1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3689 of 1994 Shaikh Abdullah s/o. Sk Ahmad Age 60 years, Occ. Pensioner, R/o. Satbhai Galli, Near Delhi Gate, Ahmednagar deceased through LR 1] Shakera w/o. Shaikh Abdullah Age 37 years, Occ. Household R/o. C/o. H.No. 15, Bara Iamam Kotla (Chhota), Ahmednagar Dist. Ahmednagar. Petitioner Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra 2] The Chief Executive Officer Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. Respondents Mr. Ram Deshpande, Advocate holding for Mr. S.V. Varad,Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for the respondent No.2 Mr. V.D. Rakh, AGP for the respondent No.1. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA,JJ. DATE : 29TH July, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER B.R. GAVAI,J.] : 1] The petitioner has filed the present petition to fix the pay of the petitioner in the pay scale of Junior Mechanic in the revised pay scale of Rs.290-540 effective from 1/4/1976 and Rs. 1200 to 2 1800 effective from 1/1/1986. 2] It is the contention of the petitioner that he was appointed as Cinema Operator by the Collector in the year 1958. It is the further contention of the petitioner that the services of the petitioner and one Shri D.P. Kalaskar, who was working as a Cinema Operator were absorbed as Junior Mechanic (Incharge of Audio Visual Equipment) under the orders of the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar on 27th November, 1973. According to the petitioner, Cinema Scheme was abolished by the Zilla Parishad in 1972. Thereafter the petitioner was working as a Junior Mechanic. According to the petitioner when he retired in 1999 he was getting the pay scale of Cinema Operator only. 3] Shri Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Shri Kalaskar, who was similarly circumstanced with the petitioner was getting higher pay scale as applicable to the post of Junior Mechanic, whereas, the same was denied to the petitioner. It is submitted that this has resulted in discrimination. It is, therefore, submitted that the pay scale of the petitioner may also be revised and he may be granted the pay scale given to Shri Kalaskar. 4] Shri Shelke, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Zilla Parishad, on the contrary, submits that the petitioner was throughout working as a Cinema Operator and not as a Junior Mechanic. He submits that in so far as Shri Kalaskar is concerned, the order of absorption was passed by the Collector, absorbing his services in the Zilla Parishad as a Junior Mechanic, whereas, no such 3 orders were passed in favour of the petitioner. It is , therefore, submitted that the claim of the petitioner regarding parity is without substance. 5] We have perused the record. From the orders dated 27/11/1973, it can clearly be seen that the present petitioner as well as Shri Kalaskar, who were on the establishment of District Technical Services were allotted to the Zilla Parishad. It could be further seen from the said order that both Shri Kalaskar and the petitioner were absorbed in the post of Junior Mechanic/Incharge Audio Visual Equipment. The Services of the petitioner were allotted to the District Health officer, whereas, the services of Shri Kalaskar were allotted to the GAD, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. It could be further seen that as per the declaration given by the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad, dated 3rd September, 1979, it has been clarified that the petitioner's services were eligible to be treated for all purposes as a permanent Zilla Parishad servant in the post of Junior Mechanic. 6] In the light of this factual position, we do not find any substance in the contention raised by the Zilla Parishad. In any case, it is not disputed that the petitioner has rendered the same work as is rendered by Shri Kalaskar. In that view of the matter, we feel that the petitioner is also entitled to the same pay scale as drawn by Shri Kalaskar, on the basis of the principle of Equal work – Equal pay. 7] In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the petition. The respondent Zilla Parishad is directed to grant the same 4 pay scale to the petition as has been granted in the case of Shri Kalaskar and work out the pensionary benefits applicable to the petitioner. The necessary exercise in regard to fixation of pay, grant of pensionary benefits and payment of arrears, be carried out within a period of six months from today. Rule made absolute in aforesaid terms, with no orders as to costs. [S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J.] [B.R. GAVAI,J.] grt/wp