IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Writ Petition (T) No. 2005 of 2008. Reserved on: 15.12.2008. Decided on: 09.01.2009. __________________________________________________________ Shri Datta Ram and others. … Petitioner. Versus The State of H.P. and others. … Respondents. __________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Mr. Lokender Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. __________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioners are working as Compositors in the respondent- Department. The respondent-State had issued notification on 23.3.1989 whereby the pay scale of Compositors was revised from Rs. 400-660 to Rs. 950-1800. This notification was also applicable to the employees of Himachal Pradesh Department of Forest Farming and Environmental Conservation. Thereafter, vide notification dated 29.3.1989, the pay scale of the Compositors was revised to Rs. 1200-2100. This notification, however, was confined to the following departments: 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 1. Printing & Stationer Department. 2. Police Department. 3. Home Guards and Civil Defence Department. 4. Fire Services Department. 5. Tribal Development Department. 6. Tourism Department and Civil Aviation. 7. Lokayukta. Another notification was issued on 12.9.1991 by the Finance Department whereby the pay scale of the Compositors in the Department of Printing & Stationery was revised from Rs. 400-660 to Rs. 950-1800 with a start of Rs. 1000 and Rs. 1200-2100 w.e.f. 8.2.1989. The petitioners made representation which was rejected by the Finance Department on 10.5.1991. Mr. Lokender Thakur has strenuously argued that his clients are discharging the same and similar duties which are being discharged by the Compositors in the Departments notified in the notification dated 29.3.1989 and the Printing & Stationery Department. His further contention is that his clients were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 400-660 vide notification dated 23.3.1989. However, they have not been granted the pay scale of Rs. 1200- 2100 on the basis of notification dated 29.3.1989 and 12.9.1991. The learned Senior Additional Advocate General has supported the decision of the State Government. I have heard the parties and have gone through the record carefully. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are working as Compositors in the respondent-Department. They were placed in the pay scale of Rs. 400-660 vide notification dated 23.3.1989. The 3 Compositors working in the other departments of the State Government were also placed in the same pay scale of Rs. 400- 660. However, vide notification dated 29.3.1989, the pay scales of the Compositors working in other departments were also revised from Rs. 400-660 to Rs. 1200-2100. In the department of Printing & Stationery the pay scales of Compositors was revised from Rs. 400-660 to Rs. 1200-2100 on the basis of notification dated 12.9.1991. The petitioners are discharging same duties which are being discharged by the Compositors in those departments. The Department of Forest has its own printing machines situate at Kalaghat. The respondents in fact have not disputed that nature of duties being discharged by the petitioners are the same which are being discharged by the similar situated Compositors in other departments. There is no reason forth-coming why the petitioners have been deprived of the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2100 which has been paid to their counter-parts in other departments of the State Government. In the present case, employer is the same i.e. the State Government. There cannot be any discrimination in the pay scales for the persons discharging same and similar duties which are being discharged by their counter-parts in other Government Departments. All the Compositors working in various departments of the State Government were initially put in the pay scale of Rs. 400-660. The pay scale of the persons should be revised uniformly to avoid discrimination. The pay scale of the petitioners as per the submissions of Mr. Lokender Thakur was always equated with other Compositors working in other departments of the State Government. The only reason assigned for rejecting the case of 4 the petitioners for the grant of higher pay scale of Rs. 1200-2100 is that the same is not on Punjab pattern. The adoption of pay scales by the State of Himachal Pradesh from the State of Punjab should be flexible. It cannot be applied with rigidity. The respondents have not placed any contemporary record to establish that in the State of Punjab the Compositors working in various printing machines set up in various departments have been granted separate pay scales. The action of the respondents of not revising the pay scale of the petitioners who are discharging the same and similar duties at par with their counter-parts serving in other departments is arbitrary, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In Union of India Vs. Dineshan K.K. (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 586, their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held as under: “The principle of “equal pay for equal work” has been considered, explained and applied in a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court. The doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” was originally propounded as part of the directive principles of the State policy in Article 39 (d) of the Constitution. Thus, having regard to the constitutional mandate of equality and inhibition against discrimination in Articles 14 and 16, in service jurisprudence, the doctrine of “equal pay for equal work” has assumed status of a fundamental right.” 5 Accordingly, in view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to grant the petitioners the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2100 w.e.f. 8.2.1989 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. January 09, 2009. (cr)