Civil Writ Petition No.2764 of 1991 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: May 05, 2010 Shyam Parkash Singh & others .....Petitioners VERSUS The State of Haryana & another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Sunil Nehra, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners had filed this writ petition to issue a writ of mandamus to grant the pay scale of Rs.1400-2600 on the principle of “equal pay for equal work”. The ground is that Dental Mechanics working in the Medical College, Rohtak were getting the said pay scale in contradistinction to the salary being paid to the petitioners in the scale of Rs.950-1400. The petitioners are working as Dental mechanics in the Health Department, Haryana. The minimum qualification for the post Civil Writ Petition No.2764 of 1991 : 2 : is Matriculation with Diploma in Dental Mechanic Course from a recognised Institution. Reference is made to Annexures P-1 and P-2 to highlight the qualifications prescribed for direct recruits and the promotees. The post of Dental Mechanic is also in existence at Medical College and Hospital at Rohtak. The minimum qualification for the appointment is also Matriculation with diploma course from a recognised institution. However, the Dental Mechanics working in the Dental College, Rohtak are granted the pay in the scale of Rs.1400- 2600. Copy of advertisement dated 7.12.1989 is annexed with the petition as Annexure P-2 to highlight the qualifications for the appointment. Having so averred, it is stated in para 4 of the writ petition that the Dental mechanics working in the Government General Hospitals as well as in the Medical College, Rohtak are carrying the same or similar qualifications and are performing the similar or same nature of the duties, but are being paid differently. It is also averred that working hours, nature of duties, service conditions including the post-retirement benefits are also similar. Accordingly, prayer is made that the pay scale of the petitioners be also revised to the scale of Rs.1400-2600. Basically, the prayer is for grant of equal pay on the basis of equal work. For entitlement of equal pay, the petitioners are required to establish, as a matter of fact, that they are performing duties which are similar to the one being performed by those working in the Medical Hospital at Rohtak. Except for baldly asserting so in para 4 of the writ petition, no material has been placed on record to either mention the exact duties being performed by the petitioners Civil Writ Petition No.2764 of 1991 : 3 : and those being performed by the Dental Mechanics working in Government Hospital, Rohtak. The averment made in para 4 of the writ petition has not been admitted. It is specifically stated that the quality and nature of the duties attached to both the courses are not admitted. It is also stated that the Dental Mechanics working in the Medical College, Rohtak cannot be termed as similarly situated counter-parts as claimed in para 4 of the writ petition. Mention is also made that difference in their pay scales had continuously been maintained since 1979. Accordingly, it is prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. On the basis of the pleadings, it cannot be stated that duties performed by the petitioners are identical or similar to those being performed by Dental Mechanics working in Medical College, Rohtak. Unless it is established, as a matter of fact, that duties being performed by the petitioners are similar, the relief on the basis of equal pay for equal work cannot be granted. Reference here can be made to State of West Bengal & Anr. Versus West Bengal Minimum Wages Inspectors Association & Ors., 2010 (2) S.C.T. 250, where it is observed that principle of equal pay for equal work is not a fundamental right but a constitutional goal and that same depends on nature of jobs, duties to be performed, responsibilities to be discharged and experience etc. Thus, the comparison merely based on designation of posts would be misconceived. As per the Hon'ble Supreme Court, burden to prove disparity is on the employees claiming parity. Reliance can also be placed on Civil Writ Petition No.2764 of 1991 : 4 : S.S.Chandra v. State of Jharkhand, 2007(8) SCC 299 and Uttar Pradesh State Electricity Board V. Aziz Ahmad, 2009(1) S.C.T. 670. It has also been consistently viewed that determination of parity in pay scale or whether the posts were equivalent and whether there could be parity in pay are all such matters that are to be considered by the expert bodies and Courts cannot grant any specific scale of pay. In any event, no sufficient proof has been placed on record to show that the petitioners are performing same or similar duties to seek parity of pay with those Dental Mechanics working in Medical College, Rohtak. The prayer made in the writ petition, therefore, cannot be granted in view of the pleadings in this case. The petitioners, however, if so advised may approach any appropriate forum including civil court to ask for equal pay for equal work after establishing that they are performing same or identical functions as are being performed by Dental Mechanics working in the Medical College, Rohtak. The writ petition is, however, dismissed. May 05, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE