VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA, J.

1. In this intra-court appeal challenge has been made to the order dated 8-7-2010 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the petition filed by the respondent-writ petitioner has been allowed.

2. The respondent who is working as a Music Teacher in Central Jail Department filed the writ petition claiming the same payscale as is being granted to the teachers similarly situated in the Education Department. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition directed for grant of the same benefits to the writ-petitioner in the light of the order passed by this Court in the case of Uma Shankar Dubey vs. State of M.P. and others, [W.P(S). No.27/2005, dated 4-4-2005] and further directed that all the benefits be extended to the writ-petitioner at par with the payscale existing in the Education Department, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. The Court also directed that arrears and other benefits be also given to the writ petitioner from the date of filing of the writ petition, i.e., 01-9-2003 and prior to that notional fixation be granted.

3. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition relying on the judgment passed in Uma Shankar Dubey (supra) but the said judgment would not be applicable to the present case, as in the said case the petitioner – Uma Shankar Dubey was working as a teacher in the Central Jail and the qualification required for the teacher working in a Jail is similar to the educational qualifications prescribed for the School Education Department and duties are also same, therefore, the respondents have admitted the anomaly under the rules regarding payscales to the teachers working in the Jail Department. He further contended that the present respondent is working as a Music Teacher in the Jail Department and under the relevant Rules, the qualification for the post of Music Teacher is different from the educational qualifications prescribed for the Education Department. He submitted that as per qualifications prescribed under the Recruitment Rules in the Jail Department, 10+2 High School or Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination is required with general knowledge of Hindi or Madhyama Examination and equivalent examination in 'Tabla Badan' recognized by the State Government.

4. Thus, on the basis of said premises it is contended that the learned Single Judge has erred while allowing the writ petition relying on the judgment passed in Uma Shankar Dubey (supra), which is not applicable in the facts and the Recruitment Rules applicable to the respondent who is working as a Music Teacher.

5. Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondent supported the order passed by the learned Single Judge and submitted that the respondent is also a teacher in the Jail Department, though in the Music subject, therefore, he cannot be denied the benefit which has been granted to Uma Shankar Dubey (supra). He contended that on the basis of the principles of `equal pay for equal work', the respondent is entitled for the same payscale which is applicable to the Music Teacher working in the School Education Department. To bolster his submission he relied on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in State of Punjab and others vs. Jagjit Singh and others, (2017) 1 SCC 148.

6. Before considering the facts of the present case it is condign to survey the legal authorities on the principle of equal pay for equal work. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and others vs. Ramesh Chandra Bajpai, (2009) 13 SCC 635 the Apex Court after referring the judgment of a three-Judge Bench in the case of Govt. of W.B. vs. Tarun K. Roy, (2004) 1 SCC 347 held as under:

“14. Article 14 read with Article 39(d) of the Constitution of India envisages the doctrine of equal pay for equal work. The said doctrine