The principle of 'Equal Pay for Equal Work' requires consideration of educational qualifications and responsibilities, and cannot be applied if qualifications differ.

JUDGMENT

Arun Bhansali, C.J.

Heard Shri Varadraj Shreedutt Ojha, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Anil Kumar Singh Visen, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18.7.2017 passed by learned Single Judge in Service Single No. 6885 of 2011 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants has been dismissed.

3. The appellants had earlier approach this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 807 (SS) of 2010, which came to be decided by judgement dated 19.1.2011 whereby the appellants were directed to make a representation raising their grievances and the State respondents were directed to consider and decide the same by way of a speaking order in accordance with law and relevant Rules and Regulations. On making the representation, the same came to be rejected by order dated 17.6.2011. Aggrieved by such rejection, the writ petition was filed.

4. The claim of the appellants is that they are entitled to grant of pay scale as prescribed under the U.P. Technical Education Department Non Gazetted Technical Service Rules, 1988 from the date of coming into force of the said Rules in the pay scale of Rs.550 - 940 and revised from time to time along with arrears. It was interalia indicated in the petition that the appellants were recruited on the post of Second Instructor (Moulding), First Wood Working Instructor, Instructor (Pattern Making) and Third Machine Shop Instructor respectively based on qualifications prescribed by the State of Uttar Pradesh by means of a Government Order dated 16.10.1982 on various dates. The Rules of 1988 were brought into force with effect from 19.07.1988, wherein though the posts on which the appellants were recruited were not indicated, however, post of Workshop Instructor was indicated in the Schedule, which is having similar duties as performed by the appellants and the pay scale for the said post was Rs.550 - 940 whereas that of the posts held by the appellants is Rs.354 - 550. On coming into force of the Rules of 1988, the same were not applied to Lucknow/Gorakhpur Polytechnic Colleges where the appellants were serving. The appellants made various representations seeking parity in pay scales. However, when the representations were not answered, the petition, as indicated hereinbefore, was filed resulting in passing of the order, requiring making of the representation as was passed by the Court.

5. Pursuant to the directions passed by this Court, the representation came to be decided by the order impugned in the writ petition dated 17.6.2011 wherein the competent authority came to the conclusion that as the prescribed qualifications for the posts held by the appellants and for the post of Workshop Instructor were not similar, the representation was liable to be rejected. Based on which the representation was rejected. Feeling aggrieved, writ petition was filed.

6. Contention raised in the writ petition seeking parity in the pay scales was contested by the State respondents.

7. After hearing the parties, learned Single Judge by his impugned judgement came to the conclusion that submission of the appellants was based on fallacy as the factor relevant for the relief claimed was not the qualifications of the appellants but the minimum qualifications provided for the posts held by them. Learned Single Judge further came to the conclusion that the minimum qualifications for the recruitment under which the appellants were recruited was lower than those provided under the Rules of 1988 and relying on the judgements in Mewa Ram Kanojia v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and others: 1989 (2) SCC 235 and Union of India through Secretary v. TVLN Mallikarjun Rao: 2015 (3) SCC 653 and the fact that the cadre of the appellants was already declared as a dying cadre, dismissed the writ petition.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants made vehement submissions that the dismissal of the representation and the writ petition, is not justified. It was emphasiz