1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3519/1998 KAMAL SWAROOP DIWAKAR & ORS. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ANR. DATE OF ORDER : 22.10.2009. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. M. Mridul, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. P.S. Chundawat for the petitioners. Mr. R.L. Jangid, AAG, for the respondents. The petitioners, by this petition for writ, have claimed for appropriate writ, order or direction to allow the Lower Division Clerks and the Upper Division Clerks working with the State Government the pay scale of Rs.1200-2050 and Rs.1400-2600 respectively. Their case is that the pay scale of Lower Division Clerk, Teacher Grade III, Laboratory Assistant, Library Superintendent, Cataloger-cum-Classifier, Civil Mistry, Drawing Teacher Gr.III, Music Teacher Grade III, Compounder Nurse Grade II and Proof Readers were same under the Rajasthan Civil Services (New Pay Scales) Rules, 1969 and this parity was maintained up to the year 1987, but while revising the pay scales under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1989, higher pay scale was allowed to other posts, whereas the Lower Division Clerks were kept at lower pedestal. It is asserted that the respondents should have maintained parity in grant of pay scales for the posts, who remained in the same pay scales for years together. A 2 comparable chart is also placed on record. From perusal whereof, it reveals that under the Pay Rules of 1969, the pay scales applicable to the Lower Division Clerk, Teacher Grade III, Laboratory Assistant, Library Superintendent, Cataloger, Drawing Teacher, Music Teacher, Compounder Nurse Grade II and Proof Reader was of Rs.110-230. In the Pay Rules aforesaid, the Civil Mistries were having pay scale of Rs.70-110. On introduction of new pay scales under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1976, the pay scale of Rs.355-570 was allowed to all the posts referred above and under the Pay Rules of 1983, the pay scale of Rs.490-840/- was given to the posts referred above, except the post of Civil Mistry to whom the pay scale of Rs.500-860/- was given. In the Pay Rules of 1986, the Pay Scale of Rs.880-1680 was given to the LDCs, Teacher Grade III, Laboratory Assistant, Library Superintendent, Cataloger, Drawing Teacher, Music Teacher. The pay scale of Rs.895-1720/- was allowed to the Compounder Nurse Grade II and Proof Readers. The same pay scale was also extended to the Civil Mistries. The pay scales were again revised in the year 1989 and at this point, the pay scale of Rs.950-1680 was given to the LDCs, whereas the pay scale of Rs.1200-2050/- was given to the Teacher Grade III, Laboratory Assistant, Library Superintendent, Cataloger, Drawing Teacher and Music Teacher. The Compounder Nurse Grade II, Proof Readers and the Civil Mistries were already running in higher pay scales than the LDCs under the earlier Pay Rules, and as such, this time too, a higher pay scale was allowed to them. 3 Main emphasis of learned counsel for the petitioner is for maintaining parity in granting pay scales to the LDCs with the pay scales allowed to Teacher Grade III, Laboratory Assistants, Library Superintendents, Catalogers, Drawing Teacher Grade III and Music Teacher Grade III, with whom parity in pay scales remained in existence till the revision made in the year 1989. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, all the posts referred above being having common pay scales for a pretty long time, are part of some same class, therefore, if a lower pay scale is prescribed to the LDCs then the same is nothing but a conscious discrimination without having any reasonable and rational cause. It is pertinent to mention here that though a claim is also made for granting higher pay scale to the UDCs, but in entire petition for writ, no foundation is laid down to substantiate their claim. As such, during the course of the arguments, sole emphasis is given by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the claim made for LDCs only. As per reply to the writ petition preferred on behalf of the respondents, the State Government in the year 1989 took a decision to allow pay scales to its employees identical to those posts under the Central Government, which may be comparable, therefore, an Equivalence Committee was constituted under the order dated 2.3.1989. The Equivalence Committee, at the first instance, identified the norms on basis of which comparison was made for the posts under the State Government and the Central 4 Government and after settling norms, all comparable posts were identified and exercise was made to make parity in their pay scales, as far as that was possible. On basis of the reports submitted by the Equivalence Committee, the matter was considered by the State Government and under the Rajasthan Civil Services (Revised Pay Scales) Rules, 1989, new pay scales were promulgated. After promulgation of Rules of 1989, few categories of the employees agitated their cause relating to disparity in the pay scales and therefore, again a State Level Committee was constituted under an order dated 1.12.1989 and grievances of the employees were reconsidered. The committee constituted under the order dated 1.12.1989 submitted its recommendations subsequently and on basis of that certain amendments under the Rules of 1989 were introduced. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that approach of the Equivalence Committee was to maintain parity in grant of pay scales as was existing earlier, but some changes were made according to the pay scales available to the comparable posts with Central Government. By placing reliance upon para 2.6 of the Equivalence Committee's report dated 31.5.1989, it is stated by learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent State that the maximum of the existing pay scales for LDC, Driver, UDC, Junior technical posts, Constable etc., and their equivalent posts was higher than the maximum of the pay scales for corresponding categories of posts under the Central Government. In the case of these pay scales, the existing maximum has not been lowered but modified Central Pay Scales, have been recommended. It is specifically 5 pointed out that the pay scale allowed to the LDCs is the same, which is applicable to the comparable posts with Central Government. By placing reliance upon para 2.8 of the Equivalence Committee's report, it is stated that as far as possible the existing parity has not been disturbed on account of minor differences in the Central pay scale for the comparable post, however, in cases where the Central Pay scale for some of the posts, covering a large number of employees, is substantially higher in comparison to Central Pay scale for other posts in the same existing State scale, higher scales equivalent to Central Pay Scales is recommended for such posts and that was the main reason for giving higher pay scales to the persons employed mainly for teaching. It is pointed out that all the posts with whom the petitioner is claiming parity for grant of pay scales, are related to teaching and for those posts, the State Government has accepted the pay scales applicable for comparable posts under Central Government. The fact regarding the grant of same pay scale, which is applicable for comparable posts with Central Government to the LDCs in the State of Rajasthan has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners. So far as the comparison sought to be made with the teaching posts such as Teacher Grade III, Laboratory Assistant, Library Superintendent, Cataloger, Drawing Teacher Grade III and Music Teacher is concerned, a reasonable classification was made by the Equivalence Committee as that reflects in para 2.8 of its report. The posts referred above are having the pay scale 6 that is available to the comparable posts with Central Government. I do not find any irrationality or unreasonability while making classification by the Equivalence Committee for grant of pay scales to employees of the State Government by adopting the criteria of availability of pay scales to the comparable posts with Central Government. As such, the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding disparity in the pay scales is absolutely ill-founded. The petition for writ, therefore, is having no merit and as such is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/