The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' to Workshop Instructors and the obligation of the respondents to comply with previous orders in similar cases.

JUDGMENT

Tapabrata Chakraborty, J. - The present writ petition has been preferred by fifteen petitioners, who are employed as Workshop Instructors. Amongst them the petitioner nos.1 to 9 are attached to Ramkrishna Mission Shilpa Mandir being the respondent no.2 and the petitioner nos.10 to 15 are attached to Ramkrishna Mission Shilpapith being the respondent no.3. The petitioners have inter alia prayed for issuance of necessary direction upon the respondents to grant the scale of Rs 425 - 1050/- with effect from 1st April, 1981, as subsequently revised from time to time, together with all allowances/perquisites as are admissible under the rules together with all arrears with interest calculated at the enhanced rates prayed for with effect from 1st April, 1981.

2. Records reveal that the present writ petition was affirmed on 3rd December, 2001. The same was finally heard along with a writ petition being WP 3222 (W) of 1998 (Shibu Gopal Sadhu Khan & Ors. -vs- State of West Bengal & Ors.) preferred by twenty two petitioners who are employed as Workshop Instructors. Amongst them the petitioner nos. 1 to 11 were attached to Ramkrishna Mission Shilpa Mandir being the respondent no.2 and the petitioner nos.12 to 15 were attached to Ramkrishna Mission Shilpapith being the respondent no.3 herein. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by a judgment delivered on 9th September, 2003 directing the respondents "to give proper benefit to the petitioners as to the revised scale of pay of Rs.425 - 1050 /- w.e.f. 1st April, 1981 and thereafter, in the corresponding scale or scales to which the same has been revised from time to time". It was also observed that "the petitioners are entitled to get arrears from the dates of filing of the respective application. Such arrears should be given within three months from the date of communication of this order". However, by an order dated 18th November, 2003, the order dated 9th September, 2003 was modified to the extent "that the judgment will govern only WP 3222 (W) of 1998". The said order dated 18th November, 2003 was passed since after 9th September, 2003, the matters were mentioned and the Court was informed that the present writ petition though disposed of by the combined order dated 9th September, 2003 was dismissed for default earlier on 15th January, 2002. The Sate respondents preferred a belated appeal against the judgment dated 9th September, 2003 passed in WP 3222 (W) of 1998 being MAT 4207 of 2006. The said appeal upon contested hearing was dismissed by a judgment dated 22nd August, 2007. Assailing the said order the State respondents preferred a Special Leave Petition. In the same an order was passed on 18th January, 2018 which runs as follows:

The Division Bench of the High Court in an intra Court appeal did not think it fit to condone gross delay of 1116 days. According to the High Court, it was not properly explained and there was no "sufficient cause" to condone the delay. We find no infirmity in the said order. The special leave petition is dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even on merits, the learned Single Judge as well as Division Bench were wrong in applying notification which was not applicable to the respondent-employee. In view of the fact that we are dismissing the petition, only on the ground that Division Bench was not wrong to condone the delay, we express no opinion. That question is left open.

3. In the midst thereof, the present writ petition was again heard afresh and allowed by a judgment dated 4th September, 2006. Thereafter, the State respondents filed an application for recalling the order dated 4th September, 2006 along with an application for condonation of delay of 292 days. By an order dated 26th November, 2010 the order dated 4th September, 2006 was recalled. The said respondents, thereafter, used an affidavitin-opposition to which the petitioners filed a reply. In the midst thereof, the petitioners in the writ petition being WP 32