JUDGMENT :

Sudhir Agarwal, Rajeev Misra, JJ.

1. Heard Sri Dharm Vir Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Surech Chand Dwivedi, Advocate for Respondents-2 to 4.

2. This is an old writ petition of 2011 and despite repeated request learned counsel for petitioners did not advance any argument and in these circumstances we ourselves have gone through the writ petition.

3. Petitioners are all Secretaries in various Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samities in State of U.P. A writ of mandamus has been prayed by petitioners to seek parity in condition of employment, in particular pay scale of Secretaries of all Mandi Samities working under U.P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad, irrespective of size, quantum of transaction and other business carried out in such Samities. It is stated that various Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samities established in State of U.P. have been categorised in four categories, i.e., A Class Mandi Samities, B Class Mandi Samities, C Class Mandi Samities and D Class Mandi Samities. Secretaries posted in said Mandi Samities have been categorized according to aforesaid categories of Mandi Samities, i.e., Secretaries Grade-I, II, III and IV. Secretaries Grade IV are liable to be posted in D Class Mandi Samities, Secretaries Grade III are liable to be posted in Grade C Mandi Samities and so on.

4. The basic contention of petitioners is that duties, responsibilities and work performed by said Secretaries are similar, therefore, they are entitled to be treated at par and should be given a common and same pay scale applying the principle of “equal pay for equal work” and on the basis of categorization of Mandis no further classification should be made in respect of categories of Secretaries and there should be no difference in pay scales.

5. Petitioners have also challenged validity of Regulation 4 of U.P. Agricultural Produce Market Committees (Centralized Service) Regulations, 1984 (hereinafter referred to “Regulations, 1984”) as ultra vires and violative of Articles 14 and 16 and doctrine of “equal pay for equal work”.

6. The record shows that earlier one, Shahzade, came to this Court in Writ Petition No. 2742 of 2000 claiming that he was entitled for highest pay scale admissible to the post of Secretary on the principle of “equal pay for equal work” and prayed for a mandamus to respondents to grant the same. Vide judgment dated 27.02.2000 writ petition was decided requiring Chairman, U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad (hereinafter referred to as “Chairman, UPRKUMP”) to decide his representation. Representation was rejected by Chairman vide order dated 22.05.2001. Same was challenged by Sri Shahzade, a Secretary in Mandi Samiti, in Writ Petition No. 30319 of 2001 which was decided vide judgment dated 23.04.2002. It was allowed. On behalf of U.P. Rajya Krishi Utpadan Mandi Parishad (hereinafter referred to as “UPRKUMP”) a review petition was filed but the same was also dismissed vide judgment dated 23.05.2003. UPRKUMP brought the matter to Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5289-5290 of 2004 (Chairman, Rajay Krishi Utpadan Nandi Parishad and others vs. Shahjade) which were allowed vide judgment dated 03.05.2011 and judgment of this Court was set aside. The judgment of Supreme Court dated 03.05.2011 reads as under:

“These appeals are directed against orders dated 23.04.2002 and 23.05.2003 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 30319 of 2001 and Civil Miscellaneous Review Petition No. 104056 of 2002 whereby the High Court directed the appellants to fix the pay of the respondent in the scale of Rs. 2000-3000 with effect from 1.1.1986 with consequential benefits and dismissed the review petition filed by the appellants.

Respondent No. 3, who was then holding the post of Secretary Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samit, Baberu (