The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' applies to employees holding identical posts, even if they belong to different departments, and cannot be denied merely because of the lack of approval from the Governor under Article 229 of the Constitution of India, especially when the financial burden is minimal.

1. - This Special Appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance has been filed against the judgment of Hon'ble Single judge dated 22.4.1985, by which the Writ Petition of respondent was allowed.

2. The brief relevant facts of the case are that the respondent filed a writ petition with the allegations that with the establishment of a permanent bench of the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur, it became necessary to establish a library for the use of Judges, of the nature and size, established at main seat of High Court at Jodhpur; that the respondent applied for the post of Assistant Librarian and she was selected by the Selection Committee, constituted by the High Court and was appointed on the said post, by order dated 15.7.1977 that the respondent was confirmed on the same post vide order dated 24.1.79; that after acquiring the necessary experience prescribed for the post of Librarian and as the nature of duties, work, responsibilites and functions etc. relating to the post of Asst. Librarian and the Librarian are identical, the respondent submitted a representation to Hon'ble the Chief Justice on 3-9-1980, requesting for upgrading the post of Assistant Librarian to that of Librarian but the respondent's request was not accepted by Hon. Chief Justice. The petitioner again on 4.4.1981, submitted representation for upgrading the post of Assistant Librarian. Later on, she came to know that her representation was forwarded by Hon'ble Chief Justice to the Government for upgrading the post but the recommendation made by the Hon'ble High Court with regard to the respondent's request for upgrading the post of Assistant Librarian were not communicated to the Govt. while forwarding the representation. Hence by letter dated 22.4.81, the Law Department of the Govt. of Rajasthan sought certain information from the Registrar, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur. On receipt of the letter from the Registrar, seeking information on the points raised by the Government, the Additional Registrar immediately sent the information required by the Registrar. The Additional Registrar mentioned as under. HINDI MATTER 364578

3. That despite the clear recommendations of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court for up-gradation of the post of Asst. Librarian to that of Librarian, the State of Rajasthan without any reason, refused to grant sanction for upgrading the post. The respondent further asserted that academic qualifications prescribed for the recruitment of the posts viz., Librarian and Asstt. Librarian, being the same and the nature of duties, work and responsibilities of both the posts being the same, the respondent cannot be denied equal pay, which is paid to the Librarian on the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'. The respondent prayed that it may be declared that the nature of duties, work, responsibilities, functions etc. being discharged by the respondent in her capacity as Asst. Librarian at Jodhpur, are identical she is entitled for the same pay which is paid to the Librarian at Jaipur Bench and those being discharged by Librarian at Jodhpur, are identical she is entitled for the same pay which is paid to the Librarian at Jodhpur. She further prayed that State of Rajasthan be directed to upgrade, the post of Asstt. librarian, High Court Bench at Jaipur to that of Librarian, for the purposes of giving effect to the principle of 'equal pay for equal work'.

4. The State of Raj. and the Raj. High Court submitted a joint reply to the writ petition. In their reply, they alleged that there were about 34,000 books at Jodhpur, whereas in the library at Jaipur there were 25,000 books only. The post of Librarian is altogether different. The qualifications for both posts are different. The work of Librarian at Jodhpur, and Asst. Librarian at Jaipur, cannot be equated. In Para 22 of the reply, it was admitted that the Additional Registrar sent information to the Registrar but it was further stated that there was nothing on the record to