1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ------------------------------------------------------ SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) No.294 of 1998 STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. V/S SUBHASH CHANDRA HARKAWAT Mr. B.L.BHATI, DY.G.A. Mr. ANIL BACHHAWAT, for the respondent. Date of Order : 30.1.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI DEO NARAYAN THANVI,J. ORDER ----- The State has filed this appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 28.4.1997, allowing the respondent-petitioner's writ, and directing the present appellant to pay salary to the writ petitioner, as per the scale of the other Instructors, working in the Mini Industrial Training Institute. This order was passed by this court, looking to the fact, that the petitioner was selected in the interview, and appointed on the post of Mini Instructor, for a period of three months, by order dated 20.6.1989. Then, his services were extended from time to time, by different orders. Then, earlier the 2 petitioner filed a writ, apprehending the termination, wherein he was allowed to continue. That writ was decided vide order, dated 12.12.1991. We have seen the order dated 12.12.1991, and find, that certain condition regarding tenure of service, contained in Annex.6 in Writ No.3006/90, was struck down. Thus, the petitioner continued in service, on a fixed salary of Rs.1200/-, whereas other Instructors, similarly situate, have been given regular salary in the pay scale of 1400-2600. It was also noticed, that in reply, it was contended, that the writ petitioner cannot claim regular pay scale, as the same is provided to the persons, who are regularly selected, against permanent vacancies, and undisputedly, petitioner was appointed for a fixed term. However, he is continuing, and merely on that ground, he cannot claim regular pay scale. With this, applying the principle of equal pay for equal work, the order has been passed. In our view, the principle of equal pay for equal work, as it prevailed once upon a time, has been substantially watered down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the recent judgments, including those in, State of Haryana v. Tilak Raj, reported in 2003 SCW 3382, Chairman cum Managing Director, National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. N.T.C., reported in 2003 JT Supp.2 3 SC 534, Govt. of West Bengal v. Tarun K.Roy reported in JT 2003(9) SC 130, State of Haryana v. Charanjit Singh, reported in 2006(9) SCC 321, and Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, reported in JT 2006(4) SC 420, specially in Charanjit Singh's case above, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that “equal pay for equal work” has no mechanical application in every case. Article 14 permits reasonable classification based on qualities or characteristics of persons recruited and grouped together, as against those who were left out, merit or experience can be a proper basis for classification for the purposes of pay in order to promote efficiency in administration, a higher pay scale to avoid stagnation or resultant frustration for lack of promotional avenues is also permitted. Likewise, mode of selection can be taken into account inasmuch as the very fact that the person has not gone through the process of recruitment may itself, in certain cases, make a difference. Likewise, the educational qualifications, the responsibilities, nature of work, reliability of work done, responsibility entrusted etc. have all to be considered for deciding the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled to relief on the basis of equal pay for equal work. In that view of the matter, the direction, as given by the learned Single Judge, cannot be sustained, as admittedly, the petitioner was 4 not regularly appointed, but was appointed only for a short term, and every time, a fresh appointment was given to him. In that view of the matter, the impugned order of the learned Single is required to be set aside. At this stage it is informed by the learned counsel for the respondent, that during pendency of the writ petition, the writ petitioner has been regularized, and he has been given regular pay scale, though on different trade; The question, therefore, remains, only about entitlement of the petitioner to the emoluments, for the period he had worked, till his regular selection. In that regard, we leave the matter by simply observing, that if any other person, similarly situate, with similar academic qualifications, appointed in the similar way, and on the similar post, is shown to have been paid any higher emoluments than the petitioner, then the petitioner may approach the appointing authority, and the appointing authority will examine the matter, and if details are found to be correct, it will grant the same relief to the petitioner. The appeal is accordingly disposed-of. ( DEO NARAYAN THANVI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. Rankawat JK,PS