The principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' and the interpretation of relevant recruitment rules were central to the court's decision.

1. Heard Mr. SK Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. S Sharma, learned CGC for all the respondents.

2. The writ petitioners, who are Chargeman Communication (Non-Diploma Holder), by way of this writ petition are praying for the pay scale, as is being given to Chargeman Communication (Diploma holders) as they are getting a lesser pay scale, though as per the General Reserve Engineer Force Group C and Group D Recruitment Rules, 1982, hereinafter referred to as the "1982 Rules", there is only one pay scale of Chargeman Communication, earlier known as Chargeman signals. Also there is no differentiation or classification of Chargeman Signals, as per the 1982 Rules. As per the 1982 Rules, the posts of Chargeman Signals has to filled up by way of direct recruitment from candidates having three years recognized diploma license in Electronic/ Communication/ Radio Engineering or equivalent with one year experience. It can also be filled up by way of promotion from Radio Mechanic with 5 years regular service in the Grade in General Reserve Engineer Force (GREF) or by deputation. The educational qualification required for appointment as a Radio Mechanic is matriculate. There is no fixed quota for direct recruitment and promotes as per the 1982 Rules and the same is subject to variation dependant on workload.

3. The petitioners, who are all non-diploma holders were initially appointed as Radio Mechanic in the General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF) in the pay scale of Rs.1320-30-1560-ED-40-2040 from 1983 onwards. The petitioners were thereafter promoted as per 1982 Rules to the posts of Chargeman Signals vide order dated 18.07.2003 on the recommendation of the Central DPC held on 04.06.2003. Subsequently, the nomenclature "Chargeman Signals" was re-designated as Chargeman Communication.

4. The petitioners counsel submits that the Chargeman Communication (Diploma Holder) is presently enjoying the pre-revised scale of Rs.5000/- to Rs.8000/-, while the petitioners are getting a lesser amount without any justification for the same. He submits that the petitioners, who are doing the same nature of duties cannot be given a lesser pay scale just because they are non-diploma holders.

5. Mr. S Sharma, learned CGC submits that the nature of duties of the petitioners and the Chargeman Communication (Diploma Holder) are different. He also submits that petitioners are now receiving the pay scale of Rs.9300-34800 with Grade pay of Rs.4200, as is being given to the Chargeman Communication (Diploma Holders), under the MACP schemes w.e.f. 18.08.2011.

6. The 1982 Rules provides for recruitment of Chargeman Signals through direct recruitment and promotion of Radio Mechanic with 5 years regular service in the GREF and there is only one pay scale payable to the Chargeman Signals.

7. The letter dated 13.05.2009 issued by the GREF at Annexure-12 states that the pay scale of Chargeman Signals (Diploma Holder) is upgraded to Rs.5000/- to Rs.8000/-.

8. A perusal of the Recruitment Rules clearly goes to show that the pay scale that is to be given to a Chargeman Signals is the same for persons who are directly recruited and those who are promoted. There is no differentiation of pay scale in the Recruitment Rules. The pay scale applicable to Chargeman Signals as per Recruitment Rules for the direct recruitment and the promotee is Rs.425-15-500-EB-15-560-20-700.

9. In the present case, upgradation of the pay scale in respect of Chargeman Signals (Diploma Holder) who are directly recruited, have been made on the basis of letter dated 13.05.2009 issued by the Joint Director, DGBR. No reason for upgradation of the pay scale of the Chargeman Signals (Diploma Holder) has been submitted by the respondents. Also no reasons have been given by the respondents why the pay scale of non-diploma holders are also not upgraded alongwith diploma holders. In the case of Promod Singh and Others in WP (C) No.3756 of 2009 which was disposed of by this Court vide