pay of Rs.1,200-1,800/- as applicable to the Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Railway Protection Force, alternatively to extend the scale of pay of Rs.950-1,500/- as extended to the Railway employees with the benefits of 40 days bonus, overtime wages, night duty allowance and other benefits like paid holidays/rest days etc. as extended to the Railway employees in the corresponding grade, with retrospective effect from the date the present impugned scale was brought into operation."

8. It is not and cannot be the case of the respondents that their duties and functions are similar to those of the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Railway Protection Force and as such ex-facie they can not invoke the doctrine of "equal pay for equal work" in the instant case.

9. The sole question, which arises for consideration in these appeals, is whether in view of the aforementioned statutory provision, this court could direct grant of any scale of payor allowance in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

10. The learned Trial Judge in his Judgment impugned before us had not posed unto himself the aforementioned question. It appears that before the learned trial Judge a Circular Letter issued by the Railways had been placed and the entire discussions made by the learned trial Judge centres round the question as to whether the said circular letter shall prevail over the service rules. The learned Judge held that it would not.

11. There cannot be any dispute on the proposition of law that when there exists a statutory rule, the same cannot be supplanted by a Circular Letter. But, in our opinion, the learned trial Judge