The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' as a constitutional goal, as well as the interpretation of Rule-103 of the Bihar/ Jharkhand Service Code and its alignment with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

1. Petitioner has prayed for direction upon the respondent-authorities to pay the benefits of equal pay for equal work to the petitioner arising out of the post of State Entomologist w.e.f. 18.06.1988.

2. Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, learned counsel for the petitioner vociferously argues that petitioner is entitled for the benefits attached with the post of State Entomologist on which post he was working since 1988 till the date of his superannuation in the year 2010. Learned counsel fairly argues that when the case of the petitioner was not considered for regular appointment to the post of State Entomologist, he moved the Hon’ble Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1653 of 1996 and the Hon’ble Court directed the respondents to make regular appointment within a period of four months and also respondents were directed to pay the petitioner such benefits to which the petitioner is entitled under Rule-103 of the Bihar/ Jharkhand Service Code. Though the petitioner superannuated in the year 2010 but neither the regular appointment was made nor any benefits of the said post on which the petitioner continued to discharge his duties was given to him. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of fresh writ petition i.e. the present one for getting the benefits attached with the post of State Entomologist and confines his prayer for payment of salary of the post of State Entomologist since he has worked on that post continuously from 1988 to 2010. Learned counsel further submits that though counter-affidavit has been filed but nothing has been brought on record to show as to whether any order regarding payment of salary of the post of State Entomologist was passed by the respondents taking into consideration that petitioner has worked on the said post from 1988 to 2010 and in view of Rule-103 of the Bihar/ Jharkhand Service Code he is entitled for the salary of the post of State Entomologist.

3. Mr. Rahul Saboo, learned counsel representing the respondent-State submits that petitioner is not entitled for any salary of the post of State Entomologist since he was on deputation and he has been paid whatever he was entitled for. Apart from that an amount of Rs.250 per month which is given to a person who is on deputation has also been given to him. Learned counsel further argues that petitioner has moved this Court after eight years of his retirement and on this ground also, he is not entitled for any benefits as claimed for.

4. Be that as it may, having perused the averments made in the writ petition as well as in the counter-affidavit, it is crystal clear that no decision has been taken by the respondents under Rule-103 of the Bihar/ Jharkhand Service Code, regarding payment of salary to the petitioner for the post of State Entomologist, on which he continued to discharge his duties from 1988 to 2010. The petitioner was never on deputation what has been argued by the respondents and he continued to work on that post and even a direction was given by the Court for making regular appointment. The case of the petitioner was even considered and recommended by the Chief Minister who is also the Incharge of the Health Ministry but even then no heed was paid to the said recommendation. It appears that the petitioner was neither considered for regular appointment nor the salary of the said post was given to him. Admittedly, since the petitioner has been superannuated in the year 2010, he cannot claimed for any regular appointment neither he can ask for fresh appointment to the post of State Entomologist but he can claim salary of the post on which he worked continuously from 1998 to 2010.

5. The issue fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Arindam Chattopadhyay & Ors. [(2013) 4 SCC 152], wherein the Hon’ble Court has held as under :

“10. We have considered the respective submissions. The applicability of the doctrine of equality, enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, in the matter of pay and allowances was