1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6140/1997 Bhanwar Lal Sharma vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 6/5/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Rajesh Kapoor for the petitioner. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Addl. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who was working on the post of Film Operator with the respondent no.3 with the prayer that the respondents be directed to revise his pay to pay scale no.8 under Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1983 in terms of the judgement of this Court dated 29.11.1991 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.33/1987, Rajasthan State Drivers Association vs. State of Raj. & Anr. and accordingly grant him consequential benefits together with interest @ 18% per annum. Shri Rajesh Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was initially appointed as Class- IV employee with the respondent-Director State Educational Research & Training Institute, Udaipur (SIERT). He was posted to the post of Film Operator vide order dated 2 26.9.1977. In that post, he was confirmed by order dated 1.11.1978. He was further promoted to the post of Film Checker by order dated 5.5.1989. That promotion was made in the pay scale no.8 of Rs.880-1680. It is contended that petitioner was discriminatory inasmuch as the government prescribed different pay scale in respect of Film/Project Operator working in various other departments. The writ petition was filed by the association of such film/project operators i.e. Rajasthan State Drivers Union, which was allowed by judgement of this Court dated 29.11.1991. In the writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner was that they were working as Film/Project Operators in Public Relation Department and were being paid pay scale of Rs.420-740 under the Revised Pay Scale Rules of 1983, whereas the Film/ Project Operator who were working with Social Welfare and Medical Department were being paid in the pay scale no.8 of Rs.500-860. It is further contended therein that action of the respondents in treating similarly situated candidates in dissimilar manner amounted to 3 discrimination, especially when all the persons were discharging similar nature of duties with similar conditions of increments etc. The writ petition was allowed by this Court and it was directed that government shall make payment of salary to all all the Film/Project Operators working in various departments of the government and compliance of the judgement shall be made within a period of six months. The Directorate of Information and Public Relation by order dated 29.3.1993 implements the same judgement, copy of the order is on record. The petitioner was granted pay scale no.8 only when he was promoted on the post of Film Checker. When he represented after aforesaid judgement of this Court to the respondent no.3, the Rajasthan State Educational Research and Training Institute, Udaipur favourably recommended his case to the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner and the State Government. Even then, the pay scale no.8 was not granted to the petitioner in the post of Film Operator. Petitioner submitted another representation in the year 1995. The 4 Director of Rajasthan State Educational Research and Training Institute, Udaipur again recommended the case of the petitioner to the government on the basis of judgement of this Court. When still petitioner was not granted that benefit, the petitioner submitted yet another application. The Director, Primary and Secondary Eduction, Bikaner-respondent no.2 this time sent matter to the government again by letter Annexure-7 that the request that the petitioner be granted pay scale no.8 as per the Revised Pay Scale Rules of 1983 on the post of Film Operator and thereafter he should be granted pay scale no.950-1680 as per the corresponding Revised Pay Scale Rules of 1989 on the post of Film Checker and on further higher promotion, he should be be granted pay scale of Rs.1200-2050. When the necessary sanction was not granted by the Government, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. In the meantime, petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.1997. Learned counsel submitted that the 5 judgement of this Court in Rajasthan State Drivers Association, supra was a judgement in ram and the said judgement attained finality, therefore, respondents has no option to complain of that judgement and unnecessarily compelled the petitioner to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, learned Additional Government Counsel opposed the writ petition and submitted that petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.1997 and since retired from service. He was given salary in pay scale no.6 (3050- 4590) in the Revised Pay Scale Rules, 1998 with effect from 1.9.1996 and at that time he was fixed at Rs.3725/-. He was also given the benefit of promotion as per Rule 23 of Rajasthan Technical Subordinate Service Rules, 1973 on 5.5.1989 with the respondent no.3. It was denied that there was no discrimination and violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The judgement in question was not application to the case of the petitioner and the benefit of judgement could be extended to those who 6 were petitioners in that case. There was no mention of the Technical Education Department in the judgement, whereas other departments such as Agriculture Department, Public Relation Department, Medical and Health Department and Social Welfare Department are specifically mentioned. It cannot therefore be said that the aforesaid judgement would be applicable to the case of the petitioner. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that this Court in Rajasthan State Drivers Association, supra decided the writ petition filed by the Union of Cinema Operators/Project Operators who were working in Public Relations Department, Social Welfare Department and Medical and Health Department have complained that they were being paid in pay scale no.6 i.e. Rs.420-740 in the Revised Pay Scale Rules of 1983, whereas the Cinema Operators in Agriculture and Forest Department were being paid the pay scale no.8 i.e. Rs.500-860 and the Cinema Operators in Police Department was also being paid in the pay scale no.7. The 7 nature of dispute itself contested by all the Cinema Operators was identical. The aforesaid writ petition was contested by the respondents and this Court relying on various Supreme Court judgements and it was held that it was a clear case of discrimination. The writ petition was allowed with direction to the respondent- State to pay to all the Cinema/Project Operators workings in its various department the salary in the pay scale no.8 in the Revised Pay Scale Rules of 1983 with effect from 21.8.1986. Mere fact that that no mention of the Technical Education Department in the judgement, whereas the reference was made to Cinema/Project Operators in Agriculture Department, Public Relation Department, Medical and Health Department, Social Welfare and various departments, would not make any difference because the judgement that was rendered, was a judgement in ram in which the State Government was directed to pay to all Cinema/Project Operators, salary in the pay scale no.8 in the Revised Pay Scale Rules of 1983, while in some paras of the reply to 8 the writ petition, the respondents have feigned completed ignorance about the aforesaid judgement, but now during the course of arguments, it has been contended that in the aforesaid judgement and applying to the case of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed it with the judgement had attained finality and the respondents have also not been able to show to the contrary that this judgement was ever reversed by any division bench of this Court. The respondents cannot plead ignorance about the judgement because reference of the judgement was made by the petitioner in his number of representation and they were referred to in the various letters sent by Director State Educational Research & Training Institute, Udaipur (SIERT) such as communications dated 2.12.94, 23.6.95 and 6.10.95 (Annexures-5 to 7). In fact when the aforesaid Director finally sent the proposal for sanction of the said pay scale to the petitioner, he enclosed therewith copy of the judgement, supra. There is no reason why when pay scale no.8 was granted to Cinema/Project Operators 9 of all other departments with effect from 21.8.1986 and when there was a positive direction by this Court to extend the benefit of such pay scale to Cinema/Project Operators working in various departments of the State Government, why should the respondents should not grant the same benefit to the petitioner, more particularly when his head of the department has been repeatedly recommending his case vide Annexures-5, 6 and 7. The respondents have not clarified as to why no action was taken by them on the representation forwarded by Director State Educational Research & Training Institute, Udaipur (SIERT) in view of the judgement of this Court in Rajasthan State Drivers Association, supra. In this result, this writ petition is allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to receive salary in pay scale no.8 with effect from 21.8.1986 and accordingly grant him consequential benefits. The retiral benefits of the petitioner may accordingly be revised and his pay on the post of other promotion i.e. Film Checker shall be liable to be further revised on the higher post in terms 10 of the proposal made by the Director, Primary and Secondary Education in his letter Annexure-7. The petitioner shall also be paid interest @ 6% per annum on all the arrears. Compliance of the judgement shall be made within a period of three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/