Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Narpat Singh And Ors. vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. on 7 May, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(3)WLN666
JUDGMENT Verma, J.
(1). The petitioners are Mistris, on workcharge basis having been appointed under the provisions of Rajasthan Public Works Department (B&R) Gardens, Irrigation, Public Health & Engineering and Ayurved Workcharge Employees Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter called 'workcharge Rules'). The petitioner No. 1 Narpat Singh was appointed in the year 1969, whereas all other petitioners were appointed on various dates in the year 1970 to 1978, as detailed in Schedule-A attached to the writ petition. Some of the petitioners were made permanent vide Annexure-1 after completing ten years of service.
(2). The post of Mistry has been encadred in Rajasthan Engineering Subordinate Service (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter called as "Rules, 1967") and the work of mistry is being done both the Mistris appointed under 'Rules, 1967' and 'Workcharge Rules'. The duties and the work is similar. Right from 1981, the Mistris appointed in Irrigation department either under 'Workcharge Rules,' or 'Rules, 1967' were getting same pay scale No.6 i.e. Rs. 295-500. The pay scale of Mistris under both me Rules was revised in the year 1983 w.e.f. 1.9.81 vide Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1983 from Rs. 290-500 to Rs. 420-740, as they were so equated from the very first date of their appointment.
(3). The pay scale was again revised in the year, 1987 w.e.f. 1.9.1986 vide Rajasthan Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1987 from Rs. 420-740 to Rs. 820-1510. Both categories of Mistris were fixed in the pay scale of Rs. 820-1510. That is the pay scale so prescribed for the Mistris appointed under 'Workcharge Rules,' or 'Rules, 1967' was the same. Whenever there was revision of pay scale of Mistris appointed under 'Workcharge Rules' or 'Rules, 1967' they were being paid the same and identical pay without any difference. Similar was the situation when the pay was again revised in the year 1989 w.e.f. 1.9.88 the Mistris appointed under 'Workcharge Rules,' or 'Rules, 1967' were put in pay scale No. 5 Rs. 910-1530.
(4). The State of Rajasthan vide notification dated 6.1.1988 made an amendment in Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scale) Rules, 1983 with retrospective effect from 1.9.81 in the following manner:-
"In exercise of the powers conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India the Governor of Rajasthan is pleased to make the following rules to amend further the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1998.
2. They shall be deemed to have come into force with effect from 1.9.1981.
3. In the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1981 in Section 'B' Schedule-1 Irrigation Department - the existing item at S. Nos. appearing under heading "(ii) Rajasthan Engineering (Irrigation Branch) Subordinate Service Group VII, shall be substituted by the following:-
1. Ministry 355-570 490-840 (7)"
(5). That is the earlier pay scale of Rs. 295-500, which case revised to Rs. 420-470 in Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1981 w.e.f. 1.9.81 stood revised Rs. 355-570 and Rs. 490-840. That is the pay scale of Rs. 295-500 stood revised to Rs. 355-570 and the pay scale of Rs. 420-740 stood revised to Rs. 490-840.
(6). By the above said amendment all the Mistris who were appointed under 'Rules, 1967' their pay scale was revised, but the Mistris appointed under 'Workcharge Rules' who were being treated similar to Mistris appointed under 'Rules, 1967' were deprived of the benefit of revision of pay scale and a disparity had been created from amongst equal or atleast from amongst the mistris who were being treated equal throughout.
(7). The representations were made out without any result and ultimately the present writ petition has been filed with the prayer for fixing the scale of petitioners in the same pay scale as was being paid to Mistris appointed under 'Rules, 1967' vide Rajasthan (Revision Pay Scales) (1st Amendment) Rules, 1998.
(8). An Additional affidavit has been filed by petitioner, stating therein, that the State Government had once again issued the order dated 16.3.98 by which the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1998 have been promulgaled equating the pay scale of both categories of mistris appointed under 'Workcharge Rules' and 'Rules, 1967'.
(9). Counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioners who were appointed under 'Workcharge Rules,' were being treated equal to mistris appointed under 'Rules, 1967' and were being paid the same pay scale. It goes without saying that the work and qualification etc. of both the Mistris are the same but were governed by different rules in the same department. In case there was any change with regard to Mistris appointed under 'Rules, 1967' right from 1.9.81 that was to be applicable to the petitioners as well. It is also submitted that on 1.9.81 before the amendment of 1988, both the categories were getting same pay scale. But for a short period the difference was made, and during the pendency of the writ petition they have again been equalled.
(10). Counsel for petitioner relies on the judgment in case of Food Corporation of India v. Shyam Lal K. Chatterjee (1), with regard to parity of wages.
(11). The writ petition is pending since 1993, no written statement has been filed nor any appearance has been made even today, with the result 1 have no option to accept the pleadings of petitioners.
(12). In view of the submissions made in writ petition whenever the pay scales were revised in the year 1981, 1983, 1986, 1989 and again in 1998 the Mistris appointed under 'Workcharge Rules' were treated equal to Mislris appointed under 'Rules, 1967'. Even otherwise the mistris of both the categories are doing same work. The Government had decided in the year 1988 to revise the pay scale of Mistris appointed under 'Rules, 1967' w.e.f. 1.9.81, which had created dissatisfaction amongst the petitioners, who have been discriminated. As such the revised pay scale rules as published by Government and made applicable to only one section of mistris is discriminatory. After hearing counsel for petitioner, I agree with the submission of counsel for petitioners that the petitioners were equal to mistris appointed under 'Rules, 1967' and whenever there was any revision of pay scale the incumbents of both the categories were being treated equal and they have discriminated only by the amendment in the year 1988, which has been reproduced above. Again in the year 1998 the petitioners have again been equated, meaning thereby the Government was of the opinion that because of work, qualification and being the same department the petitioners could not have been discriminated.
(13). For the reasons mentioned above, it goes without saying that the writ petition deserves to be allowed with the direction to respondents that the petitioners shall also be entitled to the same scale and wages equal to Mistris appointed under 'Rules, 1967', which pay scale was being paid to present petitioners throughout. The petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of pay scale w.e.f. 1.9.81 as has been awarded to Mistris appointed under 'Rules, 1967' and consequential relief wages etc. shall be paid to petitioners. Such exercise shall be made within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
(14). With the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.