The claim for pay parity based on asserted Model Recruitment Rules without formal adoption lacks merit; entitlement to remuneration must adhere to established legal precedents.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. H. K. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the batch of four writ petitions and Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury, the learned Deputy SGI who appears on behalf of the respondents.

2. The case of the petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions is that the post of Store Keeper (Technical) in the Border Roads Organization, General Reserve Engineering Force, is at parity with the post of Senior Technical Assistant in the Bureau of Mines as well as General Storekeeper in the Government of India Press, and therefore, the post of Store Keeper (Technical) in the Border Roads Organization, General Reserve Engineering Force should be accorded the scale of pay of Rs. 9,300–34,800/- with Grade Pay of Rs. 4,200/- retrospectively w.e.f. 01.01.2006.

3. At the outset, Mr. H. K. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that pursuant to the filing of the instant batch of writ petitions in the year 2014 and the affidavit filed by the respondents in the year 2015, Draft Model Recruitment Rules have been framed wherein the post of Store Keeper (Technical) has been re-designated as Store Keeper Grade-I, and further, three additional posts have also been created. In that regard, an additional affidavit has also been filed by one of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 2334/2014.

4. Mr. R. K. D. Choudhury, the learned Deputy SGI, submitted that the question of parity of treatment with the post of Store Keeper (Technical) of the Border Roads Organization does not arise in view of the settled principles of law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Bihar vs. Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger and Others , reported in (2019) 18 SCC 301

5. Mr. H. K. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that though the petitioners may not be entitled to pay parity, yet in view of the Model Recruitment Rules which have been adopted by the Department, as instructed to him, the petitioners are entitled to certain additional benefits, which, however, is not a pleaded case in the instant writ petitions and have been sought to be developed by way of an affidavit-in-reply.

6. This Court has given anxious consideration to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and has also perused the materials on record. In the opinion of this Court, taking into account the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger and Others (supra), the claim of pay parity vis-à-vis the post of Store Keeper (Technical) of the Border Roads Organization with that of the Senior Technical Assistant of the Indian Bureau of Mines or the General Storekeeper in the Government of India Press do not arise, and as such, the reliefs sought for in the present batch of writ petitions cannot be granted.

7. This Court has also enquired with Mr. H. K. Das, the learned counsel for the petitioners as to whether the Model Recruitment Rules formulated by the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India, have been adopted or not. Mr. H. K. Das, the learned counsel submitted that he has been instructed that the same has been adopted, but he does not have any notification in that regard.

8. Considering the above, it is also the opinion of this Court that merely on the basis of the Model Recruitment Rules, no writ can be issued unless those Model Recruitment Rules have been duly adopted by the concerned Department.

9. Consequently, the instant batch of writ petitions stands disposed of with the following observations and directions:—

(i) This Court does not find merit in the claim of the petitioners with respect to pay parity for entitle