The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, emphasizing the need for parity in functions, responsibilities, and quality of work to claim equal pay.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHA SARATHI SEN, J.

1. Both the writ petitioners and the respondents/State and its officials are represented by their respective learned advocates.

2. The affidavit-in-opposition as filed on behalf of the respondents/State is taken on record.

3. By filing the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioners have prayed for an order for fixation of their salary/remuneration in terms of the Notification No. 1107-F(P) dated 25.02.2016 and Notification No. 1033-F(P2) dated 08.02.2019 as issued by the Finance (Audit) Department, Government of West Bengal.

4. In support of the instant writ petition, Mr. Dhar, learned advocate for the writ petitioners at the very outset submits before this Court that the present writ petitioners have been employed either in Group ‘C’ or Group ‘D’ posts in Other Backward Class Welfare (OBCW) Department. According to Mr. Dhar, the writ petitioner no. 1 being a Group ‘C’ employee is getting salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month, writ petitioner no. 2 being a Group ‘C’ employee is getting salary of Rs. 8,000/- per month, writ petitioner no. 3 being a Group ‘D’ employee is getting salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month, writ petitioner no. 4 being a Group ‘C’ employee is getting salary of Rs. 8,000/-per month, writ petitioner no. 5 being a Group ‘D’ employee is getting salary of Rs. 3,500/- per month and the writ petitioner no. 6 being a Group ‘D’ employee is getting salary of Rs. 3,000/- per month.

5. Drawing attention to Annexure P-2 at Page-46 being Government of West Bengal Finance Department Memo No. 9008-F(P) dated 16.09.2011, Notification No. 1107-F(P) dated 25.02.2016 and Notification No. 1033-F(P2) dated 08.02.2019, it is contended by Mr. Dhar that though the respondent/State has duly considered the emoluments and benefits of the contractual employees are meager and thus issued the aforesaid three notifications time to time to revise the benefits for extending the same to the causal/daily rated/contractual workers who are working in different departments of the State/respondent, for the reasons best known to the respondents herein, such financial benefits have not been extended in the case of the petitioners in spite of making several representations.

6. It is further contended that the similarly circumstanced contractual employees in other departments even in OBCW Department have also been extended the benefits of the said three notifications. It is, thus, submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the aforesaid action on the part of the State/respondent violates the principle of “equal pay for equal work” which is guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and which has been affirmed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments.

7. In course of his submission, Mr. Dhar places his reliance upon the reported decision of State of Punjab and Others vs. Jagjit Singh and Others, (2017) 1 SCC 148. Mr. Dhar thus submits that it is a fit case for allowing the instant writ petition directing the respondents to pay the increased salary including the arrears salary as per their Notifications dated 25.02.2016 and 08.02.2019.

8. Per Contra, Mr. Basu, learned advocate for the respondent/State at the very outset submits before this Court that since the writ petitioners are working in different post and in different office, they cannot join to ventilate their grievance by filing a single writ petition in absence of any joinder of cause of action and/or similarity of the stand of the present writ petitioners. It is further argued that even inadequate court fees have been paid by the present writ petitioners in this writ petition.

9. It is further submitted by Mr. Basu that from the annexure to the writ petition, it would reveal that the period of employment as contractual basis of the present petitioners are less than 10 years even then in the writ petition they have stated that they have rendered 10 years of service which is contrary to the truth and for su