The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of 'equal pay for equal work' to grant pay parity to Sanitary Supervisors, emphasizing the similarity of duties performed.

SIDDHARTH, J.

1. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Verma, learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioners have filed the above noted writ petition, praying for the quashing of the order dated 08.02.2016, passed by respondent No. 3, Municipal, Nagar Nigam Varanasi, whereby his prayer for grant of pay scale of Rs. 4000-6000, revised Pay Scale Rs. 5200-20200, Grade Pay 2400 being paid to the Sanitary Supervisor at Noida and Aligarh, has been rejected. The petitioners have also prayed that the State Government may be directed to pay the aforesaid Pay Scale to them.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No. 1 was appointed on 17.01.1994 as Sanitary Supervisor, in Nagar Nigam, Varanasi on compassionate basis. The petitioner No. 2 was engaged on daily wages in 1988 and was made regular Sanitary Supervisor in the year 1993. The claim of trained Sanitary Supervisor for granting them Pay Scale of 4000-100-6000 was engaging the attention of the State Government since 2007 and the State Government issued an order directing Director Local Bodies, U.P. to provide its report stating whether the trained Sanitary Supervisors are being given Pay Scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000 (now Rs. 5200-20200 and Grade Pay of Rs. 2400) as being paid to the Sanitary Supervisor at Noida. The Municipal Commissioner, Varanasi submitted his report dated 31.01.2008 to Special Secretary, Government of U.P., Nagar Vikas, stating that such Supervisors are being paid Pay Scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000 which is being paid in Noida and in Nagar Nigam, Varanasi only the petitioner No. 1 is a trained Sanitary Supervisor. On 08.12.2008, the Director, Local Bodies issued a letter to Municipal Commissioners of Nagar Nigams of Lucknow, Kanpur, Gorakhpur, Varanasi, Bareilly, Ghaziabad, Meerut and Allahabad, asking whether the trained Sanitary Supervisors are being given Pay Scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000 (now Rs. 5200-20200 and Grade Pay of Rs. 2400) as being paid to the Sanitary Supervisor at Noida and details of such Sanitary Supervisor be made available. By the letter dated 29.01.2009, the Municipal Commissioner, Varanasi submitted his report that no trained Sanitary Supervisor in Nagar Nigam, Varanasi is being paid Rs. 4000-100-6000 and the petitioner No. 1 is the only trained Sanitary Supervisor. In a writ petition filed by Sanitary Supervisors working in Nagar Nigam, Aligarh, on directions of this Court, the State Government issued an Office Order dated 20.05.2010, sanctioning Pay Band of Rs. 5200-20200 and Grade Pay of Rs. 2400 with immediate effect to the Sanitary Supervisors of all Nagar Nigams with the condition that the additional expenses shall be borne by the Nagar Nigams through their own resources. The petitioner No. 2 thereafter acquired necessary training of Sanitary Supervisor. The petitioners represented their case before the Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Varanasi for parity in pay band with the Sanitary Supervisors working in Aligarh and Noida, but the same was not decided and after filing a writ petition and thereafter a Contempt Petition, by the impugned order dated 08.02.2016 their representations have been rejected and hence this writ petition.

4. The respondent no. 3 has filed his Counter Affidavit stating that there is no criteria prescribed for appointment of Sanitary Supervisors either in the U.P. Municipalities Act, 1916 or the U.P. Nagar Mahapalika Sewa Niyamawali, 1962 nor the State Government has prescribed any separate service conditions for them. In the absence any statutory rules/administrative orders and eligibility criteria/mode of appointment, the petitioners can not be granted pay parity. It has been also stated that the Nagar Nigam Varanasi is not willing to share the additional burden to be incurred in enhancing the pay scale of the petitioners without any authority of law.

5. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has argued that the impugned order has been passed on ill