1985 Supreme(Raj) 477

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
N.M.Kasliwal, G.K.Sharma, JJ.
Natwar Lal Thanvi etc. etc. - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal No. 1 of 1985 and 10 other Special Appeals Nos. 2, 57, 63, 64, 65, 69 to 73 of 1985.
Decided On : 21-05-1985

The principle of 'equal pay for equal work' is applicable where the duties and responsibilities of two posts are similar, even if the posts are governed by different rules and regulations.

Headnote:

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - ARTICLES 14, 16, 226, 229(2) - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF STAFF) RULES, 1953 (AMENDMENT) - RAJASTHAN SECRETARIAT SERVICE RULES, 1954 - RAJASTHAN SECRETARIAT MINISTERIAL SERVICE RULES, 1970 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT STAFF RULES - RAJASTHAN PAY COMMISSION REPORT - PRINCIPLE OF EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK - WRIT OF MANDAMUS - ARBITRARY AND DISCRIMINATORY ACTION - PARITY IN PAY SCALES AND STATUS - CLASSIFICATION OF POSTS - PROMOTIONAL AVENUES - CONDITIONS OF SERVICE OF STAFF OF HIGH COURT - APPROVAL OF GOVERNOR - FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS - DISTINCTION FROM T. GOPALAKRISHNAN MURTHI'S CASE (AIR 1976 SC 123).

Fact of the Case:

Private Secretaries attached to the Chief Justice and Judges of Rajasthan High Court filed writ petitions seeking parity in pay scales and status with Private Secretaries to Commissioners and Secretaries to the Government. The State Government had not taken any decision on the proposal of the Chief Justice for equation of posts despite repeated requests. The petitioners contended that the action of the State Government was arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The State Government argued that the posts of Private Secretaries to Commissioners and Secretaries to the Government were State Service posts governed by different rules, and that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' could not be applied where service conditions were laid down by legislative rules.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to be treated at par with Private Secretaries in the Secretariat in terms of pay scales and status, with effect from the commencement of the financial year following the year of institution of the writ petitions. The Court found that the action of the State Government in not taking any decision on the proposal of the Chief Justice was arbitrary and discriminatory, and that the petitioners had been denied their right to equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Court also held that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' was applicable in the present case, as the duties performed by the Private Secretaries in the High Court were more arduous than those performed by the Private Secretaries in the Secretariat.

Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners were entitled to be treated at par with Private Secretaries in the Secretariat in terms of pay scales and status? 2. Whether the action of the State Government in not taking any decision on the proposal of the Chief Justice was arbitrary and discriminatory? 3. Whether the petitioners had been denied their right to equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution? 4. Whether the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' was applicable in the present case?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to be treated at par with Private Secretaries in the Secretariat in terms of pay scales and status, as there was a long-standing parity between the two posts, and the duties and responsibilities of the petitioners were more onerous and burdensome than those of the Private Secretaries in the Secretariat. The Court also found that the action of the State Government in not taking any decision on the proposal of the Chief Justice was arbitrary and discriminatory, and that the petitioners had been denied their right to equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 2. The Court held that the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' was applicable in the present case, as the duties performed by the Private Secretaries in the High Court were more arduous than those performed by the Private Secretaries in the Secretariat.

Final Decision: The Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to create a cadre of Private Secretaries to the Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court equal in number to the posts of Chief Justice and Judges of the High Court, carrying pay-scale, allowances, and status at par with the pay-scale, allowances, and status of Private Secretaries to Commissioners and Secretaries to the Government in the Secretariat. The Court also directed the respondents to amend the High Court Staff Rules or otherwise make an executive order to give effect to the above direction.